William Jefferson Clinton In Perspective...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Okay, here we go.

Why you rightfully find yourself asking does this independent conservative site have ex President William Jefferson Clinton so predominately displayed. Answer... Because we believe in a rational and objective {as opposed to fair and balanced) analysis of of reality.

Bill Clinton, by any measure of rational analysis must be viewed as an effective President. He indeed left office leaving the nation with a positive balance sheet.

Unfortunately the incoming President George W. Bush found himself in the unfortunate and unenviable position of having to address 911 and at the same time respond to the very real threat radical Islam presented not only the USA but the world at large.

Did Bush makes mistakes? Absolutely. In retrospect his two biggest were Iraq and the Patriot act. So, we live and learn.

Back to Bill Clinton. I often find myself thinking back to his Presidency and my relative sense of well bring and prosperity. Yeah. they were good times, no doubt about it. As were the Reagan years.

Then I find myself wondering what Clinton would have done had he been in Bush's position following 911. As well as what his response to the financial crises at the end of Bush's last term in office would have been.

Of course we shall never know the answer to these "hypothetical" questions. We can only guess based on the data we have available and the trends we can observe.

Given what we know it is likely Clinton would have responded in a similar fashion to Bush with respect to 911. And America would have cheered, just as they cheered Bush in the immediate aftermath of that fateful day.

As to Iraq. In light of the fact Congress and the Senate had the same intelligence information the administration had it is again likely that Clinton would have responded as Bush did.

So, at the end of the day it is indeed amusing (at least in my opinion) that both democrats and republicans spend the time they do in the past. Whether good or bad the realities of the past have indeed passed us by.

I guess the point of my rambling is the people of this great republic need to find a philosophy of life and government that is consistent with rational thought and one that aligns with the true meaning of liberty. As well as recognizing the dangers that confront liberty on a daily basis.

If one analyzes both the Clinton and Bush #2 presidencies the only conclusion one can draw is that were the chronologies reversed the outcome likely would have been the same.

Addendum: The truth and reality folks is this... No matter the party or ideology this nation is headed down the path of bigger and more intrusive government, IE: Leviathan.

Until such time we as a nation break the cycle of political correctness, dependency on big brother to do for us that which we should be doing for ourselves, demand that we be given back the liberties we have lost at the hands of our statist, and realize that both the democratic party and the republican party have been lying to us our reality will remain unchanged.

A good reason to support candidates like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Herman Cain for the presiency of the United States of America.

The prior two presidents were nothing more than door openers for the biggest and most destructive statist in American history... Barrack Hussein Obama.

Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. "As to Iraq. In light of the fact Congress and the Senate had the same intelligence information the administration had it is again likely that Clinton would have responded as Bush did."

    Les,

    Great post. However...

    I completely disagree with your belief that Clinton would have invaded Iraq, and I find your logic for thinking he would flawed.

    First of all, most of the congress did not have any such "intelligence," and certainly not before 9/11.

    Secondly, after 9/11, the "intelligence" they were shown was spurious at best.

    Thirdly, "intelligence" had nothing to do with why and how we got away with invading Iraq.

    Fourthly, Clinton dealt with a hostile Iraq incessantly for 8 years and never seriously threatened to invade.

    Fifthly, Clinton always understood that crashing the economy was political sin numero uno. He would not have invaded Iraq unless he thought he - WE - could pay for it.

    Finally, Clinton did not have the vested interests the Bush administration had to create the impetus to take on such a massive and reckless invasion of a large sovereign nation.

    I believe the Leviathan is not as singularly focused as you think.

    Very thought-provoking post, Les.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh yeah! One more thing - I seriously doubt Clinton would have believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or that the Iraqi Baathists would get in bed with Al Qaeda, or some similar group, in any real way.

    Remember, congress' acquiescence to the invasion of Iraq was politically forced by the Bush administration, and a GOP majority.

    I can't imagine Clinton would have invaded Iraq.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. jmj - Again you expose your ignorance of the facts...

    1) In fact the Congress did have the same intelligence Bush had. Please provide verifiable proof to the contrary.

    2) Explain Bosnia and Clinton's logic there please.

    3) I have never said Leviathan is singularly focused. But of course for you to know this is so you would need to search the archives of over over thirteen hundred posts to confirm my statement. Something I doubt is realistic. So I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.

    Leviathan is the filthy work of both the neo-cons and modern day progressives. Perhaps the only difference lies in how Leviathan will look after all is said and done.

    Either finished product will SUCK, my fine feathered friend. Why, because no one will have the liberty past generations have enjoyed but been slowly losing because of their apathy and willingness to accept the BS both parties have dished out since John F. Kennedy,IE: Since the rise of LBJ and his "great society" collectivist mentality.

    The last truly good democrat was Harry Truman, the "buck stops here" mentality President.

    And the beat goes on...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Les,

    Facts? FACTS??? You and I were grown up men and saw this all happen before our eyes.

    The intelligence was BS and plenty of sens and reps knew it. Where've you been? It was friggin' obvious to me.

    Clinton handled the fall of Yugoslavia very well, but for a few scary moments there. Overall, great job.

    As for the GWB admin and their "nation building" - what a pathetic pile of squirming morons.

    Don't blame "progressives" for the utter and total failure of your preferred corporatocracy.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess the point of my rambling is the people of this great republic need to find a philosophy of life and government that is consistent with rational thought and one that aligns with the true meaning of liberty.

    ---------------
    Absolutely stunning.

    What true meaning of liberty? Yours? Why is yours the truth?

    A philosophy of life and government that is consistent with rational thought? I can't put a propositional calculus on that pantload.

    Although your discovery of equivalence between the two parties in this dysfunctional political system is encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jmj - I shall remain diplomatic. A concept that you are obviously at odds with.

    Your "facts" are of your own imagination, as evidenced by your failure to provide any evidence to the contrary. Other than your demeaning and hyperbolic rant.

    I'm not sure whether calling all those who do not agree with your delusional belief system moronic, and accusing them of supporting some alleged corporatocracy give you a feeling of superior intellect or whether you're just being the most contrary classless person on the internet.

    Frankly my dear I don't give a da*n either. Because it supplies great comic relief from an otherwise tedious day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Remember, Libertarianism is applied autism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ducky's here - Thanks for the visit.

    The problem as I see it is that in the progressive lexicon liberty means what the he*l anyone wants it to mean.

    Concepts have defined and understood meanings. Like the concept of marriage being between a man and a women. So along comes the gays and the progressives and suddenly the world must change the meaning of the concept of marriage to fit heir desires.

    And before you get your panties full my analogy does not indicate I am anti gay, nor do I find the reality of same sex unions revolting or threatening to my or anyone else's heterosexuality.

    I find it quite interesting that the progressives who preach tolerance and understanding are the most vehemently vocal when anyone disagrees with their ideology.

    It is quite interesting to watch how progressives police their own and make sure no individual strays too far off the liberal plantation.

    OOPS, was that a politically incorrect statement?

    Oh well, who gives a hoot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. hey Ducky --- Go preen yourself. Your feathers are obviously getting heavy with progressive BS.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well-stated, Les! Both myself and Papa Silverfiddle marvel at how Clinton looks better and better in retrospect.

    I also agree with you that partisan, personality-based political arguments are useless. This isn't sports.

    You've got to have a rational philosophy and then measure people and their actions against that philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here's my take on it. While it may be true that Clinton might have also gone into Iraq, I think that it more then likely would have been strictly to take out whatever WMD he thought that Iraq possessed. I highly doubt that he (and, yes, here I put Mr. Clinton much closer to Bush 1) would have engaged in the same type of nation-building stuff that Bush 2 did. He was just too smart to have stirred up the hornet's nest/grinder.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "...I highly doubt that he (and, yes, here I put Mr. Clinton much closer to Bush 1) would have engaged in the same type of nation-building stuff that Bush 2 did. He was just too smart to have stirred up the hornet's nest/grinder."

    Will, even given my differences with the Clinton philosophy of governance I must acknowledge on this point I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JMJ is making stuff up on the fly. Like most liberals, he ls lying about the Iraq situation, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Obama Administration and a Compliant Lame Stream Media Continue the Benghazi Spin...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

Another Republican Accused Of Sexual Misconduct...

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

How A Nation Can and Does Change...

Democrats Bought By Special Interest Money, and They Say It's All Republicans...