quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider0:
JG...I wasn't announcing what I personally think regarding Clinton's era...just how I think history is going to remember him.

Nevertheless, I DO find it interesting how we heard alot more from Alan Greenspan under the Clinton administration than we are currently hearing from him under the current administration.

---

Good point. I guess it will all depend on who writes the history books!

JG,

Quit being so damned agreeable. It doesn't become you, and I don't like it!

What's gotten in to you lately? Man!

Your-bud-who-likes-gov't-just-a-wee-bit-more-than-you-do

Strider0

Lighteningrodd, you honestly blame Clinton for things like corporate scandals, Like he was actually the one running those companies. That bull about the effects of a president aren't felt until long after he is gone is just an excuse to blame the previous administration for the current administrations faults. It's easy to do because the previous administration can't defend it's self.

It's funny that almost exactly the moment that Bush took office was about the moment that people started loosing consumer confidence and things started going down hill.

As far as how Clinton will be recorded in history, as long as it's not written by someone with a one track mind and who's only interested in Clintons sex life, he will be recorded as one of the better presidents of the 20th century while Bush rides the coat tails of the 9/11 tragedy and takes away all of our freedoms.

Clinton did more than any other president prior to 9/11 to combat terrorism. He was heavily involved in the mid-east peace process. And the whole thing unraveled when Bush took office. Some of the same people that I see here criticizing Clinton for his inability to prevent 9/11 are the same people that I've seen in other posts arguing for non-violent resolutions to stop the war, so make up your minds...

By the way, I think it was you Lighteningrodd, unter a different name that said about 8 months ago in one of my posts that the president is just a figurehead and has no control over the economy. I could be wrong

[This message was edited by billmasters on 07-18-02 at 09:35 AM.]

John Galt, you are certainly free to read and/or recommend whatever books appeal to you personally, but I think you should also read, and heed the following post by King Krimson:
"If you are posting a retailer link, please determine whether or not the retailer is part of our site retailer base. before placing a link off site. If a site moderator or official finds such a link it will be deleted or edited to link to the same retailer in our retailer base, that will provide operational revenue for our site".
Or do you work for Amazon.com?

[This message was edited by frankvan on 07-18-02 at 07:13 PM.]

frankvan, congratulations on becoming a moderator...

quote:

---

Originally posted by billmasters:
frankvan, congratulations on becoming a moderator...

---

I make no claim to such lofty position. I just expect better from someone like John Galt. I don't like to see people advertising Mary Kay cosmetics, or other things on Answerpool unless they are picking up the tab.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billmasters:
Lighteningrodd, you honestly blame Clinton for things like corporate scandals, Like he was actually the one running those companies. That bull about the effects of a president aren't felt until long after he is gone is just an excuse to blame the previous administration for the current administrations faults. It's easy to do because the previous administration can't defend it's self.

It's funny that almost exactly the moment that Bush took office was about the moment that people started loosing consumer confidence and things started going down hill.

As far as how Clinton will be recorded in history, as long as it's not written by someone with a one track mind and who's only interested in Clintons sex life, he will be recorded as one of the better presidents of the 20th century while Bush rides the coat tails of the 9/11 tragedy and takes away all of our freedoms.

Clinton did more than any other president prior to 9/11 to combat terrorism. He was heavily involved in the mid-east peace process. And the whole thing unraveled when Bush took office. Some of the same people that I see here criticizing Clinton for his inability to prevent 9/11 are the same people that I've seen in other posts arguing for non-violent resolutions to stop the war, so make up your minds...

By the way, I think it was you Lighteningrodd, unter a different name that said about 8 months ago in one of my posts that the president is just a figurehead and has no control over the economy. I could be wrong

[This message was edited by billmasters on 07-18-02 at 09:35 AM.]

---

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/phillips/20020113-fss.htm

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/phillips/20020120-fss.htm

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/phillips/20020203-fss.htm

Yes Bill because of the very nature of the way the Clinton Administration operated, I feel a lot of the blame can justifiably be placed on Bill Clinton where the corporate scandals are concerned. The above web-sites mainly focus on Enron. There is also mention made about Global Crossing in one of them.

You made mention about the previous administration not being able to defend itself. As I recall, it wasn't very long after the attacks took place on 9-11, Bill Clinton assembled a lot of his old comrades together for the purpose of possible damage control to protect his legacy.

When Bush took office, yes consumer confidence was shaken. But why was that??? What had really changed??? Let's remember the Presidents first year in office, he is operating on what is already in place. So I contend that consumer confidence had to be already be eroding by the time Bush was inaugurated. There was not a Bush policy in place yet. Which is where the "figurehead" quotation you refer to, comes into play.

As for Bill Clinton fighting terrorism. He has made his own legacy on that one. What does he have to show for his fight against terrorism??? By his own admission, they missed Osama bin Laden by an hour. And then we'll never hear the end of the bombing of the aspirin factory. That seems to be the Bill Clinton legacy on fighting terrorism.

Now how will history remember Bill Clinton??? Right now I think it is still too early to tell. Look at Richard Nixon, for example. To this day, he will be remembered for resigning because of the Watergate Scandal. But yet as President he is remembered for a lot of his accomplishments as well. A mixed bag, so to speak. And it wouldn't surprise me that Bill Clinton would be remembered in a similar way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frankvan:
John Galt, you are certainly free to read and/or recommend whatever books appeal to you personally, but I think you should also read, and heed the following post by King Krimson:
"If you are posting a retailer link, please determine whether or not the retailer is part of our site retailer base. before placing a link off site. If a site moderator or official finds such a link it will be deleted or edited to link to the same retailer in our retailer base, that will provide operational revenue for our site".
Or do you work for Amazon.com?

[This message was edited by frankvan on 07-18-02 at 07:13 PM.]

---

Fair enough. I did not see that particular rule of AnswerPool. I will respect it. I apologize for any violation. Thanks for informing me of this.

No, I do not work for Amazon.com. They have just done such an excellent job of advertising, that when I think ordering a book online, they are the first ones to come to mind.

After some deep philosophical thought, I've come to the conclusion that Clinton's legacy is simply going to depend upon what the definition of is is. Was it what it is? Or is it what is was? Or was it what it was? uhmmm... whattttitiz!!! uhhh...whattttttizit!!! whazzzzzzup?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html

More fuel for the fire!!!

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021006-74490062.htm

I ran across this in my web travels. It seems to offer a pretty good insight of the post Clinton era.