ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
July 18, 2007
Fact 1: Notice how they pander the word "responsibility" here and there.
Debating Iraq responsibly
THE United States has three options in Iraq: One, stay the course with the current troop levels - the long stay; two, withdraw immediately - the quick goodbye; and three, half-withdraw, half-stay - the long goodbye. Realistically speaking, the second option, the quick goodbye, is not viable, militarily or politically. Militarily, the US cannot withdraw totally from Iraq, leaving the Iraqi government defenceless. Politically, though US public opinion has turned against the war, there is still a broad consensus in favour of retaining some presence in Iraq, if only to train Iraqi troops and to conduct counter-terrorism operations.
Setting aside the rhetoric of bloviating politicians on both sides of the aisle, the real debate in Washington is between the 'long stay' and the 'long goodbye'. Indeed, it is probably between different versions of the 'long goodbye', for even President George W. Bush has said he would consider pulling back troops 'in a little while'. He wants to wait until September, when his military commander will issue a report, before deciding on his options; the Senate Democratic leadership wants to decide now. The Bill the Senate is debating calls for troops to begin withdrawing within four months, with the pull-out to be completed by April 30 next year. Some troops will remain behind to conduct counter-terrorism operations and to train Iraqi troops. Democratic senators have not explained how they propose to protect this rump force.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that Democratic leaders have forced this debate for political reasons. They do not expect their Bill to pass, for they do not have the votes. Their aim is to embarrass the President and force Republican legislators to take an unpopular stand in supporting him. There has been no debate as to how the proposed withdrawal is to be conducted, how many troops will remain, and the consequences of a partial pull-out. America needs to conduct such a debate - seriously and responsibly. If the current strategy is not working, both Congress and the President need to explore options - together. Mr Bush's request that Congress wait till September is not unreasonable, for the military commanders should be heard. But he should also talk to Congress in good faith, and not just repeat mantras. Things are not going well in Iraq. In the Bush administration's own assessment, the Iraqi government has not performed satisfactorily. If the 'long goodbye', around which there is a possible consensus, is not to turn into a rout, Washington must get its act together. The US has obligations in Iraq that it cannot abandon. All responsible leaders in Washington must see that.
Fact 2: Notice they mentioned the word "embarrass"
Fact 3: Notice the stance. Not only is it completely out of touch with the situation in Iraq, and given that the ST acts as a barometer for Govt viewpoints, it just goes to show our much vaunted Government has no idea what it is talking about.
Some time back, I attended a talk by our US Ambassador. What came out of the talk was that: SEA Govts do not like Democrat Governments as they do not pay too much attention to SEA, and mostly Republican Govts do so. Then we have the idiot for a PM Lee going to Washington recently and totally indulging in some bootlicking. -
Democrats are anti free trade. Remember Al Gore and his 'brave people of malaysia' speech? Thats why SEA leaders don't like Democrats.
-
Not all Democrats are anti-free trade, neither are Republicans.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Democrats are anti free trade. Remember Al Gore and his 'brave people of malaysia' speech? Thats why SEA leaders don't like Democrats.
And also, Republicans and Democrats alike, pander this human rights issue. Both parties are remarkably alike in some ways, though currently, the current President has become a political liability for the Republicans. -
I mentioned this sometime before about the Democratic stance (for most of its leading figures anyway) when it comes to dealing with rogue regimes. The least the free world could do would be to marginalise such regimes and isolate them on as many fronts as possible. By and large, it's no exaggeration to suggest regimes run by despots and tyrants hardly favour Democrats over Republicans.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Fact 1: Notice how they pander the word "responsibility" here and there.
Fact 2: Notice they mentioned the word "embarrass"
Fact 3: Notice the stance. Not only is it completely out of touch with the situation in Iraq, and given that the ST acts as a barometer for Govt viewpoints, it just goes to show our much vaunted Government has no idea what it is talking about.
Some time back, I attended a talk by our US Ambassador. What came out of the talk was that: SEA Govts do not like Democrat Governments as they do not pay too much attention to SEA, and mostly Republican Govts do so. Then we have the idiot for a PM Lee going to Washington recently and totally indulging in some bootlicking.
Truth of the matter is, having a Democrat control the Executive simply makes the world a much better place on the exclusive basis (if not for any other reason) of the emphasis it places on the welfare of individuals at the micro-level when policies are formulated. Needless to say, the Democrats are also firmer believers in multilateralism which has proved such a contentious issue surrounding numerous Republican presidencies. -
There are Democratic Congressmen who believe that the surge should be given time to work itself out.
Secondly, since when has Congress listened to the troops on the ground? Even the commanders in MNF-Iraq have complained time and time again that the House of Representatives fail to understand both the strategic picture, and the tactical picture that they try to outline to them.
It is not a clear cut case of either staying or leaving. And for goodness sake, the ST should stop commenting on American politics if they cannot even be critical and incisive in discussing our own local politics. -
The trouble is while the generals are claiming that hte "surge" can be done, it is obviously not the case. The Iraqi Government is practically that of a city state; only a small portion of Baghdad is actually in control of the country while the rest of it is between the Sunni Sheiks, and the Shia militia especially the ones under Sadr, and finally the Kurds who are effectively ruling a de facto independent state up north.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There are Democratic Congressmen who believe that the surge should be given time to work itself out.
Secondly, since when has Congress listened to the troops on the ground? Even the commanders in MNF-Iraq have complained time and time again that the House of Representatives fail to understand both the strategic picture, and the tactical picture that they try to outline to them.
It is not a clear cut case of either staying or leaving. And for goodness sake, the ST should stop commenting on American politics if they cannot even be critical and incisive in discussing our own local politics.
Essentially, every one is waiting for America to leave to let the fun start. And they can wait for an eternity if need be. -
Relationships between the Govt and a Democrat Govt has rarely been good because of our style of politics which doesn't gel well with the liberals. Add to the fact that Democrats are more inclined to care about workers' rights, especially their own makes them reluctant to enter into a free trade treaty with others unless the opposite party has similar rights. Of course, we score near zero on workers' rights, which is obvious enough.Originally posted by walesa:I mentioned this sometime before about the Democratic stance (for most of its leading figures anyway) when it comes to dealing with rogue regimes. The least the free world could do would be to marginalise such regimes and isolate them on as many fronts as possible. By and large, it's no exaggeration to suggest regimes run by despots and tyrants hardly favour Democrats over Republicans.
Truth of the matter is, having a Democrat control the Executive simply makes the world a much better place on the exclusive basis (if not for any other reason) of the emphasis it places on the welfare of individuals at the micro-level when policies are formulated. Needless to say, the Democrats are also firmer believers in multilateralism which has proved such a contentious issue surrounding numerous Republican presidencies.
In some ways, the Clinton Administration did the best to the economy compared to many other Republican presidents. For all the glorification of Ronald Reagan, that man simply spent the US into heavy debt. -
so you are a military or political expert on the iraq issue ?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The trouble is while the generals are claiming that hte "surge" can be done, it is obviously not the case. The Iraqi Government is practically that of a city state; only a small portion of Baghdad is actually in control of the country while the rest of it is between the Sunni Sheiks, and the Shia militia especially the ones under Sadr, and finally the Kurds who are effectively ruling a de facto independent state up north.
Essentially, every one is waiting for America to leave to let the fun start. And they can wait for an eternity if need be. -
Iran is waiting for some of the US troops to pull out so that they can start their middle east dominance campaign. The Sunnis and Shites will be at each other's throats and the local militia in Iraq will not be able to control an ensuing civil war if the US army weakens its presence in the area.
I suggest that they strengthen their hold in Iraq until the megalomaniac regime in Iran is replaced by a more moderate successor. The problem is that now the US is facing major backlash internally. The democrats are sabotaging the republicans for their own agenda to garner support based on the war fatigue and fading support for Bush.
Will the democrats be able to handle the situation in Iraq if they take over the White House as they have done with the Senate? The Senate is one thing, they can give Bush headaches in domestic problems, but if they are the decision makers in Washington, I think the US will sooner or later lose hold in the Pacific Region and the Mid East. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but Bush isnt the coverboy of most of the republicans anymore. The problem is there isnt a strong enough republican candidate that will rise up.
Anyway, the only people to gain from all of this are the Asians. Last I looked, the rebuilding projects in Iraq and investors that dredged a fortune from the war campaign was the Chinese and SE asians. -
The surge is working, but at a local level, and it takes time.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The trouble is while the generals are claiming that hte "surge" can be done, it is obviously not the case. The Iraqi Government is practically that of a city state; only a small portion of Baghdad is actually in control of the country while the rest of it is between the Sunni Sheiks, and the Shia militia especially the ones under Sadr, and finally the Kurds who are effectively ruling a de facto independent state up north.
Essentially, every one is waiting for America to leave to let the fun start. And they can wait for an eternity if need be.
If you want the true story of what is happening in Iraq, follow the reports and stories of the mid-level commanders, the ones training the Iraqis and those operating in the Anbar region, under the new Sunni-Shiite partnership.
Sometimes, Generals do get it right, but their message broadcasted back to Capitol Hill becomes stymied with their own agenda as well. If you talk to the grunts, the brigade commanders and the embedded US Army commanders of Iraqi battalions, they paint a much rosier picture on the ground, but the American MSM these days paint a very bias picture, partly because they need something to sustain their audience. -
Agree with you.Originally posted by Rephidim:Iran is waiting for some of the US troops to pull out so that they can start their middle east dominance campaign. The Sunnis and Shites will be at each other's throats and the local militia in Iraq will not be able to control an ensuing civil war if the US army weakens its presence in the area.
I suggest that they strengthen their hold in Iraq until the megalomaniac regime in Iran is replaced by a more moderate successor. The problem is that now the US is facing major backlash internally. The democrats are sabotaging the republicans for their own agenda to garner support based on the war fatigue and fading support for Bush.
Will the democrats be able to handle the situation in Iraq if they take over the White House as they have done with the Senate? The Senate is one thing, they can give Bush headaches in domestic problems, but if they are the decision makers in Washington, I think the US will sooner or later lose hold in the Pacific Region and the Mid East. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but Bush isnt the coverboy of most of the republicans anymore. The problem is there isnt a strong enough republican candidate that will rise up.
Anyway, the only people to gain from all of this are the Asians. Last I looked, the rebuilding projects in Iraq and investors that dredged a fortune from the war campaign was the Chinese and SE asians.
Latest news for those who are interested.. the CNOOC has signed an agreement to explore for oil in the Ethiopian-protected region of Somalia.
Now who says the Chinese are always ideologically opposed?
US creates a combatant African Command after the establishment of JTF-Horn of Africa, and now the Chinese are pouring in, albeit cautiously. -
The American people are saying, "Oh, this is our the Vietnam war all over again, one that has thousands of our boys killed, what the heck are we doing there for? Get them out of there a.s.a.p!"
In my view, that's short-sighted. It has been predicted that it will take 7-9 years before American troops can contemplate moving out totally and say to themselves that the job is done in Iraq. Pulling out now will only let the civil war degenerate into a more serious crisis, and move the Middle East into more turmoil. The Iraqi government cannot seriously protect themselves with the current army they have. The Sunnis and Shiites are just gonna kill each other even more. Other countries such as Iran will start moving in, and cause even more chaos. Believe it or not, the US presence in Iraq is probably why other countries hadn't interfered in Iraq yet.
As for the next elections in 2008, my professor who taught me American politics just last week said that no one candidate can seriously hope to win the elections if their stand is for American troops to stay the course in Iraq. And candidates will definitely go out all to promise withdrawal of troops. Whether that is advisable or not, is open for debate. -
If both the GOP and Dems insist on the troops staying in Iraq.. it will make for a very interesting election.
Then again, breaking campaign promises is always a SOP. They could all very well lobby for withdrawal.. -
I thought traditionally gov deal with the state department rather than political entity; With the exception of LHL of course (since he is so use to do what he likes) . In any case, the future relationship between the state departments will be towards the region rather than focus on single nation. Since they have an ambassador to Asean to direct policy to the region. There will be some "distaining" from both parties whoever take over the oval office. In fact, I think the distaining has already begun. Could be the unresolved issue with Myanmar, and sg continue support for the military gov may have contribute to the postponing of Bush trip to SEA.
I also notice that there is a common duet between Aus and Sg to sing the "to stay" tune to the democrats. Generally American voters have a short sighted view rather than taking a long and strategic perspective. However, they seemed to change direction rapidly base on media influence. They are also worn out and tired of war and since they view that terrorist are more of a threat in the US than other region. So the public wants out.
But I believe all these doesnÂ’t matter at the end of the day it is the bigger force behind this election that dictate the agenda such as Campaign fund contributor, religion affiliation, investors, There is even saying that the Democrat wins the next US presidential election so long as they donÂ’t do a quick withdrew. So I am not sure right now when they sing the pull out song, they really mean it or just to get the vote.
On foreign policy front, both political parties are equally hypocrite; Is just that democrat know how to package it nicely to the people and make people feels good but actually accomplish nothing. But changing geopolitically and confronting is still the republican trademarks. Stronger cohesive parties and smarter folks are still the Republican. They also tend to have more business support.
In any case troop withdrew is probably a matter of times, I think it would be irony that if they withdrew from iraq and have to come back and fight a regional war in the entire Arab region. -
No it isn't. All one needs is Sadr to swing the finger and the US is in for a hell it has never before seen. Sure here and there are successes, but there are plenty of cities where this isn't happening. While there are success stories, there are plenty where it isn't working. The US in fact is doing Sadr a favour and suppressing his opponents and him stocking up on Iranian arms for the final push if he doesn't get what he wants. And in case you haven't noticed, the Sadr faction walked out of the Iraqi cabinet for over a mth. He can bring the Govt down if he so chooses. Hell, the issue of ridding the Interior ministry of infiltration hasn't even been solved yet.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The surge is working, but at a local level, and it takes time.
If you want the true story of what is happening in Iraq, follow the reports and stories of the mid-level commanders, the ones training the Iraqis and those operating in the Anbar region, under the new Sunni-Shiite partnership.
Sometimes, Generals do get it right, but their message broadcasted back to Capitol Hill becomes stymied with their own agenda as well. If you talk to the grunts, the brigade commanders and the embedded US Army commanders of Iraqi battalions, they paint a much rosier picture on the ground, but the American MSM these days paint a very bias picture, partly because they need something to sustain their audience.
And there's the law and order issue. Elements of the militias has gone rogue, and there's plenty of weapons to go around. The police and army have been infiltrated. There are bombings involving people with uniform. What can the US military do in such a situation?
As for the Iranians, they have become very suspicious of foreign interference for a long while. Who can blame them? The Shah was supported by the US, until the Islamic revolution. They are not about to let US set up a puppet state in Iraq. No they won't.
Bottomline, this problem is a political one requiring a political solution. That's the reason why the US is talking to the Iranians. -
Actually, the Iranians are in Iraq already.....Originally posted by nanren4ever:The American people are saying, "Oh, this is our the Vietnam war all over again, one that has thousands of our boys killed, what the heck are we doing there for? Get them out of there a.s.a.p!"
In my view, that's short-sighted. It has been predicted that it will take 7-9 years before American troops can contemplate moving out totally and say to themselves that the job is done in Iraq. Pulling out now will only let the civil war degenerate into a more serious crisis, and move the Middle East into more turmoil. The Iraqi government cannot seriously protect themselves with the current army they have. The Sunnis and Shiites are just gonna kill each other even more. Other countries such as Iran will start moving in, and cause even more chaos. Believe it or not, the US presence in Iraq is probably why other countries hadn't interfered in Iraq yet.
As for the next elections in 2008, my professor who taught me American politics just last week said that no one candidate can seriously hope to win the elections if their stand is for American troops to stay the course in Iraq. And candidates will definitely go out all to promise withdrawal of troops. Whether that is advisable or not, is open for debate.
And I won't be surprised if the Saudis too... -
Repeat after me monkey brain: "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument."Originally posted by crazy monkey:so you are a military or political expert on the iraq issue ? -
i just think that it is going to get worst before it gets better.
-
The Clinton administration, without question, presided over the greatest economic boom in American history and for that alone, Clinton deserves to be mentioned right up there with the finest Presidents the country has ever had. For me, he'd figure as the second greatest President of the 20th Century after FDR. The irony of the argument is this : his critics argue his transformation of the economy came at the expense of a surge in national debt, while most of these critics conveniently overlooked the fact the long term reconomic epercussions were actually better off despite the increase in the national debt because of the various economic reforms he had implemented.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Relationships between the Govt and a Democrat Govt has rarely been good because of our style of politics which doesn't gel well with the liberals. Add to the fact that Democrats are more inclined to care about workers' rights, especially their own makes them reluctant to enter into a free trade treaty with others unless the opposite party has similar rights. Of course, we score near zero on workers' rights, which is obvious enough.
In some ways, the Clinton Administration did the best to the economy compared to many other Republican presidents. For all the glorification of Ronald Reagan, that man simply spent the US into heavy debt.
As a matter of fact, I was studying and working in the US during Clinton's presidency and it's not hard to see - whenever I spoke to the average Joe - the optimism many average citizens had in their jobs and various other facets of life.
The point is, if you look at the base of the Democrats' support, it pretty much stems from the underprivileged and marginalised and it's not rocket science why they're that particular about the welfare of the average Joe - a case in point, to grant the incumbent (yes, that noob who's possibly the dumbest President ever) an increase in war funds, the Democrats made it a point to ensure the minimum wage was increased as part of the deal.
Besides, I'm all for the Democrats on the foreign policy front too given its multilateralist approach and a genuine attempt at isolating rogue regimes who abuse the rights valued and cherished by the Democrats. It's not rocket science even Kim and gang in DPRK warmed to Madeleine Albright and the Clinton administration at large simply because of the abovementioned and having done a better job on the PR side of things. -
Indeed. Not least, during the Asian economic crisis, the Clinton Administration was instrumental in assisting Asian economies and providing loans. The only problem was the select group of conservatives who so despised the Clinton administration that they dug up all manner of shit against him.Originally posted by walesa:The Clinton administration, without question, presided over the greatest economic boom in American history and for that alone, Clinton deserves to be mentioned right up there with the finest Presidents the country has ever had. For me, he'd figure as the second greatest President of the 20th Century after FDR. The irony of the argument is this : his critics argue his transformation of the economy came at the expense of a surge in national debt, while most of these critics conveniently overlooked the fact the long term reconomic epercussions were actually better off despite the increase in the national debt because of the various economic reforms he had implemented.
As a matter of fact, I was studying and working in the US during Clinton's presidency and it's not hard to see - whenever I spoke to the average Joe - the optimism many average citizens had in their jobs and various other facets of life.
The point is, if you look at the base of the Democrats' support, it pretty much stems from the underprivileged and marginalised and it's not rocket science why they're that particular about the welfare of the average Joe - a case in point, to grant the incumbent (yes, that noob who's possibly the dumbest President ever) an increase in war funds, the Democrats made it a point to ensure the minimum wage was increased as part of the deal.
Besides, I'm all for the Democrats on the foreign policy front too given its multilateralist approach and a genuine attempt at isolating rogue regimes who abuse the rights valued and cherished by the Democrats. It's not rocket science even Kim and gang in DPRK warmed to Madeleine Albright and the Clinton administration at large simply because of the abovementioned and having done a better job on the PR side of things.
It is indeed a pity that the current doofus for an administration, with which the current PAP regime so closely identifies with, has destroyed all the good will cultivated by the Clinton Administration, and simply plunged the US into a war it could not win. -
The Myanmar issue is in general out of Asean's hands and more of a play at the strategic level. Generally, Asean has no control and influence over Myanmar. God knows why Asean wants to try influencing Myanmar when they are reluctant to bribe the Myanmar Govt.Originally posted by Arapahoe:I thought traditionally gov deal with the state department rather than political entity; With the exception of LHL of course (since he is so use to do what he likes) . In any case, the future relationship between the state departments will be towards the region rather than focus on single nation. Since they have an ambassador to Asean to direct policy to the region. There will be some "distaining" from both parties whoever take over the oval office. In fact, I think the distaining has already begun. Could be the unresolved issue with Myanmar, and sg continue support for the military gov may have contribute to the postponing of Bush trip to SEA.
I also notice that there is a common duet between Aus and Sg to sing the "to stay" tune to the democrats. Generally American voters have a short sighted view rather than taking a long and strategic perspective. However, they seemed to change direction rapidly base on media influence. They are also worn out and tired of war and since they view that terrorist are more of a threat in the US than other region. So the public wants out.
But I believe all these doesnÂ’t matter at the end of the day it is the bigger force behind this election that dictate the agenda such as Campaign fund contributor, religion affiliation, investors, There is even saying that the Democrat wins the next US presidential election so long as they donÂ’t do a quick withdrew. So I am not sure right now when they sing the pull out song, they really mean it or just to get the vote.
On foreign policy front, both political parties are equally hypocrite; Is just that democrat know how to package it nicely to the people and make people feels good but actually accomplish nothing. But changing geopolitically and confronting is still the republican trademarks. Stronger cohesive parties and smarter folks are still the Republican. They also tend to have more business support.
In any case troop withdrew is probably a matter of times, I think it would be irony that if they withdrew from iraq and have to come back and fight a regional war in the entire Arab region.
Unfortunately, you must remember that the American voter is paying to suffer for this war. The nation has a huge debt no thanks to the war. If you were in their position, would you want to continue to finance a war that will ultimately hurt their pocket? Moreover, the US military is worn out. It will be lucky if it can remobilise for another war. -
When this current US President George Bush first came into his White House office, he seemed to have already targetted his sights at Sadam Hussein - as Sadam made the mistake of taunting George Bush Senior that he will still be around when G. Bush Senior and a few more other US Presidents come in and out of their respective presidentail terms.
With Cheney backing him, George Bush Junior was all the more adamant to have his own version of an Iraqi campaign as his father had.
It was unfortunate that he had a Defense Secretary Rumsfield with a personal agenda of having a smaller and more focused US Military - based on a questionable theory of having 'a big bang from a smaller buck spent'.
As much as Singapore Government is seen to be out of touch with American Politics, the US President seems to be a country boy out of touch with the World and its Politics - and had under his command - a vast choice of military men, equipment and military industry to support his planned Iraqi adventure.
In less then ten years in the White House office, President George Bush Jr spent the US Treasure into massive deficits and burden the future US generations with deep debt that will take a few generation to clear.
The Singapore Government is playing politics by associating our interest with that of the USA, and will expect the US navy to serve as a deterrence from any military wild cards in the neighboring countries. -
The US military is worn out. it would be irony that if a democrats president were elected and have to raise a Draft resolution, for a wider conflict in the middle east. Than that would have been a wrong direction to withdraw now and pay a heavier price later.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The Myanmar issue is in general out of Asean's hands and more of a play at the strategic level. Generally, Asean has no control and influence over Myanmar. God knows why Asean wants to try influencing Myanmar when they are reluctant to bribe the Myanmar Govt.
Unfortunately, you must remember that the American voter is paying to suffer for this war. The nation has a huge debt no thanks to the war. If you were in their position, would you want to continue to finance a war that will ultimately hurt their pocket? Moreover, the US military is worn out. It will be lucky if it can remobilise for another war. -
What is the fixation with withdrawal = bad? As it is, the US is being led by the nose by Iran. The Iranians have threatened before that if they want to be wreck havoc on US troops it can and will. The entire Iraq is now being turned into a trap and the US is walking right into one. The US Army will get roasted alive in an urban warfare scenario. Period. Better to withdraw now, and then force all parties to come to terms. Everyone in Iraq barely tolerates the US because they all view the US as a foreign occupier.Originally posted by Arapahoe:The US military is worn out. it would be irony that if a democrats president were elected and have to raise a Draft resolution, for a wider conflict in the middle east. Than that would have been a wrong direction to withdraw now and pay a heavier price later.
Not to mention, the situation in the Middle East is such that taking sides will eventually lead some ... distant problem in the future... Especially when there are already 2 sides existing for centuries with plenty of mutual hatred. In any case, the Saudis are shitty allies to begin with.
The solution lies in the Iraqis finding common ground between all 3 major "factions": The Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds. A forced Military solution will not work especially when all sides have been brutalised by Saddam and before that now the capacity for revenge is far greater than anything the US can impose upon them.
If the insistance on staying is because the US created the mess it must fix it, then put it this way, there is nothing the US can do militarily except politically. If this was the initial phases of the invasion, it would have been achievable, but this administration bungled the initial phases of the invasion that it has far crossed the point of no return.
And now there is the issue of blooded terrorists going from Iraq and taking their trade elsewhere. -
We didn't have a bad relationship with the last Democrat govt. Democrats do oppose free trade because they need to protect unions and that is not good for the world.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Relationships between the Govt and a Democrat Govt has rarely been good because of our style of politics which doesn't gel well with the liberals. Add to the fact that Democrats are more inclined to care about workers' rights, especially their own makes them reluctant to enter into a free trade treaty with others unless the opposite party has similar rights. Of course, we score near zero on workers' rights, which is obvious enough.
In some ways, the Clinton Administration did the best to the economy compared to many other Republican presidents. For all the glorification of Ronald Reagan, that man simply spent the US into heavy debt.
Clinton admin did nothing for the economy. They were just enjoying growth because of the internet boom and reduced taxes by Reagan. Had Clinton not increased taxes, the economy would have grown more.
Thats why Clinton still doesn't have a legacy except for the monica sex scandal and they are still searching for one.