Ahhh, then you must share this knowledge and what makes it valid to you. Agreed. But one can certainly make a case . . .
Not to discredit Clinton since all economic booms eventually come to an end but Bush in no way inherited a booming economy. Quite the contrary. GDP was -1.30% for the quarter during which Clinton left office. Way down from a moderate 2.40% growth for the previous quarter.
You mean, other than causing AQ to abandon overt training bases and disperse to the caves of Tora Bora? Accurate on the former, ridiculous on the latter. The Paks tipped of Al Qaeda when we requested permission to to overfly their airspace. Cruise missiles can fly through specific windows on specific houses with GPS and optical guidance. We have nothing more accurate including the laser-guided missiles fired from drones. Drones were developed for the purpose of utilizing real-time intelligence rather than relying on traditional intelligence with its inherent time-delay, which can lead to hitting sites after the targets have moved on. The drones allowed us to look and fire. Doing nothing was never an option, we always had military resources to call upon, and we have steadily improved them. My point was that you were trying to hold W to those standards and ignoring outside influences yet gave Clinton a pass. I also said Clinton was correct not to act due to the transition. I believe W deserves the same pass due to the points I made about the state of the economy and political situation when he took office. Red 9/11 happened 8 months after he took office at a time there was division in the country and he was dealing with an economic turndown. I was pointing out you were holding W to a different standard than Clinton.[/quote]I know what you are saying, I simply disagree and I have pointed out why. I give Clinton no pass because Clinton took action and did nothing that required a "pass". What stopped Bush from retaliating against Al Qaeda for the USS Cole bombing? Why did Bush ignore his own anti-terrorism experts who were beating the drums against bin Ladin? Most observers believe that Bush/Cheney were obsessed with finding a pretext for getting Saddam Hussein. They didn't want the bogeyman to be bin Ladin, they wanted Saddam.
Don't cherry pick a single quarter. One quarter does not constitute a recession. Bush did not inherit a recession. The 1990's were booming. Blue indicates recessions. 1992-2000 was rocking. Look at the budget. Clinton ran budget surpluses, Bush ran budget deficits. Look at unemployment. Steady drop under Clinton. Look at the stock market. It crashed in 2001.
Yes, agreed. 2001.....hmmm....what might have caused that? Oh, that's right, a couple airplanes flew into the WTC buildings.
That contributed, but it was the collapse of the dot-com bubble that precipitated the recession of 2001. It started in Europe and spread here quickly. One can only imagine what might have happened if Al Qaeda had been attacked again in early 2001 after their first direct attack on Americans on the Cole. If bin Ladin had been killed on 3/11, 9/11 may never have happened.
So W is responsible for what happened in Europe and the collapse the dot com bubble? Red the whole point is that to lay responsibility on W for lack of response to the Cole attack and contributing to AQ's boldness is fascicle and ignores reality. Now there is no doubt trying to fight two wars without paying for them was foolish...he should have learned from Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.
I made no mention about a recession nor did I imply that the 1990's were not booming. You said Bush inherited a booming economy. That's simply not true. In order to disprove your assertion the logical measurement is to look at the GDP performance that occurred during the last quarter of which Clinton left office and at that time the economy had a negative growth of 1.30%. That is not to take away from Clinton's overall economic record because it was stellar but it came to a halt toward the end and that can't be disputed. None of the charts you provided disprove this.
Nobody said that. Don't try to put words into my mouth. My original point was that Bush did not inherit an economic disaster, The Clinton years were boom years. It is an undeniable fact that Bush did not respond to the USS Cole Bombing. A fact. You must live with this or it is you that is denying reality. I don't recall saying that this contributed to AQ boldness. My point was that Clinton did not "embolden" Al Qaeda as McTiger claimed. Clinton took a number of actions against them and it was Dub that dropped the ball until 9/11. That is all. I think that Al Qaeda's bold agenda has never had much to do with outside influences. That crazy rag head was hearing other voices.
You know good and well that the 1990's were booming. GDP growth, stock market highs, low unemployment, the works. The economy rose steadily from the dismal one Clinton inherited from Bush 41 ("The Economy Stupid") this rise is easily seen in the stats. Of course the curve rises and falls along the way but it ends far higher than it begins. You are focusing on the last quarter which showed a decline. It surely didn't decline back to the point where Clinton inherited it. It dipped a bit at the end of a long economic boom. You just can't compare the economy Bush inherited to the one Clinton inherited, much less the dreadful one that Obama inherited. Check the GDP graph, the quarter in question came down, but just a small bit from a 6% position that was incredibly high! A high not achieved afterwards.
