US Government Restricting Research Libraries

An anonymous reader writes: "In a move that has been termed 'positively Orwellian' by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch, George W. Bush is ending public access to research materials at EPA regional libraries without Congressional consent. This all-out effort to impede research and public access is a [loosely] covert operation to close down 26 technical libraries under the guise of budgetary constraint. Scientists are protesting, but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006."

Wow... Now that's editorializing...

I believe the article and editorialization need to be marked (-1, Troll)

Re:Wow... Now that's editorializing...

It doesn't seem to be "internal" in the sense of a decision made by EPA scientists or lawyers. It looks like it was made by a political employee high in the EPA hierarchy. People like that implement the policies of the White House.

Re:Wow... Now that's editorializing...

Here's my question - is access to any information actually going to be lost? What resources do/did the EPA libraries provide? If it was just access to public data, I would think the Internet really would reduce the need for much more expensive libraries - so long as all the information is still available. In fact, if fraction of the budget cut were re-routed to beefing up the online archvives, access might even be improved, while still cutting cost.

no surprise

the u.s. government over the last several months has been a massive binge of re-classifying previously declassified historical documents. i think they've done maybe 50,000 of them. this administration has a culture of secrecy and limit of access to information and this move is nicely in keeping with that ideology. my source on the document reclassification is here [msn.com].

Re:no surprise

my source on the document reclassification is here.

Not for long ;-)

Mark story -1 Troll and -5 Just Plain Wrong

For a more useful story, please see http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365379.ht ml [libraryjournal.com]

Some points:
- The information will be made available online
- The information will be available through library loan
- Not all the libraries are closing
- Bush is not defying Congress. He sent them a budget which they either approve or amend

Boy, it certainly made for a good story though! For about 2 minutes... *sigh* Do some research before posting or blogging next time.

Re:Mark story -1 Troll and -5 Just Plain Wrong

I would love to think that this formula was devised and is used solely by Slashdot submitters, but I fear that the process has hit the mainstream media as well:

1. Scan news for "Bush"
2. Figure out how to write/re-write article to ensure that Bush looks as evil as possible
3. Leave out any actual facts in favor of baseless speculation, particularly facts that might help to explain Bush's actions in a reasonable way
4. Comment on the demise of society, blaming it all on Bush
5. For an extra bit of irony, mention/imply that only Republicans are responsible for dividing this country
6. Sell news bits for profit

No "Step 2: ???" necessary.

Re:Mark story -1 Troll and -5 Just Plain Wrong

2. Figure out how to write/re-write article to ensure that Bush looks as evil as possible

most of the time thats not entirely necessary, the actions speak for themselves. unconstitutional actions, obvious power grabs, dumbing down the education system, its all pretty clear. bush is trying to gather as much power as possible for himself/his office.

3. Leave out any actual facts in favor of baseless speculation, particularly facts that might help to explain Bush's actions in a reasonable way

because nobody pro-bush would EVER do that. shock, horror. especially bush himself. more shock, horror.

4. Comment on the demise of society, blaming it all on Bush

strike bush, replace with democrats, and its the basis for a solid republican "talking point"

5. For an extra bit of irony, mention/imply that only Republicans are responsible for dividing this country

slow down. rumsfeld YESTERDAY claimed youre with us, or youre appeasing the fascists. par for the course of rovian politics, if youve been paying attention.

im not a republican, im not a democrat. id just like a little sensibility in our government.

Re:Mark story -1 Troll and -5 Just Plain Wrong

Uh, according to the article you cite, Bush is taking action BEFORE Congress has had a chance to act on his budget proposal. He isn't waiting to get approval. Furthermore, they say that they will digitize the 80,000 documents beyond boxed and stored, but I'll be very interested to see how quickly that will happen and how well they will be indexed. And the point that institutional memory will be lost when librarians are laid off is not addressed at all. The article is a lot more accurate than you make out.

Re:Can you read?

The EPA is its own entity. It makes decisions on its own based on a plan that it generates. Do you really think Bush walked in to the EPA headquarters and said "shut it all down now!"? Try and read the story completely next time.

If you think that because an article attributes a decision to "the EPA" that means that the decision was not made by political appointees implementing administration policy, you're incredibly naive. Bush may well not have been personally involved in this decision, but it sure looks like a political decision, not something that EPA scientists and lawyers have come up with.

As for the scanning, did you also miss the fact that you can order whatever material you want via library loan?

Yep, I missed it because it isn't in the article. What the article says is that "all EPA-generated materials will continue to be available by inter-library loan. That excludes material not generated by the EPA. You need to be more careful about accusing people of not reading the article. I've obviously read it more carefully than you have. Furthermore, even if this does mean that the boxed materials will be available by interlibrary loan, how easy do you think it will be to find what you need, and how long a delay will there be in getting the boxed materials out of storage? I know from personal experience that it can be a real impediment to research to have to wait several weeks or even days to get something out of storage, and that often it is difficult to identify what you need if you can't go look at it on the shelf online.

Book recommendation...

The Republican War on Science [amazon.com]

Despite the inflammatory name, the book doesn't assert that Republicans are inherently anti-science, but it is a chronicle the past few decades of politicization of science, and how even though Liberals do their own part to misrepresent science, the overwhelming lions share of open distortion percieved by the overwhelming majority of scientists has been unfortunately solidly Republican. It's a rather impressive, well-documented book that I highly recommend showing a trend of scientific limitations and games like today's story.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Book recommendation...

even though Liberals do their own part to misrepresent science, the overwhelming lions share of open distortion percieved by the overwhelming majority of scientists has been unfortunately solidly Republican

Ah, but that doesn't matter in today's politics. All you have to do is find a single instance of someone from the other side doing something similar to what you're doing, and that makes it magically okay for you to continue doing it.

There are no ethics anymore. Instead of people striving to be ethical, they just strive to find other people being unethical so they can excuse their own unethical behavior.

Re:Book recommendation...

There are no ethics anymore. Instead of people striving to be ethical, they just strive to find other people being unethical so they can excuse their own unethical behavior.

I think this is an extremely important thing to realize. People have been able to justify things way too easily nowadays. When a politician lies they say "well they all lie" and just accept it as part of the territory. Instead of striving toward excellence and taking exception at the failures of striving toward this ideal, the American public seems to like just putting up with mediocrity by thinking that everyone is corrupt liars who steal and the crook you know is better than the one you don't so why even bother punishing them for it. It's a ridiculous mindset. Unethical is unethical, it's the adult equivalent of the "Well Jimmy's dad said he could" argument.

EPA bureaucrats, not Bush, decided this

Doesn't anybody bother to look at the source data before flaming? Or is this news "too good to check"?

This is the EPA engaging in political tactics. To begin with, they haven't yet been asked to cut their budget, and they may never be. The closing of libraries is not Bush's idea--it's EPA bureaucrats saying "Look what you made us do!"

The proposed budget cut constitutes a fraction of of a percent of the EPA's budget, and it could be achieved with a minor reduction in the EPA's bloated administrative costs.

This is a standard tactic in every government in the world. Faced with budget cuts, the bureaucrats respond by threatening to terminate one of the few things they do that actually provides a service. The mystery is that they often get away with it.

The special irony in this item is that the EPA isn't planning to cut the service—just the way it's delivered.

Re:EPA bureaucrats, not Bush, decided this

Keep in mind that previous EPA administrators under Bush have resigned because of their refusal to toe the Bush administration's line and the administration's refusal to acknowledge real environmental concerns. See Christine Todd Whitman, who was by no means an environmentalist, but still not in bed enough with corporate interests.

For all intents and purposes, an EPA bureaucrat (as part of the Bush administration) making a decision is the same as the POTUS (or those who make decisions for him) making the decision.

Let's even narrow the scope:

Has any other US president ever done as much damage to the institution of science in the US as Bush has?

Re:Bush

There are people of good conscience who think that the current course of events, though unhappy, is the best path. We are dealing with a world that contains complicated threats and situations. To think that there are black and white cans that you can put every event into is ridiculous. Consider the following statements:

• I always vote [Democrat | Republican]
• [Ted Kennedy | George Bush] is like Hitler
• The U.S. Government has absolutely no right to [be in Iraq | legislate gun control]
• I don't understand how anyone can be [liberal | conservative]

If you believe any one of those 8 statements, you're part of the extremist problem. There are MORE than 2 sides to every issue. People who want to limit your choices to either Bush is good or bad are simplifying things for their own manipulative purposes. It's not all black and white. Everyone's shit stinks. If support everything the Bush administration does, you're not paying attention. If you think the Bush administration has no rationalization for it's actions, again, you're not paying attention. To imply that Bush is actively working to ruin the country is as ridiculous as claiming that Bush is the messiah.

The facts are that there are people of good conscience on BOTH sides of the aisle. Both parties are working to prevent people of good conscience from coming together and working together, because they think compromise weakens the party.

I'd rather see the rhetoric turned down and the responsibility turned up.

Re:Bush

"There are MORE than 2 sides to every issue."

Unless the US converts to a proportional representation system it's highly unlikely that more nuanced politics will develop.

Any two party system is just barely one party away from a dictatorship. And it shows.

Re:Bush

Okay, the economy sucked under Carter, but is a temporary economic downturn really worse than many of the things Bush has done, some of which will have more or less permanent consequences in regard to our personal freedoms as well as the basic principles this country operates under? We recovered from Carter's economy. Will we be able to recover from Bush's restrictions of our basic Constitutional rights, or from his dramatically increasing the power of the Executive? I think at the very least it will be much more difficult.

Living in this country during the Carter years was crappy in some ways, sure, but it got better. But the way things are going, living in this country for the foreseeable future will be crappy in a lot of other ways, thanks to the current administration, and I don't see it getting any better.

History repeating itself?

What came into my mind as i read this was a documentry i once saw on Discovery channel which talked about china.

China used to be one of the most advanced civilisations in the world. They developed so many stuff before any other country. Then suddenly some idiot in there decided to cut off china from the rest of the world and not only stop building technically advanced ships but actually destroy its unmatched fleet of ships. Shortly afterwards Britan was able to conquer the country using the technology that chinese themselves invented.

The fact that US seems to be closing libraries makes me wonder if its another version of the same events.

Re:History repeating itself?

You're comparing the technological pullback of a centuries-long autocratic dynasty with the short-lived executive (8 years) of the United States. There is a significant difference between the two that might go unnoticed in your commentary. First, there is a thriving market economy that seems now to be the primary pusher of technology in the United States. Because the government withdraws funding does not mean our entire society is suddenly unable to progress. I will admit the government does give a large injection of funds, but that's only because it has a large amount of our income withdrawn by taxes. You see, people in the United States have a lot more control over the economy than they did in Imperial China.

I've been to China. Any notion that the Chinese Government controls all those people is strictly illusory. As soon as the government's eye is not on them, they go on and do whatever it is they need to. And especially during the period in question, there was almost no real contact between the people who ruled from the Forbidden City, and the people who were ruled over. When you contrast that to Bush's stage-managed presidency wherein he has rarely if ever come into contact with someone who was not a carefully screened supporter or piece of harmless hugmeat, the parallels become unpleasant. Furthermore, the kinds of advances that used to take decades now happen in weeks. We are already being left behind by other nations. I've also been to South Korea. Their adoption of technology and modern lifestyle has happened at a seriously breakneck pace. I talked to people who were younger than me (and I'm merely a GenX-er) who had grown up in thatched-roof houses. They now have something like 90% of the country wired for broadband.

The Bush Admin's open hostility to science is no secret. This isn't an isolated incident; it's part of a total trend of deliberately ignoring information which is inconvenient. And to suggest that we could possibly petition this Congress to do something about it is absurd.

Finally, we are reading an article that is obviously skewed in the direction of an environmentalist PAC. Perhaps we should hear both sides of the story---or is the witch hunt too far underway to surrender to reason?

As I've noted already in this thread, we've been getting our news for the last several years from networks who think that fake JonBenet Killer news stories are worth our 24-hour-a-day attention. And if this news story is somehow not factually true I'm sure evidence to that effect will surface, but in the meantime we don't need to balance our news consumption with fiction.

Re:Bush

I think the worst thing Bush's done is turning most of the world's population against the US.

Re:Bush

Yes, President Carter. Double-didgit inflation, taxes so high that they broke the econom, etc. were all Carter

uh, there was a massive energy crisis during the carter administration. a huge spanner in the economic workings of the country that just happen to ocur under his watch. blaming carter for the actions of opec is a little bit unfair.

now, if you're looking for a president who really tanked the economy, i'd suggest reagan. in his eight years he moved the national deficit from 2.5% ($80 bn) of gdp to 6% ($250 bn). if you wonder why the national debt is so out of control, it's because ron spent it all on military adventurism while cutting taxes for the upper 10%.

Re:Bush

now, if you're looking for a president who really tanked the economy, i'd suggest reagan. in his eight years he moved the national deficit from 2.5% ($80 bn) of gdp to 6% ($250 bn). if you wonder why the national debt is so out of control, it's because ron spent it all on military adventurism while cutting taxes for the upper 10%.

To be fair, that upper 10% did tinkle down... errr trickle down... on the rest of us.

Re:Bush

It's called the "golden shower" theory of economics.

Re:Bush

The rich lock up their income in real estate, art, jewelry and luxury items which do little to help grow the economy. The middle class spends on production that grows the economy, and invests in riskier entrepreneurs. That Reagan trickle was a tiny leak compared to the flood of investment when the middle class prospers, has the access to capital and stability to face risk.

Calling Bullshit

I was here when Carter was president. I don't remember feeling like the government was actively trying to destroy everything that made the country worth living in during that period.

This is getting really old, too. This marks about the sixth time I've seen someone trying to compare Bush's presidency to Carter's. There is NO comparison. Carter was a nauseatingly honest individual who was elected largely in response to the nauseatingly dishonest Nixon administration. He entered the political game playing it straight at a time when the opposition was patently playing it crooked, and inherited (as another poster has mentioned) a terrible situation at a terrible time. What he didn't do was leave a huge mess for future generations to clean up -- most of the situations of Carter's presidency that people didn't like were strictly temporary.

On the other hand, Bush has destroyed a huge budget surplus and left trillions in debt to my kids. His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map. He has ruined America's standing as the leader of the free world with his farrago of lies on Iraq, and he has opened a gaping crack in the Middle East which seems destined to consume innocent lives for decades to come. He has fundamentally damaged the conscience of the nation by actively condoning torture, and actively assaulting our cherished civil liberties -- the one aspect of America that truly makes us American. He has starved the middle class and pushed millions into poverty with his patently worker-unfriendly policies (better known as his "Ownership Society" initiative). He has contributed to the further decline of public education, ensuring that millions can't compete in a modern job market, through his unfunded No Child Left Behind. He has bitterly divided America with his lies and hateful, cynical rhetoric. He has flaunted his authority recklessly and led with all the gravitas of a 21-year old fraternity prankster. In a simple character evaluation of Jimmy Carter versus George W. Bush, there is no question who I'd rather have in charge.

Re:Calling Bullshit

"His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map."

I do not come to defend Bush, because I can't stand the guy, but The Corps of Engineers admit the failure was theirs [forbes.com]. The levee system in and around New Orleans was in a sad state of disrepair prior to Katrina, and it could be argued that Katrina saved lives by busting up the levees when many were already evacuated.

Could you imagine the nightmare that would've ensued from a garden variety severe thunderstorm at high tide in the middle of the night causing a levee rupture? No warning, no news coverage, many people asleep... the death toll could've been 10x higher.

Re:Calling Bullshit

The levee system was in disrepair because the federal funding for upkeep had been slashed to pay for the war in Iraq.

The Louisiana National Guard were all deployed to Iraq, stationed at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, while Katrina was ravaging the area.

Bush is the commander in chief and the Army Corps of Engineer fall under him.

Responsibility is his.

Re:Calling Bullshit

"His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map."

I do not come to defend Bush, because I can't stand the guy, but The Corps of Engineers admit the failure was theirs

Yeah, but who started the hurricane, hmmmm?...

Re:Calling Bullshit

Yeah, but who started the hurricane, hmmmm?...

God, obviously. And since Bush claims to be in communication with God, he should have had plenty of warning and/or should have been able to convince God to send the hurricane to Mexico or somewhere.

Therefore, it's still Bush's fault!

Re:Calling Bullshit

our cherished civil liberties -- the one aspect of America that truly makes us American.

I agree with you 99%, but I still see you're a victim of the American schooling system. In particular "our cherished civil liberties -- the one aspect of America that truly makes us American." Firstly, these civil liberties were imported from Britain and the Constitution largely codifies principles that were common law in Britain at the time. Secondly, American civil liberties have always trailed behind many places in the rest of the world. I'm thinking in particular of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation within my lifetime (and its remnants clearly visible in the ghettos a few blocks from where I live in Oakland today), internment, religious and political discrimination (if you're an American citizen you may be unaware of what questions visitors to the US are asked) and the disgraceful human rights black hole at Guantanamo today. What makes America truly American is economic freedom. If you have an asset or skill that someone else needs, America is the best place in the world for you - and that's why I moved to the US. And it's this freedom that has made the US the superpower that it is today. It has nothing to do with civil liberties, despite what they teach in American high schools as you pledge allegiance to the flag each morning.

Re:Calling Bullshit

A 30 day vacation while a major city drowns comes to mind. He was also eating cake and playing guitar in Arizona while New Orleans drowned.

Jimmy Carter: a profile in courage.

Yes, President Carter. Double-didgit inflation, taxes so high that they broke the econom, etc.

I remember this period well.

Note that legally there is not much effective that a President himself can do about inflation, as the most critical factor involved is the money supply, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. In addition, the economy was still reeling from the impact of high energy prices on entrenched energy inefficiencies. The result was stagflation: a brutal combination of economic stagnation and inflation.

There's not much you can do to make an economy energy efficient overnight, but what Carter did about this was appoint Paul Volcker as Fed chairman, who proceeded to change the one variable that could be changed quickly: the money supply. Volcker who took office in August of 1979, proceeded to attack inflatoin vigorously, at tremendous political cost to Carter.

Check out these graphs: prime rate [wikipedia.org], Consumer Price Index [wikipedia.org], and unemployment [wikipedia.org].

This is the story they tell. Roughly in the middle of his term, Carter hires Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman, with the job of stopping inflation. Volcker starts the cut off the money supply in order to break the back of inflation. Immediately, the rate of inflation starts to drop, economic growth stalls, and unemployment begins to rise.

Right around the time of the 1980 election, the prime rate is approaching it's historical high of 21.5. This continues to strangle economic growth and drive rising unemployement.

But inflation IS responding to Volcker's shock treatment. Carter gets no political boost from this, becuase he's only succeeded thus far to change the second derivative of prices. Which is to say that prices aren't dropping, they are continuing to rise at historically high rates. But the inflation rate is moving rapidly in the right direction, something that is only apparent when looking at data graphs, not when you go to purchase a quart of milk. What ordinary people see is high prices that continue to increase at a high rate, reduced economic growth, and decreased job security. This experience of economic insecurity creates a new class of voters: the Reagan Democrat. Ronald Reagan successfully argues that Carter has mismanaged the economy, and the voters buy it because everywhere they look, they see pain.

In the first half of Reagan's term, far too early for his economic policies to have had such a dramatic effect, inflation returns to its approximate historical average. Immediately the Fed release their death grip on interest rates, and economic growth ensues. Unemployment continues to rise for a short time as weak companies shed workers, but overall in the context of an economy poised to resume growth, this is a good thing.

Unemployment hits its peak in 1983. By this time, Reagan's fiscal policies are having an effect as well. The biggest thing he can influence strongly is federal spending, and he has embarked on a program of unusually high levels of peacetime deficit spending. Wikipedia does not have a nice graph but you can look it up from the CBO: The last Ford budget had a deficit of 4.1%; Carter's budgets had deficits of 2.7,2.7, 1.6, 2.7 and 2.5%. Reagan's first term budgets had deficits of 3.7, 5.6, 4.7, and 5.1%. An economy is primed for rapid growth responds rapidly to the stimulative effects of federal spending unchecked by offsetting taxes. When the 1984 election rolls around, Reagan looks like an economic genius: inflation under control, economic growth back on track, unemployment rapidly dropping.

Carter of course looks like an economic idiot even though arguably Carter's fiscal restraint and Volcker's severe anti-inflation policies made the strong recover of the 80s possible. Reagan's spending policies would have be

Re:Bush

Not true. Bush inherited an economy that was tanking before he even took office. I'm not saying it was Clinton's fault, just a natural cycle after one of the biggest bubbles we have ever had. In addition, 9/11 happened within one year of his office. He has not had an easy time.

Do not mistake me taking up for Bush in approving everything he does. I'm quite disturbed by both this issue, the NSA Domestic Wiretapping issue, and our handling of the Iraq war. Those issues will definitely weigh in my political choices. It should be an interesting election cycle in November.

JOhn

Technically ...

... and our handling of the Iraq war. ...

Technically ... it takes an act of Congress for the U.S. to Declare War on a foreign power.

We've had Reagan talk about "The War on Drugs" and Bush talk about "The War on Terror" and the media LOVES to talk about "The War in Iraq", but none of these are "Wars" ... at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. Heck The Power to declare war is one of the FEW things explicitly given to Congress (versus everything its grabbed via things like the "Interstate Commerce Clause"). We never actually declared war against Iraq. Bush going to Congress for an Act of War would have meant recognizing the Iraqi government as legitimate. It also would have reminded the world that U.S. would be invading a sovereign country. These things aren't usually done when that country is sitting half way around the world, and hasn't even sneezed in your direction ... unless it happens to have something you want/need, like cheap Oil.

In some ways I think his current actions with the libraries and Iraq are good examples of Bush's presidency. Using Executive action and Executive order to create sweeping changes in the way things are done.

The framers of the Constitution wanted the ability for centralized control in times of crisis (instead of relying on congress to do anything rapidly), but feared centralizing too much power. Bush has been running roughshod over the Checks and Balances that are supposed to be in place to govern these sort of actions, when there ISN'T a crisis (and not every day after 9/11 is a crisis).

Re:Bush

Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law...
Such as, and I'm just throwing this out as a really CRAZY hypothetical here, by continuing an effective policy of hardline trade restrictions designed to prevent the target nation from gaining the ability to engage in the proscribed behavior?

Yea. I mean, if only he'd done SOMETHING like that.... er... wait....

Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
Since when is it not fair to lay blame for a thing squarely at the feet of the responsible parties?

Re:Bush

Much of what Carter experience was fall out from U.S. and Western misbehavior years before. The Iranian hostage crisis was the blow back of the U.S. overthrow of a Democratic Iranian Government and installation of the Shaw. (a Government that ironically looked to the U.S. as a friend and respected it, the elected president we overthrew had gone so far as to visit the U.S. and claim we were natural allies because we had both overthrown English Colonialism while he was visiting the Liberty Bell). Then there is that little uncomfortable detail that Carters actions DID secure the release of the hostages, but allies of Regan bribed the Iranians to keep them just a little longer (they were released on the day of the administration change, come on, even if it was a coincidence it still means that Carters efforts succeeded.)

The economic disaster was as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo (note I didn't say price increase, this was a flat out embargo!) which of course was caused by the Arab - Israeli conflicts. It wasn't just U.S. double digit inflation; it was a world wide crisis. Notice that Carter made peace in the Middle East his top agenda and his efforts ended the embargo!

Re:Bush

Carter didn't inherit the Iranian hostage fiasco from anyone.

It was President Eisenhower that overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a wildly unpopular Shah that resulted in the hostage fiasco. So blame good ol 'Ike for getting us into the democracy-killing-for-oil business.

And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.

There's a saying, "Presidents fight with the army of the last administration". Why? Mainly because it takes time to train soldiers and keep them up to date.
Following Vietnam, the use of special forces fell out of favor and were downsized under the Ford administration. When the need for those forces came up under "Desert Eagle" they were not ready. (You can't blame Carter for not having filters on the helicopters. He wasn't the one that blew of the British's advice!) As a result, it was Carter who recognized the need for these units and restored funding - not Reagan. That's a matter of record - not spin.

And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?

Cute. But we were much more recognized and respected as a nation under Clinton. You know, back when we weren't endorsing torture and preemptive nuke strikes. Go figure.

And the army Clinton left for Bush won the battles quickly and efficiently. Now that they are essentially beat-cops in the worst neighborhood on earth, I pity the President that's going to have to restore their strength.

Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.

Well gosh, why don't you just hustle on over to Iraq and bask in all the happy Iraqis that you helped free? They'll give you a 'warm welcome' (ala Blackwater) and make you the 'head'(minus body) of the parade.

Re:Bush

Ummm in the mid 50's the CIA at the urging of British petroleum overthrew a legally elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. The oppression of the Shah and the corruption of his dictatorship helped create the mullahs, the ayatollahs, the Iranian revolution, Hezbullha (sp?) and the Iranian nuclear program.

If you want to blame a president, blame Eisenhower.

BTW, I don't know where you were at in the 90's but the US flew *constant* combat missions over Iraq in the 90's to the point where, IIRC, some 50% of us pilots had combat time on their record. A number I heard was that in WWII only about 15% of US pilots had rated combat time.

Clinton also fired cruise missiles at Ossama. He missed, but he tried.

Re:Bush

The Clinton administration told the incoming Bush administration that their top security concern should be this group called "al qaeda". The Bush admin decided that Iraq was a bigger problem even though they KNEW Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties to international terrorism, and that the USA had been bombing them daily since the first gulf war to enforce the "no fly zones". Then 9/11 happened.

Re:Bush

And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?

Yeah that's probably why he'd been working with other nations on counter-terrorism issues since 1995, and why dozens of (potential) attentats against american lands and allies were busted under his presidencies.

As far as Iraq goes, he stricly kept with the trade restrictions, and if you're bothered with Saddam's disregard for international laws, why ain't you disgusted by Bush&co's disregard for both national and international laws?

Hell, even on Saddam, he was a freaking bastard, but at least he was our bastard.

Re:Bush

Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law, if not opinion....

Like when Clinton bombed Baghdad, for example? All the Republicans were screaming bloody murder, as I recall. How convenient that you've forgotten. But don't let that distract you from your partisan rant.

REAGAN deserves blame for Hostage Crisis

Much to my surprise, most Americans don't equate Iran Contra with the hostage crisis even though they are one in the same. President Elect Ron Reagan should shoulder a significant amount of the blame for the length of the hostage crisis.

After being elected in November, he opened back channel negotiations with the Ayatollah. The gist is Reagan offered to supply Iran with arms on the condition that Iran held our hostages until he took the oath. That's two months those innocent people had to live in captivity so Reagan could score political points.

The only justice in the whole thing is that Reagan is forever stained by Iran-Contra. That's little consolation to the hostages, I'm sure, but it's something.

Carter worked tirelessly in the months before leaving office to secure their release. There was little he could do outside of ordering an invasion of Iran. I think we can agree that would not have been a good thing.