Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Radley Balko has an article in Reason that argues, correctly in my view, that Bill Clinton's record as president was only marginally better than Bush's when it comes to issues of executive power, secrecy and civil liberties. I didn't have a blog during the Clinton years, but I was a staunch critic of the administration on civil liberties issues and there was much there to criticize. Balko points out that many of the same things we have criticized Bush for were also done by Bill Clinton. Like assertions of executive privilege to maintain secrecy:
What about secrecy and executive power? It's difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband's administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious "executive privilege" claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests--claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.Hillary Clinton herself went to court to keep meetings of her Health Care Task Force secret from the public, something conservatives were quick to point out when leftists criticize Vice President Cheney's similar efforts to keep meetings of his Energy Task Force secret.
If we're going to criticize Bush for it, let's be even-handed about it. Let's also remember that Clinton lobbied for nearly all of the law enforcement tools that later ended up in the Patriot Act back in 1993 and 1994, and he wanted them not only for terrorism and national security investigations, but for regular criminal cases as well. That includes roving wiretaps. Indeed, as Nat Hentoff pointed out back in 1999, this authority was slipped into a bill in the same kind of surreptitious way that we have criticized Bush for doing:
Lest you think Bill Clinton has been too preoccupied lately to continue his assaults on the Constitution, he signed a bill into law on October 8 of this year that has been fervently desired by the FBI-- and the president himself.In the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, there is a provision for roving wiretaps. This abolition of much of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights was slipped into a conference report-- without public hearings or debate in the Congress. No objections to this coup d'état by Clinton's liberal defenders.
As Justice William Brennan once told me, one of the most outrageous, continuing abuses by British troops, which ignited the American Revolution, was the general search warrant, which empowered them to barge into any homes or businesses and randomly search the people and everything else on the premises.
We have the Fourth Amendment because it insists that we and our belongings must be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." To insure that protection from governments, the Fourth Amendment mandates that a warrant must be obtained on probable cause that criminal activity exists-- or is likely to exist-- in a particular place.
The warrant from a judge must "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Clinton's roving wiretaps law is, in effect, a return to the general search warrant used and abused by the British troops in the American colonies. A wiretap is a search of communications on the tapped phone and is therefore a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
And that was at the tail end of an administration that dramatically weakened constitutional protections on a wide range of subjects, a few of which Hentoff lists:
Under his lead-- with the active collaboration of congressional Republicans and the passivity of most Democrats-- the right of habeas corpus has been so greatly cut down that innocent people on death row will be executed for years to come. Clinton ardently pushed for the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which reduces to one year the time that death-row prisoners have to find a federal court to review the capital sentences imposed on them by a state court.From 1976 until now, more than 70 men-- on death row for four, eight, 10, 12 years-- have been set free. They were released after investigators-- or DNA-- finally proved them innocent.
Also, Clinton has pushed successfully for legislation to deport aliens-- many of whom have lived here for years-- without them or their lawyers being able to see the evidence against them, let alone the names of the dubious informers who have charged them with supporting "terrorism."
And Clinton exerted great pressure on the Justice Department to convince the Supreme Court to affirm the Communications Decency Act, which would have censored everything on the Internet that was insufficiently "decent" for children. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Clinton's attack on the First Amendment.
Also, Clinton has urged random police "sweeps" of apartments in public housing projects as well as the abolition of the exclusionary rule that prohibits evidence unconstitutionally obtained by the police from being used in a trial.
As former ACLU official Robyn Blumner has noted in her syndicated column, "One would be hard pressed to find a fundamental constitutional right that Clinton has not attacked legislatively or in the courts . . . including a law stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear claims of rights violations by the government against prisoners-- a marginal population with virtually no political power."
Balko cites more evidence that if you're tired of the moralism and aggressive foreign policy of the Republicans, Hillary Clinton is not likely to be a significant change on those issues either:
Cato Institute President Ed Crane recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times pointing out that when you strip away the partisan coating, Mrs. Clinton's grandiose, big-government vision is really no different than that envisioned by the neoconservatives so loathed by the left. Clinton, remember, not only voted for the Iraq war, she still hasn't conceded she was wrong to do so, and has made no promise to end it any time soon.In fact, the L.A. Times reported last week that Clinton has refused to commit even to pulling U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, which, if elected, would be the end of her first term. TV journalist Ted Koppel recently told NPR that Clinton has admitted the U.S. would still have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term.
The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations. She supported the U.S. military campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. She once boasted that as the tension in Kosovo mounted, she called her husband from her trip to Africa and, "I urged him to bomb."
Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government's ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing "decency" standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.
Someone once said that Bill Clinton was the most successful Republican president of our lifetime and that is really not so far from the truth. I always laugh when I hear those on the right call Bill or Hillary Clinton "leftists" or, better yet, "socialists." Like Bill, Hillary is getting a huge portion of her money from Wall Street bankers, not exactly the hardcore liberal crowd, and they do not invest that money foolishly.
Bill Clinton's actions regarding the financial industry were of a piece with those of Bush the Elder and Reagan before him. The deregulation that began in the 80s continued with Clinton, culminating in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which all but repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. That broke down all the barriers between the banking, brokerage, insurance and investment banking industries and was a major reason why the Enron debacle took place.
And on Enron, the Clinton administration took several other actions that helped grease the skids for that implosion. Here's what the real liberals, writing in Dissent, recognized about how Clinton carried water for Enron and helped them get around the laws that would otherwise have prevented their meltdown:
Enron's unregulated private derivatives markets were made possible by the Clinton administration. (Derivatives are complex financial instruments that allow economic actors to hedge against extreme movements in prices and interest rates; if unregulated, however, they encourage further speculative behavior.) In 1993, Enron persuaded the Securities and Exchange Commission to grant it an exemption from the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a depression-era law that forbids utilities from investing in unrelated risky businesses. In 1997, the SEC granted Enron a further exemption from the Investment Company Act of 1940, which prevented U.S.-based firms from leaving debt from foreign power plants off their books.This second deregulatory move by the Clinton administration's SEC allowed Enron to create what turned out to be its Achilles' heel--the famous offshore "Star Wars" companies (named Chewco, Jedi, Raptor, Braveheart, and so on). These extremely leveraged offshore companies financed risky foreign energy purchases (including the famous Indian power plant that Dick Cheney lobbied for) by huge investor loans, with Enron stock as collateral. When these foreign investments went bad, Enron's stock became increasingly diluted and its price plunged.
The cumulative effect of all this should be clear. If you despise the Bush administration for weakening constitutional protections, zealously increasing executive authority and weakening the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional scheme, preferring secrecy to accountability, being in the pocket of big business and sending American troops on one foreign military adventure after another, you should recognize that the Clinton administration that preceded this one differed only by degree, not kind, on those matters. And there is little reason to believe that a second Clinton administration would be all that much better. It scarcely seems possible that a Hillary Clinton presidency could be as bad as Bush has been in regard to these issues and I'm not suggesting that it would be. But I see no reason to believe it would be a significant change either. These are differences only of degree, not of substance.
I think so many liberals defend Clinton on these things, just like so many conservatives inexplicably defend Bush on them, mostly out of simple partisanship. Far too many people treat political affiliations like rooting for a sports team - as long as We win and They lose, all is well. And the fact that the right hates the Clintons so much and with such bile and vitriol, I think, buys them a free pass from liberals who, objectively, should oppose much of that record.
But if you care about civil liberties, if you care about constitutional checks and balances, if you care about the government not being used primarily to pay off corporate benefactors, you should criticize those of any party who violate these principles. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. But what do I know, I'm a paid shill for Hillary Clinton, right Mr. Poe?
Comments
I agree with much of this, but there is one difference with overriding practical consequences: Clinton didn't appoint Supreme Court Justices (and, usually, not other federal judges, either) who would happily rubberstamp his power-grabbing desires. There is no reason to think the other Clinton would; or any of the Democratic candidates, for that matter.
Posted by: bullfighter | October 22, 2007 10:09 AM
Well said, although to be fair we are talking about a rather significant difference of degree on many of these issues. Though I was appalled by many of Clinton's stands on civil liberties during his era, his sins really do amount to a tiny pimple on the huge boil of tyranny that Bush has been feeding.
Posted by: Dan McCausland | October 22, 2007 10:14 AM
You have some very good points there. I wasn't aware of all of them, and I think that goes to show one of the other reasons many on the left defend Clinton -- we weren't really paying that much attention when he was in office. "Our guy is in; we can trust him to do the right thing generally; we just need to get him square on ."
While the Republicans are the real villains in this new millenium, the Democrats did America no favors by shirking their duty to protect the Constitution and fight corruption when they were in power.
I'm not sure yet about Hillary. I think there is a chance that, as they say, "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."
Posted by: xebecs | October 22, 2007 11:16 AM
Yeah, nothing new here. I was extremely cynical about Clinton before he was elected because I knew he was the DLC's darling.
The Democratic Leadership Council: Co-opting the Republican agenda of advancing the interests of the wealthy and powerful since 1984.
Translation: In betraying our party's base, we twist Jefferson's belief in individual liberty into a callous "You're on your own" attitude towards American citizens. We have a shallow conception of equality that amounts to "Well, technically, there are no laws which actively forbid you from improving your life," which offers only the pretense but not substance of equality of opportunity. We betray the ideals of Roosevelt at every turn while milking his ghost for all we can, and we embrace the egregious foreign policy and foolish militarism of the Kennedy era. And we fully intend to carry on Clinton's tradition of ignoring the Constitution where it limits our ability to do whatever the hell we want...
Rich people have money and power. With enough campaign contributions from them, the DLC seems to believe it can just buy the votes it deservedly loses by fucking over the party's traditional supporters amongst the disadvantaged and oppressed - which is why true progressives and liberals are so thoroughly disillusioned with the Democratic party.
Sad thing is, with the nutjobs of religious totalitarianism and neoconservative fascism having taken over the G.O.P., the Democrats are still the infinitely preferable alternative. That these are our alternatives is very revealing as to exactly how broken our democracy is...
Posted by: G Felis | October 22, 2007 11:51 AM
Ha, I forgot about silly HTML angle bracket behavior.
The last line of the first paragraph of my comment above was supposed to be "Our guy is in; we can trust him to do the right thing generally; we just need to get him square on [ pet issue ]."
Posted by: xebecs | October 22, 2007 12:42 PM
It is only in the last year or so that the lower estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed by US bombings and embargo during the Clinton years have been matched by the higher estimates of those killed by Shrub's war.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 22, 2007 1:17 PM
I actually don't think that the people really care. These types of abuses are not yet impacting the general lives of the people. Until they do then no one will actually pay attention.
The scary part is once they do begin to impact the lives of the general public, it might be too late to do anything.
Posted by: mess | October 22, 2007 1:18 PM
Ah, Ed. Now Randy B. too falling into the Republicans' default defence of nearly every Bush malfeasance: "But.. but.. but... Clinton did it too!" Sad point both conservatism and libertarianism have come to.
BC was not my favorite Democrat, in office or out. He was a Blue Dog DLC Democrat, and so significantly to the "right" of where I like my Democrats to be. But he is (a) no longer president (b) hasn't been president for going on six years now (c) is not running for re-election (d) Bush is president and (e) is pushing executive authority and crashing separation of powers and checks and balances to an extent, I think, undreamed of in the Clinton years. "But... but... but... Clinton did it too!" seems pretty weak tea as far as a defensible position in the current debate over the current assault on constitutional protections of both legislative independence and civil liberties.
Posted by: flatlander100 | October 22, 2007 1:44 PM
Balko's article is so full of blind spots as to be utterly worthless -- starting with the extremely narrow focus of his critique. This is yet another "libertarian" desperately trying to avoid facing the fact that he's been whoring for the wrong party.
No Democrat inspires more wrath and anger on the right than Hillary Clinton. This isn't because of her policy positions--on most issues, she's really not all that far removed from President Bush. It's leftover partisan anger from the Bill Clinton years.
I notice Balko doesn't specify whose "partisan anger" he's referring to. As I remember, it all came from Republicans whose attacks on all things Clinton -- including Chelsea -- were completely unmoored from reality. In fact, Balko all but explicitly admits this, but he won't draw the obvious conclusion that this Republican irrationality makes them less fit for office than either Clinton.
Then there is Hillary Clinton on the issues. Cato Institute President Ed Crane recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times pointing out that when you strip away the partisan coating, Mrs. Clinton's grandiose, big-government vision is really no different than that envisioned by the neoconservatives so loathed by the left.
If that's the case, then why do the right hate her so? Again, Balko refuses to answer, probably because the sheer insanity of his Republican allies is as indefensible as it is embarrassing.
Clinton, remember, not only voted for the Iraq war, she still hasn't conceded she was wrong to do so, and has made no promise to end it any time soon.
First, she may believe she was right to vote for the war, back when a) it was clearly inevitable and b) there was still some hope that Bush would do a decent job of it. Second, why should she promise any speficic action in a place where volatility is the only constant and there's no telling what she'll be faced with come 1/20/09? And third, the mere fact that she voted for the war as a Senator, does not mean she would have launched it as President.
The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations.
And, right or wrong, none of those interventions were as costly -- in terms of money, lives, and credibility -- as Bush's Iraq war, nor were any of them done with so much incompetence, so much dishonesty, and so little adult thought as has Bush's war. Nor did Democrats routinely question the patriotism and manhood of everyone who criticized Clinton's military actions. Comparing Bush's Iraq misadventure to Clinton's militery actions -- even the one in Somalia -- is beyond stupid.
What about secrecy and executive power? It's difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband's administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious "executive privilege" claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests--claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.
And this is comparable to extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, Abu Grahib, the Patriot Act, and a President unilaterally declaring US citizens "enemy combattants"...how?
When faced with his party's consistent evil, all Balko can do is point to the other party's imperfect or inconsistent opposition to that evil. Which is how evil people always defend the status quo. All I see here is yet another person pretending to be a "libertarian" and desperately trying to avoid questioning his original decision to cling to the trouser-legs of a party that has been consistently anti-liberty since 1994. Balko seems to represent those pseudo-libertarians whose minds have been stuck in the Randroid rut of "liberal = socialist = Stalin = Hitler" for so long that they can't even contemplate changing their view to accomodate recent events.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 1:54 PM
flatlander100 -
Big difference here. They are not trying to excuse what Bush has done, with claims that Clinton did it too. They are merely pointing out hypocrisy on both sides. They are also highly critical of both Clinton and Bush for the same reasons. Sure, using Clinton didit as a defense is ridiculous. Ed has stated as much several times, when talking about the evils of the Bush administration. None of this changes the fact that Clinton was just about as bad and there is every reason to believe that Mrs. Clinton would be just about as bad.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 22, 2007 1:57 PM
flatlander wrote:
Sorry, but this is pure bullshit. Yes, there are conservatives who use the "but...but...but....Clinton" argument, but they use it to excuse what Bush has done. That clearly is not the case here. It is simply reality that, in many of these specific cases, Bill Clinton did, in fact, do it too; it is also reality that Hillary Clinton has supported Bush as he's done many of these things. If someone points that out in order to excuse what Bush has done, they're a first class moron engaging in simplistic partisan bullshit. That doesn't do anything to excuse Bush's record. It is hardly an unreasonable point to make that if you object to this list of Bush attributes, Hillary Clinton isn't exactly a stark contrast on any of them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 22, 2007 1:59 PM
Raging Bee-
What in the world makes you think that Radley Balko supports the Republican party?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 22, 2007 2:01 PM
Because he's repeating all of the GOP's defensive talking-points with almost no alteration: specifically "Hillary is evil and can naver get elected" and "The Democrats did it too!"
If I've misinterpreted him, it's entirely his fault -- he sounds like a Republican propagandist.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 2:08 PM
If you despise the Bush administration for weakening constitutional protections, zealously increasing executive authority and weakening the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional scheme, preferring secrecy to accountability, being in the pocket of big business and sending American troops on one foreign military adventure after another, you should recognize that the Clinton administration that preceded this one differed only by degree, not kind, on those matters.
Just like a guy who murders one man differs "only in degree" from Stalin? Sorry, but the "degree" is just as important as the "kind," if not more so.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 2:12 PM
The Economist observed that Hillary Clinton would be considered conservative in just about any other democracy. Neal Boortz considers her a "fascist socialist."
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 22, 2007 2:29 PM
I think Raging Bee is spot on here:
"Just like a guy who murders one man differs "only in degree" from Stalin? Sorry, but the "degree" is just as important as the "kind," if not more so.
Of course all administrations have a corrupt aspect to them. The entire process of getting elected to that office pretty much ensures a certain level of corruption will occur and it should always be condemned when exposed.
The faults of the Clinton era did not revoke habius corpus, cause thousands upon thousands of deaths, nor bakrupt the country doing so (how many trillions of $ will this war finally cost?).
For fuck sake, Bush (and right-wing pundits) are now eagerly talking about "world war 3". The "degree" of fault between Clinton and Bush is vast.
Posted by: Caliban | October 22, 2007 2:46 PM
Hume's Ghost wrote: "The Economist observed that Hillary Clinton would be considered conservative in just about any other democracy. Neal Boortz considers her a "fascist socialist."
Well, yeah, the mainstream center of America is farther to the right than just about any other democracy too. If half of the voting populace is going to vote for someone like Bush two elections in a row, a european-style lefty candidate would have zero chance of winning in such an enviornment.
Posted by: Caliban | October 22, 2007 2:58 PM
Let's also remember that Mr. Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Mr. Bush will leave office with the most red ink of any administration in history.
Posted by: SLC | October 22, 2007 2:59 PM
Just in terms of sheer numbers, classification of government documents of all kinds has increased dramatically during the Bush years. When Bush took office, the DOJ and other departments reversed Clinton-era policies favorable to the release of government information under the FOIA. And the use the administration has made of the state secrets privilege (itself based on a fraudulent 1954 precedent) blows away all previous administrations.
It's true that Democrats are not much better in many regards than Republicans (personally I would like to see more independent and third-party candidates for public office), but just in terms of secrecy, Bush has no equal.
Posted by: Moopheus | October 22, 2007 3:12 PM
Let's also remember that Bill Clinton did NOT bomb Albania in response to something bad happening in Kosovo, nor did he invade Libya in response to famine in Somalia.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 3:18 PM
The quickness with which the liberal commenters here break out the apoligia for the Clintons proves Ed right. It's exactly this kind of "Bush is worse so don't criticize Clinton" thinking which parallels the "Clinton did it first" excuses and assures that we'll get to look forward to being stabbed in the back by the fair-weather civil libertarians in the Democratic party who change their tune as soon as they get their hands on the levers of power.
Posted by: MattXIV | October 22, 2007 4:16 PM
Well, actually not. That's just more of the same faux even-handedness that afflicts the country (the prime example of which being the evolution-creation controversy).
And it's focussing attention on the supporters and NOT actually what happened. That's never a good way to engage in a discussion.
Posted by: gwangung | October 22, 2007 4:35 PM
Um, Matt, that noise you hear is not a squadron of black helicopters full of jackbooted thugs enforcing the New World Order; it's just the noise in your own head...so take your meds and come back in the morning...
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 4:47 PM
Perhaps the biggest reason I do not want Hillary to get the nomination is because I find it troubling (as I do the lack of discussion of this) that our presidential succession might look like this: Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton
That's way too War of the Roses for me.
Ed mentioned the DLC and its economic base. Kevin Phillips discussed how the American people at large were abandoned by both parties in Arrogant Capitol (1994)
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 22, 2007 4:48 PM
Look, I'm about as liberal a Democrat as you can find, and I'll support the Democratic nominee regardless -- the Republicans are that bad, and the only thing they respect is the result of an election.
Having said that, I completely agree with everything Ed and Radley have said here.
Balko is absolutely not a Republican mouthpiece, any more than Ed is. Neither Ed nor Balko are saying that Bill Clinton's behavior excuses Bush's, they're saying it was similar in kind (if not in scope), and that it's entirely rational to want a Democratic candidate who will reject such a philosophy. And there is a fair bit of evidence that Hillary Clinton is not that candidate.
Furthermore, one of the major differences between Bill's efforts to expand the privilege and power of the Presidency and Bush's was that Clinton had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress which was eager to defy him at the drop of a hat. For most of Bush's presidency, his party controlled the entire government and he had no one to say him nay. Even now that the Democrats have taken control of the legislative branch, they have proven completely unwilling to do anything to preserve the basic concepts of the separation of powers and limits on executive authority, to say nothing of trying to retain habeas corpus and adhering to the law with regards to warrantless wiretapping and the Geneva Conventions.
If a Democratic controlled congress has been this supine in the face of a Republican president with a 25% approval rating, what are the prospects of them putting any kinds of brakes on the authority of a President from their own party, especially one apparently already inclined to the same kind of autocratic power as Bush?
P.S.
Raging Bee said:
Classic Bee.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 22, 2007 4:51 PM
Perhaps the biggest reason I do not want Hillary to get the nomination is because I find it troubling (as I do the lack of discussion of this) that our presidential succession might look like this: Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton
One relative succeeding another in the White house does not an entrenched dynasty make. That's why there's so little discussion of this "issue" -- we have bigger and more obvious problems at hand. I, for one, am more concerned with a presidential succession looking like this: spineless theocratic tool, spineless theocratic tool, spineless theocratic tool, spineless theocratic tool, spineless theocratic tool, spineless theocratic tool...
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Oh my gods, this is so ridiculous. Seriously folks. Balko is an ardent critic of the bush administration and the war in Iraq. He is in many ways, more critical of the repubs than he is of the dems. Just because he points out the hypocrisy of the dems and the first Clinton admin, does not make him a republican apologist. Not once, nowhere in this or any other article he has written, will you ever see him supporting anything the republicans have done, especially under the bush admin.
All he has done, has been to mention that Bill was just as bad and Hillary would likely be the same. That nothing would really improve much if she takes the white house.
I happen to agree with him. I am deathly afraid of the dems ending up in total control of our government too. Are you honestly going to say with a straight face, knowing where I stand on a lot of issues, that I am a republican apologist?
Posted by: DuWayne | October 22, 2007 5:04 PM
Oooh. Scare quotes around issue. People getting elected because of their last name must not be an issue, then.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 22, 2007 5:04 PM
The "Democrats haven't done anything since they took power" argument is bullshit. They've tried to bring back troops. They've tried to expand gay rights. They've tried to increase funding for stem-cell research. They've tried to improve the health insurance problem. They've succeeded in damaging the Patriot Act and improving worker's rights, but they've tried to do more. Almost every time, the Republicans succeed in blocking a majority, and when they fail the president just vetoes it. Please, if you're so disappointed with the Democrats lately, tell me what you would do with a 49% hold on the Senate and a president who will try to stop anything you do.
Posted by: Brandon | October 22, 2007 5:34 PM
Hume, i agree that having 25 years of Presidents coming from two Family dynasties is fucked up. I'm not a fan of Hillary myself. Of the four leading dem candidates, Hillary would be my last pick for president.
Of course there are legitimite criticisms of the Clinton era. It's just that in our current political climate, apologists for the current administration are using the "Clinton did it too so shut up" argument. I think this argument is bogus for reasons already presented in this thread. In short, "degrees" of abuse counts and the two administrations are not equivalent in the depth and scope of thier relative abuses.
Posted by: Caliban | October 22, 2007 5:43 PM
Ed, thanks for this post. While the errors of an incumbent are not lessened by similar blunders made by their predecessor, it's nice to have GWB set into some sort of perspective, rather than regarding him as a sudden, surprising ejaculation of tuberculous haemopus on the good name of the United States.
My only criticism is your phrase "Sending American troops on one foreign military adventure after another" - was not the fact of the rearmament and wanton aggression of Germany, and the "military adventures" of Japan and Italy, in part because the US elected to turn its back on the world and NOT send its troops hither and yon?
I agree that the military adventures must be carefully chosen and well run (which has frequently not been the case), but surely the removals from power of people like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein could in themselves only make the world a better place than leaving them where they were?
Posted by: Justin Moretti | October 22, 2007 6:43 PM
Caliban -
No one is really arguing that there weren't significant differences. Nor is a single person here, or Radley, making this an apologist sort of argument. The point is the point that's been made, not that which the republican apologists make. Rather than using this as an argument to lend credibility to bush, the argument is, that we need a president that will put a stop to it, that it's fucked up no matter who's doing it.
The fact that sycophantic morons use the argument to their own ends, does not make this application of it invalid.
Raging Bee -
Damn, your fucking blind. Seriously. It's not Balko's fault you came to the conclusion you did. It's entirely yours for not noticing that not one time did he say, "so it's ok when bush does it." Not one time did he say anything that supports current policy. In fact, the whole point of the article is to say that this sort of shit is a really bad idea. But he's criticizing the dems so he must be a repub apologist. Tell me, do you think that I'm a repub apologist? Is Ed? Radley sure as hell isn't. I disagree with Radley on a lot of things, he's a pretty strong libertarian, while I'm just not. But that doesn't make him a repub apologist.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 22, 2007 6:51 PM
gwangung,
But the point is that the willingness of Democrats to look the other way when it's a Democratic president violating people's civil liberties that made it possible for Clinton to get away with as much as he did. Read the Hentoff column. The reflexive defense of Clinton's record, despite it being nearly as bad as Bush's in many regards, leads me to believe little has changed from the climate where the Democrats happily went along with not only Clinton's abuses, but were supportive of many of Bush's abuses after 9-11 until his popularity began to wane.
A better comparison that evolution vs creationism would be the distinction betweeen ID's deliberate vagueness vs explicit 6-24-hr-days Biblical literalist creationism drawn by the former's proponents when it suits their purposes. The later is more egregious in its mistakes, but at the core they're both wrong.
Posted by: MattXIV | October 22, 2007 7:26 PM
I don't like the Clintons. I disagree with their economic policies for the most part. They are too conservative, too pro-business, and (like the current Republicans) ignore the fact that "free trade" for us isn't generally the same as "free trade" for our trade partners. Also both are guilty of ignoring the strategic dangers of allowing outsourcing, etc.
Having said that, I also have to agree with most of what raging bee had to say. To claim that Clinton was as bad as Bush has been is like claiming that Jeffrey Dahlmer was as bad as Hitler (I'm not willing to claim that there was only one civil liberty "murder" there).
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 22, 2007 7:56 PM
I'm sorry guys, but until the last year or two, Libertarian was virtually synonymous with "Republican who was hedging his bets."
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 22, 2007 7:58 PM
DuWayne, I agree with everything you wrote. However, it's not hard to imagine what kind of spin an article like this would have on FOX.
And while the author may not be an apologist for the administration, i can't help but feel uneasy about comparisons being made between the stollen coconuts Slick Willie lied about and the warehouse of severed heads that Bush lied about.
Posted by: Caliban | October 22, 2007 8:06 PM
I was also troubled by the stance Clinton took on trampling the constitution in criminal cases. I wasn't aware of most of the rest, but I am not terribly surprised.
But there is a difference. Clinton is an extremely bright person. Dubya is similar in intellect to a potted plant. In the dark. Un-watered.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 22, 2007 8:21 PM
dogmeatib -
That's not entirely inaccurate, but irrelevant. I have not read Balko for all that long, but I can almost guarantee that he has never been a republican or supporter of republicans, any more than Ed has. I get the arguments being made, but it doesn't change the fact that every criticism of Clinton being made, is accurate. The fact that it is coming from a libertarian is meaningless. Ed's a libertarian and has been a voracious critic of the repubs, Radley's the same damn way. While I like to think that Ed's a little more sane with his libertarian tendencies than Balko, I have no illusions that he and Balko would be closer in agreement on a lot of issues than he and I would.
So lets take it from this perspective. Pretend I wrote that piece. I have certainly made the same arguments several times, including criticizing Clinton when he actually still was president. Not a single thing in this piece that I disagree with.
I fucking dare you to accuse me of being a repub apologist. Seriously. I won't get all pissy if you do, but I guarantee that anyone here that has paid any attention to my positions on a host of issues, will laugh and laugh at you for doing so. Take the argument out of the mouth of a libertarian and put it in mine, they have all been there before. I am not a libertarian. I believe in a much stronger welfare state. I believe in marriage equality (as does Balko). I believe in ending the drug war (as does Balko). I believe a host of very liberal, some extreme left positions.
Now you want to show me where any of these bullshit lines from Bee and others apply to Balko? Seriously, show me where he is using these arguments to justify republican policy making.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 22, 2007 9:01 PM
Not give up. That's what I'd like them to do. Not vote for retroactive immunity for telcoms who spied on Americans. Not refuse to aggressively investigate illegal activities on the part of a President with a 25% approval rating.
I want them to fight, fight hard, fight long, and fight smart. They continue to let this administration set the agenda, and they cave at every opportunity. So far Dodd's the only one willing to rock the boat and do anything and everything possible to stop the destruction of our civil rights and the rule of law. If it means holding up the business of the Senate until they get the Republicans to bend, so be it.
People are dying. The Constitution is getting hammered. The rule of law is flaunted with impunity. There is no excuse for failure.
What do I want them to do? I want them to fucking fight>/i> already and quit throwing up their hands and saying "Poor us, the President's a big fat meanie."
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 22, 2007 10:16 PM
This isn't a crappy Monday night sitcom, Jeff. The Democrats can scream all they want, it's not going to magically make the Republicans agree with them. Politics is a complicated game, and any real change takes time. It's not like Nancy Pelosi has a magic wand that gets bills passed through Congress, but she refuses to use it.
For example, why did the Democrats chicken out and give Bush his war spending bill? If they hadn't, then eventually the army was going to run out of money. And our soldiers would be stuck with even more budget cuts. A bill had to pass, or people would die. If Bush and the Democrats had a staring contest to see whose bill would get through, who do you think would hold out longer while Americans were dying from lack of equipment?
It doesn't matter how much people hate the Republicans. They still have a considerable amount of power, and no heart-felt speeches with cheesy music in the background is going to change that.
When I asked that question, I didn't expect a one-word answer repeated over and over again. Given our current political climate, what would you do if you were a Democratic senator? I'm not asking for legalese, just a more specific course of action. Unfortunately, fist fights and hissy fits aren't allowed on the floor, so that option's out the window.
Posted by: Brandon | October 22, 2007 11:13 PM
That's the point Brandon - The Democrats don't have the will to stop Bush. He has the zeal of a true believer, he believes what he is doing is right and is willing to do anything to complete his mission, even wreck his own party.
The Democrats could just shut down the funding to stop him, but they won't because they are too weak to accept a few extra dead soldiers on their hands, as if their inaction wasn't causing more deaths in the long run.
I have little confidence that any Democratic president would actually bring your troops home, Obama might but the others will just scale back a little and call the war over.
Ironically I suspect the only real war-ender would be Ron Paul.
Posted by: James | October 23, 2007 12:20 AM
So many straw men, so little time. I didn't say that Clinton was as bad as Bush in every respect. I didn't even say that Clinton was as bad as Bush in any respect. In fact, I emphatically said the contrary. I said that in several specific respects, it would be folly to expect a significant change from a Clinton administration. And while there are lots and lots of silly accusations in the comments above trying to psycho-analyze me (and Radley Balko), there is very little in the way of substantive response on any of those particular issues. Jeff Hebert's defense of my position summed it up perfectly, so I'll just quote it:
A Clinton administration couldn't possibly be as bad as the Bush administration on these specific subjects, but there's no reason to believe it would be the opposite either. If you want to get behind a candidate that would really do something to change those things, then do so; but don't pretend that Clinton is going to. Nothing done so far supports that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 23, 2007 12:35 AM
"For example, why did the Democrats chicken out and give Bush his war spending bill? If they hadn't, then eventually the army was going to run out of money. And our soldiers would be stuck with even more budget cuts. A bill had to pass, or people would die."
A bill for fiscal year 08 spending? That bill was the last word on business as usual in Iraq through at least 2009, read the fine print.
Posted by: 5: funny | October 23, 2007 12:39 AM
Exactly. It's this exact kind of sentiment from Brandon that frustrates me: the Democratic leadership in Congress completely buys into Republican memes time and time again. They're so afraid of looking weak on defense that they allow the "The troops will die if you don't pass this exact bill, don't do anything to delay it!" frame to take away all their options. The troops were never in any danger regarding this bill, and yet that's the message that nominal supporters like Brandon completely bought into.
You want a specific set of actions? Pass the bill you want, not the bill the President wants, and let him veto it. Then pass it again, and make him veto it again. And again. Play the media right, spin it the way it ought to be spun, which is that 75% of Americans want our troops home right now and not at some vague point in the future, and George W. Bush is defying the will of the people by vetoing this reasonable bill that has a prudent withdrawal schedule and plenty of funding.
I want them to stop being afraid of doing what's right. And it's not like I'm asking them to take unpopular positions here, I'm asking them to do what's both popular AND right. They're simply afraid of Republicans calling them names, they're haunted by the specter of Viet Nam and the "stab in the back" narrative, and they're paralyzed as a result.
I give them credit for passing a number of good bills and for doing what they can, but it's a very tepid, safe, creeping sort of progress on peripheral issues. On the core of what matters to me, they've been steamrolled by Bush and the Republicans over and over again.
I don't blame Democrats for the mess we're in, that's squarely at the feet of George Bush. I do blame them, however, for not fighting harder for what they say they believe in. I'd be fine with them failing, I'm not fine with them failing to try.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 23, 2007 8:47 AM
I don't read Balko on a regular basis, so I'm sure I've got him wrong if I'm judging him based on this article alone. Let's just say it's not Balko at his best.
It is, however, representative of a mindset among a large chunk of so-called libertarians, who criticize Bush Jr. damningly, and rightly, for the very real harm he's done to America in more ways than just civil liberties; but who then trot out the "But Clinton did it too" excuse to justify not putting their money where their mouths are, not questioning their allegiances, not making tough choices, and not taking a second look at their pathological hatred of liberals and Democrats. Real liberty requires a lot of hard work, risk, and soul-searching, and these particular "libertarians" just don't have what it takes to exercise, or defend, real liberty; so they hide behind the Republicans' trouser-legs, and let the Christofascists and big corporations use them as sock-puppets and bum-boys instead. Their criticisms are empty because they explicitly indicate they won't act on them.
As for Hillary, I don't have a problem with her because she's a Clinton; I have a problem with her because -- so far at least -- she's looking like another Democratic front-runner coasting to the nomination on a sense of entitlement and not much else, never having to show she can fight the Republicans, only to get crushed in November because -- surprise! -- she wasn't really able or willing to fight the Republicans the way they need to be fought.
Posted by: Raqging Bee | October 23, 2007 10:04 AM
DuWayne,
That's not entirely inaccurate, but irrelevant.
I disagree that it is irrelevant, supporting Bush gave him the ability to create this mess. One can't condemn Democrats for their failure to stand up against Bush without being even more critical of the Libertarians who actually supported him. Bush had a majority in '04, he enjoyed a Republican Congress until January of '07. The combination made it possible for him to shred the Constitution, our economy, and our international reputation. Democrats weren't strong enough to stand against him, Libertarians, in disgustingly large numbers, actually supported him.
I'm not saying that Ed, or anyone in particular is guilty of this, but it does seem that those with a guilty conscience seem to be rather adept at spreading blame.
I said already I don't support Clinton, I don't agree with many of their collective policies because they are too pro-business and they are little different than Republicans but claiming that the Clinton administration is on a par with what Bush has done is pure fabrication. I personally think Clinton did a lot of damage to the Democratic party because he was too moderate and too pro-business. Some Democrats proclaim him a great Democrat, etc., I think he is a big part of the reason why the party has fallen away from its principles and why its front running candidates lack any spine. Say what the people like, help business, and you'll be popular.
The only reason I'd vote for Clinton in '08 is because, as far as I've been able to determine, the Republican candidates are fucking nuts.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 23, 2007 12:09 PM
President Hillary Clinton says she's willing to give up some of those extra-constitutional powers the Bushies have usurped.
Maybe. She'll look into it.
Posted by: Dave S. | October 23, 2007 3:00 PM
What... are you forgetting Jeb?? He's gonna run, ain't he? And after his two terms, Chelsea will be of Presidential age...
What's the possibility of B-C-C-B-B-C-C-B-B-C-C?
But you know what I find fascinating the most? It's that not a single person here (that I've noticed) has brought up the fact that there's a good chance that the US of A is about to have its very first female President.
Is anyone old enough to remember Ferraro in 1984 (the year, not the book)? I was just a kid, but I remember how much a big deal people made about her being Mondale's running mate. Now, a major female nominee isn't an issue at all... at least not yet anyway.
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 23, 2007 7:11 PM
I don't think the fact that Clinton is female, or Obamma black is that big of a deal at this point, but if either one ends up being the final party nominee, then it'll be a big deal.
Funny thing is, I have students who are absolutely opposed to a woman or a black man being president. They honestly feel that the president should be white and male. One of the most vocal opponents of the idea of a female president was a female student. Personally I was very surprised ... the non-white students in the class were ... a tad more than surprised...
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 23, 2007 7:34 PM
I'm not sure how much of this criticism of Clinton holds water. On the claim of secrecy, we need only compare the number of FIA requests that were made and satisfactorily fulfilled under the Clinton admin to this one to see the difference. Beyond that, roving wiretaps aren't really the issue with Bush so much as, essentially, his claim that he can wiretap anyone's phones and snoop on anyone's computer if they are attached even remotely to what the executive branch defines as a terrorist organization, without a warrant. All a roving wiretap does is allow a law enforcement body to tap any cell-phone line knowingly attached to a suspect which, considering that without such a tool a criminal can avoid effective prosecution simply by avoiding land-lines, makes sense with todays technology. Clinton did not argue that the FBI did not need a warrant to put one in place. Nor did he argue that the President had the authority to order one to be put in place by an organization who has no jurisdiction to be doing domestic law enforcement work (such as the NSA or the CIA) without even informing a court about it. Those are the problems with what Bush has done wiretap-wise. Clinton never claimed the right to deport people defined as criminals under U.S. law simply because under our rules of evidence they could not be held, or because they could be tortured in the country they're being sent and they can't here, as Bush has done, nor did Clinton ever attempt to define a certain set of criminals as legal non-persons with no rights whatsoever, as Bush has done, nor did he assert the right to remove said individuals to the United States for prosecution, as Bush has done. For that matter, Clinton never claimed the right to define what a criminal is and what improper treatment is without any reference to any legislative or judicial body whatsoever, as Bush has done. Beyond this, there is the dramatic increase in civil-rights abuse investigations within the military that took place under Clinton; it's rather hard to imagine that a womanizer like him would give a damn about whether women were being harassed and raped in the military if he did not hold some respect for civil rights. Compare this to the Bush admin's record on the same issues in the handling of our current military adventure.
I'm not saying Clinton was perfect on these issues. I'd be a fool to deny recorded fact. I just think the difference are greater than you try to make them seem.
Bullfighter:
I used to agree with you on that, but then Ginsberg interpreted a law passed to liberalize land ownership in Hawaii during the early 20th century as saying it was o.k. for a municipal body to seize a person's house, and pay them well below market rate for it (or nothing), so that a city can sell the land for purely commercial use. That case is probably the only one I've ever agreed with one of Scalia's dissents regarding.
Posted by: Julian | October 24, 2007 12:40 AM
@james
The Democrats could just shut down the funding to stop him, but they won't because they are too weak to accept a few extra dead soldiers on their hands, as if their inaction wasn't causing more deaths in the long run.
Yes, they could have. They also could have asked him just to nuke the entire middle-east. Neither of which makes the measure a sensible measure. You claim their inaction is causing more deaths in the long run -more deaths of whom? GIs? Iraqis?
Sorry, James, "In for the goose, in for the gander". You can't just flip a switch and pretend Iraq never happened just because the Democrats have a majority now. And you certainly don't repair America's reputation in the world by publicly declaring that the only lives that really matter are those of people whose passport is blue....
Posted by: Oliver | October 24, 2007 7:10 AM
Yeah, I knew I lost this argument as soon as I read, "because they are too weak to accept a few extra dead soldiers on their hands." In my ignorance I never realized that the Iraq War was actually a reenactment of 300.
This...is...CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Brandon | October 24, 2007 8:51 AM
Sorry for the late reply, I have lost the home connection temporarily and have to use public wifi.
dogmeatib -
The reason it's irrelevant, is that we're talking about libertarians who have never supported bush. People who have as strong an objection as I do, for the two party system and the damage it inflicts on democracy.
Bee -
What the fuck do you want them to do, foster a coup? They act on it by being critical and loud about it. They act on it by not supporting a party that at least nominally claims to have their interests at heart. You act as though they have some special power to change things that no one else does.
Believe me, there is plenty to disagree with, where libertarians are concerned. Lord knows that I do. But at what point is it ok to voice this sort of criticism? Does one have to be a dem to do so? Or merely a liberal? 'Cause I'm not a dem, though I am quite liberal. Of course the flip side is, what restrictions should we be placing on ourselves when it comes to criticizing conservatives and republicans? Fair is fair after all.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 24, 2007 1:02 PM
Oliver: I certainly don't think American lives are more important than others, after all I am not an American. Personally I don't what the best thing to do about Iraq is right now, and since I supported the war origninally it might be best to ignore any suggestion I made.
All I am saying is that the supposedly anti-war Democrats have done nothing to impede the continuation of the war. they are in fact anti-war in rhetoric only.
If Iraq is a terrible traversty in which US soldiers die every day for no good reason then the Democrats should be doing everything required to stop it. If that means a staring contest with Bush, then so be it. The only way to stop a power-hungry executive is to stand up to them, not keep giving them everything they want.
If Iraq is not a high priority then the Democrats should have said so in the 2006 election campaign. They are trying to have it both ways and it annoys me. It also annoys me that may democratic supporters seem to believe that the Democrats are functionally more anti-war than the Republicans.
Brandon: It is the height of moral cowardice to avid an action that would save hundredes of lives just because of chance that a smaller number might die if you act. It means you care more about your clean hands than you care about human life. That attitude is fine int he general public but almost any major policy decision will kill someone by action or inaction. Anyone who cannot deal with that has no place in politics.
Posted by: James | October 25, 2007 12:13 AM
What the fuck do you want them to do, foster a coup?
Isn't it obvious what I want those "libertarians" to do? I expect them to stop supporting a party whose record is the exact antithesis of the libertarian platform; I expect them to stop mindlessly repeating the tired old Randroid mantra of "liberal = socialist = Stalinist = Nazi." I expect them to grow up and stop pretending that everyone who disagrees with them are homogeneous and identical (a mindset they share with that other clueless irrelevant extremist, Ralph W. Nader).
Why can't the "libertarians" simply say that civil liberties are so important, and Republicans so anti-liberty, that they're willing to support Democrats in order to protect them? If you really care about liberty, and about the extraordinary damage Bush has done to our country in general, this should all be simple common sense.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 25, 2007 3:51 PM
Bee -
While I know that there are a lot of libertarians who support the republican party, I don't actually know any of them personally (not that I would say a few email exchanges means I know Balko personally). I know a lot of libertarians and not a one of them votes or supports republicans. They either vote libertarian or, especially in the midterm elections, democrat.
Balko for one, along with Ed and every libertarian I know, has hammered away at the anti-liberty republicans. Some of them have even gone to supporting dems. Personally, though I did vote dem for the midterms, I don't support the dems. I am pro-liberty and find the dems as only slightly better than the repubs in that regard. Nor do I see evidence of them making much of an attempt at actually doing anything about bush's attacks on our liberty. Several months in, no committee hearings. No changes whatever.
Nor have they given any reason to believe that if they take all offices when bush is ousted, that things will really change.
I find all this rather ironic, after Ed's recent post on the absurdity of simplistic dichotomies. The responses that this post has garnered are definitely simplistic and absurd. "Let's all jump on the libertarian, cause he must be a repub apologist." Here's a thought, read him.
I am still waiting to find out why it's ok for me to make the exact same criticisms, but Balko for some reason shouldn't. Who exactly is allowed to criticize Clinton and his abysmal liberties record?
Posted by: DuWayne | October 25, 2007 4:18 PM
First, I am referring to a specific subgroup of people who loudly call themselves "libertarians," but who reflexively support the Republicans because they're too lazy and/or stupid to question their longstanding hatred of all things "liberal." You may not have met any such fools, but I have, on-line at least. I was never referring to ALL libertarians, and you know it.
Second, you also know I'm not saying who is ALLOWED to say this or that; I was questioning the intelligence, honesty, and priorities reflected in certain statements. There's a difference.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 25, 2007 5:52 PM
Bee -
The point is that you made such references about someone who is not any of that. Yes, I too have seen such morons online. But reflectively assuming that anyone who makes criticisms of Clinton, the way that Radley did, is that sort, especially when even in statements that he made that you quoted, he was clearly more critical of bush than of Clinton. So no, I don't know you weren't referring to all libertarians. You were certainly using such language to describe someone who is expressly not one of those libertarians.
Second, you also know I'm not saying who is ALLOWED to say this or that; I was questioning the intelligence, honesty, and priorities reflected in certain statements. There's a difference.
Read, you were criticizing someone not for the arguments they were making, but because of some assumed motivations behind them. Assumptions that happen to be off the mark by a long shot. But hey, who's counting?
Posted by: DuWayne | October 25, 2007 6:06 PM
Raging Bee, just now:
Raging Bee, three days ago:
To recap, if Raging Bee misinterprets someone, it's that someone's fault. If someone misinterprets Raging Bee, it's ... still that someone's fault. How tidy.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 25, 2007 10:35 PM
Bee rages:
As others have pointed out, those "libertarians" don't find the Democrats all that much of an improvement. Just look at their performance in the current Democrat controlled congress. They may as well still be the minority party. The Keystone Cops routine over the past few years doesn't exactly fill this foreigner with confidence.
I think Clinton has a decent chance of being the next President. That fact however doesn't fill me with hope as far as liberties are concerned. She can hardly be worse than what's in there now, but that's a bar so low an aphid could jump it. So to sum up, no filling with hope or confidence.
It's all fun and games when the Republicans are attacked, but when the Dems are likewise criticised, then some folk go apeshit. How can you be shocked by this view? It's not like Ed has ever hid it.
Posted by: Dave S. | October 26, 2007 7:02 AM
Ed,
Haven't we gone over this before? Here's the difference:
Yes, Clinton went to Congress asking for more power and yes, Clinton went to Court making outrageous claims of executive privilege just as Bush has done.
Here's the difference: when Bush has been turned down by Congress or the Courts, he's just done whatever the hell he's wanted to do anyway. Clinton wanted to change the laws to get more powers. Bush just took the powers he could get, illegally, and has used every trick in the book to stymie any serious discussion of what he's actually been doing.
Does that make Bush worse than Clinton? Yes, by quite a bit.
Posted by: RickD | October 26, 2007 7:23 AM