"The economy was not in recession when clinton took over."
There was one quarter of growth before the Clinton presidency. It takes at least two in a row for the economy to be considered out of recession.
"The economy was not in great shape when he left."
After 8 solid years of sustained growth which saw out economy nearly double in size we elected a new president and the recession started approximately 3 quarters into his presidency.
"The terror attacks were planned and initiated during clinton's admin."
Pathetic. This happened nearly a year into Bush's presidency and you still try to blame Clinton. Clinton made efforts to get Bin Laden but he got no help from his republican Congress, who were far more concerned with who the president was having sex with than with stopping the terrorist threat.
"The trouble in Israel today is directly attributable to clinton's failed summit in August of 2000."
This is truly a despicable comment. You act as if the violence over there started the day Clinton tried to help settle the issues? What a crock of shit! Clinton had the courage to bring all the parties together to try and solve one of the toughest problems on the planet, and he would have succeeded had it not been for the horrible palestinian leadership.
Bush has simply tried to hide from the problem while the killing goes on and on. Funny thing too, any attempts he has made to speak about a final settlement are all based on the framework Clinton negotiated.
"And finally, the economy is clearly in recovery today."
"Clearly" is not an accurate description. There are a few good signs and a few bad ones. Your post makes the journalists you berate seem like very balanced and wise individuals.
Current Events » in reply to More fundamentally is the big time journalist's laziness.
So I'm not accused of ignoring inaccurate talking points I'll say now your post is BS
