[KellyAdmirer]

Clinton would never declare war in the Middle East because it might have disrupted the economy. His vicious attacks on President Bush's handling of the economy is why he was elected, and the fortuitously good market/economic performance during his tenure is the only real thing he can point to as a success during his presidency (of course, subsequent events call some of that into question).

If Clinton had invaded a Middle Eastern country, the oil taps might have been turned off and the economy sent into recession. Then, he would have had nothing to point to except extramarital escapades. In other words, he would have had to show some guts and perhaps alienate some people who voted for him, and he could never bring himself to do that.

President Bush has no such self-imposed restrictions and will make the tough decisions. That is why he is a better man for the Presidency.

[Frank_Discussion]

"Clinton would never declare war in the Middle East because it might have disrupted the economy. His vicious attacks on President Bush's handling of the economy is why he was elected, and the fortuitously good market/economic performance during his tenure is the only real thing he can point to as a success during his presidency (of course, subsequent events call some of that into question)."

Fortuitous? Naw, he knew most of what he was doing, of that issue I'm pretty confident. Remember his mantra:

"It's the economy, stupid!"

His admin focused on that at the expense of everything else, and he knew even the artificial nature of the 90's "boom" would bust someday. Nothing else mattered, all was sacrificed on the money pyre. Perhaps the mantra should have been:

"It's the economy? (Stupid.)"