English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ok libs why does he suck? What has he done that is so horrible? Led us into war? What about Bill Clinton and Kosovo? Lied? What about Bill Clinton and the blue dress. He has never sold missile guidance to the Chinese (Bill Clinton did and yes the Chinese do hate us) Even when President Clinton was in office and I disagreed with most of his policies I still refused to bash him personally.

2006-07-03 09:57:49 · 29 answers · asked by Ethan M 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Lawless, Yes I do admit that President Clinton was a better public speaker, and so was Hitler, so what?

2006-07-03 10:04:00 · update #1

29 answers

I believe it is because the people of this nation are doing far worse on a whole now as when Bill Clinton was in office. We still have homeless people from Katrina, a "Scandal" where all the FEMA money went. The Federal Government put the blame on the people who misused the funds, but the real scoundrels are the Fed's who had control of it in the first place. The Border problem that has been growing since 911, but in reality was a problem long before that. We went to Afghanistan to pursue Osama, yet all we ended up doing was overthrowing Saddam, while Osama is still wandering around, supposedly with his dialysis machine wrecking havoc, albeit not in America as of yet.

How can we feel safe knowing he's out there, when Bush has seemed to forget all about him, because he has bigger fish to fry?

2006-07-04 05:30:43 · answer #1 · answered by rascal 4 · 1 1

The wars Bill Clinton got us in didn't cost 320 billion dollars that could have went to better securing the country domestically, the national debt is at a all-time high. Though he claims to be helping the country he refuses to crack down on illegal immigration and took money from the very cities that were attack on september 11th.

Also who is to say Bush hasn't lied about Iraq or anything else, im sure Clinton has lied about more stuff then the public has heard about and so has Bush, but honestly which would you rather have, a president who tried to cover up an affair in the white house or paying $3.50 a galllon at the gas pump.

Plus he knew congress wouldn't approve of a pointless war so he went around them and didnt declare war but called it "armed conflict"

2006-07-03 10:32:58 · answer #2 · answered by Lil G 2 · 0 0

Ya know...it's not that he's dumb or ugly and yeah he lied. He didn't lead us into war...he lead us into armed conflict (ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR and that didn't happen). That said...His lie did exactly that lead us into conflict with many fighting and dying daily and for what (Democracy?)? Clinton should have lied and most men would have also in order to a) protect the woman involved in the affair; and b) to try and save their marriage. So far as Kosovo goes that was a justifiable action...If you can prove to Bush's action is justifiable than you'd be a Republican Hero. So far as the Chinese go...my wife and her family are Chinese and they don't hate us...they don't trust us...but that isn't hate. FYI the Missle guidance system sold to the Chinese was based on 1960's era technology and isn't anywhere near the latest and greatest. It was a good way for Clinton to pass along a few more bucks to the defense industry.

2006-07-03 10:16:08 · answer #3 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 0 0

I do not bash GWB. I don't like him for what I consider valid reasons. He has a total disregard for the Constitution. He deals out of arrogance with foreign countries. He lies and well. Clinton did go to Kosovo, with the UN troops,and we participate as part of their group. GWB couldn't get approval from the UN. I would say that's because. Osama is a Saudi, most of the terrorists who took over the planes on 9/11 were Saudis. Osama operates out of Afghanistan. I would say they said no to Iraq because -- IRAQ wasn't involved in 9/11!!! And the UN new he had no usable WMD regardless of what Bush said. Clinton did lie about Monica, a mistake which did not hurt this country's children in the military, just a question of his own morality. Bush sent our kids to fight in a country we shouldn't have gone into, and he convinced this country by blatant lies. That's a whole other ball game. As for the Chinese they were approached by a Rep. Pres Nixon and deals were made that were honored by subsequent Presidents. Besides even if the don't like us they won't rock the economic boat.See and I said all of that without bashing.

2006-07-03 10:11:24 · answer #4 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 0 0

How 'bout power grabbing useful idiot for the war profiteers Cheney and Rumsfeld? Is that acceptable.

Lets see, your little facts on Clinton. Clinton never sold missile guidance systems to the Chinese, the "spy" responsible for that leak was later exonnerated and apologized to, too bad no neo-con pundit covered that embarrassment. Besides, with Wal-Mart buying nearly $300 Billion in Chinese goods, I think they quite like our fat butts, maybe even love them.

You want to talk dangerous stuff, talk about Rumsfeld's sale of nuclear material to North Korea during the Clinton years while Rummy was head of a private firm.

Bill Clinton and Kosovo...let's see...oh yeah, all the MASS GRAVES we DID find from the genocide Clinton said we were going in to stop, which we did in full cooperation with our NATO allies and UN blessing...beats those mystery WMD's hands down.

What did he lie about again...oh yeah, a blue dress! No wait, it was about a bj. I guess it's the one thing you can never accuse a conservative of doing.

2006-07-03 10:07:54 · answer #5 · answered by lostinromania 5 · 0 0

Maybe it's because none of his policies have worked. His foreign policy is a joke. His domestic policy is what we in the military lovingly call a flail-ex. All he's done is reward the rich by waging class warfare against the middle and lower classes.

You cite Kosovo in your details but you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. We attacked Kosovo whilst the country was in the midst of genocide and we put a stop to it. We attacked Iraq because of atrocities committed back in the late 80's. I've noticed a lot of cons saying that we discovered WMDs in Iraq as of late, but what they convienently overlook is that the administration has even said that these are not the WMD we went into Iraq to remove.

2006-07-03 10:35:52 · answer #6 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0 0

Because they have no direction.
Bush 1and 2 both offered a direction as did Regan. They were leaders.
Clinton, Carter had no plans, no vision and offered no direction.
They were not leaders.
A child with no direction, seldom turns out well.
The Libs, or Democrats still have not found a cohesive platform to run on. They can only throw out slander and untruths in hopes of confusing people. I believe they are the reason why so many Americans don't bother to vote. They confuse the potential voters and even confuse themselves.

2006-07-03 10:09:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's not just "libs" calling him dumb & ugly. Bush is the least "conservative" Republican this country has seen in a long, long time. He has ballooned the deficit, screwed up the Supreme Court, taken us into an (unprovoked, unilateral) military operation, and can't even pronounce "nuclear" even after three years practice! Even if I liked the guy, I'd still be ashamed of the way he has made us look to the rest of the world! (And yes, we do have to care about the rest of the world, that's where we buy all our sh*t from now, and it's who borrows our money!)

2006-07-03 10:06:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush sucks because he represents a very small minority of very rich people. He has done a lot to make wealthy Americans better off and he has made more Americans poorer. He has done nothing of substance to resolve world issues. The only major act was to start a war under false pretences. I can still not figure out whether he started the war to help his friends in the defence industry or was it the oil industry. Bush looks after the money people and they look after him,

2006-07-04 06:32:46 · answer #9 · answered by paul1953uk 3 · 0 0

in the adventure that they impeach the Shrub for what he did will they flow back in historic previous and impeach others retroactively? for instance will they get Wilso for mendacity about the sinking of a pair boats? Or FDR or stupidly left each and every of the boats at Pearl Harbor? Or LBJ for mendacity about the Gulf of Tonkin? a lot extra human beings died in those Democrat wars than will ever die contained in the Shrubs. an aspect be conscious Clinton did not stability the budget. He like something else of his crooked cronies stole from the social safe practices and medicare surplus to make the budget look balanced. i visit gauarantee you if this were finished in deepest company al in touch will be doing time in reformatory.

2016-10-14 02:20:22 · answer #10 · answered by chardip 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers