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

Bush II or Clinton?

2006-07-31 18:10:42 · 24 answers · asked by N.J. 2 in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

There is no doubt that Clinton is the better president. History will prove this. Many historians now estimate that Bush II will land in the worst five presidents of all time. Clinton's foreign policy was by no means genius, but Bush's is the worst in the post-Vietnam era. Thus we only really have domestic policy to go on - and even Forbes magazine agrees that Clinton ran the best economy the nation has seen since WWII.

Hands down - Clinton. Anyone who believes that the current administration is anywhere near competent is simply delusional.

2006-07-31 18:17:35 · answer #1 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 3 3

Well kids, lets try to get past the dog and pony show… GWB is an Ignorant, Greedy SOB, with a very simple agenda - money and power at any cost. It’s true of his entire family, and started many generations ago… Just do the research.

The United States President has only one specific job…!

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How’s GWB doing on this one job... to protect our constitution..?

Absolutely everything (Policy-wise) that you insult Clinton for was approved by a Republican Congress.
Absolutely every thing that we despise GWB for was approved by a Republican Congress.
Bill Clinton was Impeached (indicted and investigated) by a Republican Congress, which effectively politically castrated him for his entire last term.
GWB has NEVER been placed under oath regarding 9-11, Iraq or anything else by this Republican Congress.

Bottom line, the Republican Cult and its followers (supporters, voters, etc) are guilty of war crimes.

Everyone that voted for and continues to support these criminals are EXACTLY the people that placed Hitler in power and kept him there. Bush supporters are no better than Nazis, and actually quite worse, because we have the benefit of recent history (just 65 years ago) to use as our guide and not repeat the same mistakes.

The moment you stop researching the FACTS yourself… start believing the spin and lies of the Corporate (Republican owned) Media… and call a war criminal a great president …you become a Nazi.

Wake up…! GWB is the worst president in history, simply because he’s the greediest president in history… The best thing that could happen to our United States would be his impeachment, a proper investigation, and finally his removal from office.

GWB doesn't care about you... He just wants your vote, and will use any trick to get it.

Oh to answer the question FDR for sure..

But for the record, I will not vote for Hillary... because she would shred our only Constitution to save a damn piece of fabric (a cheap copy of our current flag) purely for political gain.

2006-07-31 23:32:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

GWB, it is real easy to say how easy life was when Clinton was in office but during the 90's we let our guard down and now Bush is forced to make the unpopular decisions that make people uneasy.

Clinton gave the Nuclear technology to North Korea that they now point at us.

Clinton authorized the sale of long range missile technology to China forever making out shores more vulnerable.

Clinton let Saddam get away with kicking out UN inspectors (several times)and only acted when his but was on the line because of the Lewinsky deal

Clinton tried in a court of Law some of the people who were responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing.

Clinton was credited with keeping a surplus, however most of this can be attributed to capital gains taxes collected from Day Traders for worthless Internet stock that all went bust and then got carried over into bush's presidency as capital losses.

2006-07-31 18:22:05 · answer #3 · answered by Arvadaman 3 · 0 0

Clinton, of course. That's a really easy one. Bush has been one of the very worst of all time. His abyssmal national security record alone should disqualify him from the Presidency.

That being said, the real problem at hand is the House of Representatives. If you're not paying attention to this fall's elections yet, you'd better start. If we don't clean up the House, even a good President elected in 2008 will be ineffective at best.

2006-08-01 01:51:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Clinton

2006-07-31 18:17:20 · answer #5 · answered by profile image 5 · 0 0

I would have to say Bush though neither should have been elected but that being said.
If you look at the clinton years they really didnt do much most of the good that happened while he was in office was actually from former presidents and there policies either taking effect or there effect finaly being seen.
Both presidents have made mistakes there has never been a president alive who hasn't. But you have to look at not just there actions but the actions of the rest of washington and whats going on in the world.
Bush just so happens to have polititons everywhere he looks trying to make themselves look good intsead of making america look good and working to get the job done.
For everything on his table you gotta admit he's doin ok.........

Clinton ran the best ecconomy since wwII only becuase of the actions of previouse presidents......

2006-07-31 18:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by wardancer 3 · 0 0

I think Clinton was a better President than GWB for the World at large as we were far more at peace with eachother then compared to now.
With more natural calamity's like Tsunami, earth quacks, floods, volcanic eruptions, heat waves, cold waves, hurricanes, wild fires throughout the world, that we are forced to deal with now more than ever before, we certainly could have done with little less focus on war front. GWB 's War against terrorism- yes but certainly not war against Iraq as Saddam, The dictator was in power for 30 years- don't tell me know one knew about the atrocities he commit ed against his own people and suddenly Junior GWB decided to get rid of after 9/11. Saddam could have been used to fight Al Qieda instead like USA is using Israel to fight Hezbollah's now.

2006-07-31 18:36:34 · answer #7 · answered by Joan s 1 · 0 0

Clinton. I highly disagree with what he did with those females, and think it is a disgrace. But he did a far superior job as president and like someone said, didn't get anyone killed with his lies. I'm sure he didn't think that he talks to God either. But I think a monkey could do a better job than the moron we have in the whitehouse now.

And I'm a republican saying this mind you. Or at least I was in national affairs. Now I'm only republican in state and local affairs. Unless I disagree, then I'll vote for the better person.

2006-07-31 18:23:48 · answer #8 · answered by Syed H 2 · 0 0

a million) we would have caught and/or killed Osama Bin encumbered quicker, if we never had invaded Iraq - T or F fake There could be no ordinary answer to this. every person who says authentic, the place do you get that form of information from? 2) Ousting Saddam Hussein from ability became no longer properly surely worth the trillions of greenbacks spent and the loads of soldier's lives lost - T or F fake 3) there has been no data from the CIA or defense force intelligence to point that Saddam Hussein had connections with al-Qaeda - T or F fake 4) promptly after 9/11, human beings have been extra vulnerable of being manipulated via concern - T or F authentic 5) alongside with Medicare and Social protection, defense force spending is actual certainly one of the biggest source of costs of the U.S. funds - T or F authentic, besides the undeniable fact that this is a obligatory cost 6) Invading Iraq became the worst defense force determination any Commander in chief has made interior the historic previous of the U.S. - T or F fake

2016-11-03 10:37:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not very fond of either. Clinton had it easy because he tried to sweep everything under the rug. Now Bush has to deal with it and he has had a hard time.

2006-07-31 18:17:32 · answer #10 · answered by haterade 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers