Monica
2006-08-07 05:31:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by alaskanecho 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
All I know is that during Clinton's presidency,
things were "sure a lot better."
My portfolio was earning 60% a year.
Gas prices were at around $1.30/gallon (in california!!!)
There were fewer Corporate fraud cases (such as Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
There was no 9/11
there was no katrina
american soldiers weren't getting murdered or placed carelessly in the crossfire of any civil war.
Mother nature knew that Clinton's leadership was better for the environment.
Then, this perfect world was ruined by the Republicans all because of a cigar and an intern.
If the Republicans really cared about what "was best for their country", they would have put a lid on the Lewinsky Scandal and let the president finish off his term in grace.
Because of the "politics" the Republicans wasted his final two years turning the government into a circus which of course allowed the focus on terrorism to fall into the cracks of shallow CIA bureaucracy.
2006-08-07 05:35:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tones 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
FYI, Clinton actually CONVICTED more Al Queda suspects than Bush did. Clinton's admin caught Ramsei Yousef who was responsible for the first WTC bombing, and Tim McVeigh/Terry Nichols for the OKC bombing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsi_Yousef
Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.
In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.
2006-08-07 05:32:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Iomegan 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
A balanced budget...EIGHT STRAIT YEARS...no Republican before or since even attempted that. We are now farther in debt than we have ever been. It's not even talked about anymore.
Erasure of a record debt left behind by Ronnie Raygun and "No vision" Bush I. Unfortunately Bush II has blown that away with his No Vision wars.
The rebirth of true volunteerism and higher education. He also offered a vision of America which made America a true world leader by expanding Democracy through economics rather than trying to expand it through violence...it was working.
Clinton could have accomplished so much more but the Republicans took out a "Contract on America" in 1994 when they took over congress and forced him to spend all his energy on defending himself from an illegal bl*w job and blocking their agenda of insanity...which has been like a runaway train since January 2001. It was precisely this which caused America to loose track of the Al Qaida threat...he was forbidden invasion of Afghanistan, by the Republican congress, after the 1998 bombings in Africa.
The Republican congress which you are so proud of deserves more of the blame for 9/11/2001 than Clinton does because their only focus was trying to destroy Bill Clinton when it should have been trying to reign in Al Qaida WITH Clinton.
Guess what ALL of the responsible Republicans (including BushFoon) will be in prison shortly for the truly illegal/immoral things they did to consolidate and expand their power over the last 10 years.
2006-08-07 06:02:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Perry L 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nafta: Free trade across the americas. Note Bush is trying to expand this after protesting the original bill.
Global leadership: Clinton was an incredible negotiator who was capable of getting support globally. While under clinton, american citizens and business had unprecedented mobility in the world. Under the bush administration administration american mobillity is significantly hindered under the weight of overwhelming anti-US sentiment. Note that Clinton was capable of staging a nubmer of successful military campaings without engendering US hatred (Kosovo, Bosnia, to name 2). Leadership is getting your policies effected while maintaining support of your allies and the team that follows you. Clinton excelled at leadership; bush's track record is deviseiveness, and thus the opposite.
Economic Policy: Clinton mantained an economic policy that employed moderate spending with infrastructure upgrades. The result was a blossoming economy that won the praise of John Dilulo, the former Bush economic advisor who resigned after saying the administration was on the wrong track. Bush meanwhile has excercised an economic policy characterized by removal of money from the consumer spenders, excess government spending, and no infrastructure upgrades to speak of (malaysia just built a better data pipe than we, the richest country in the world, have). Local and foriegn investments are about 2/3 of what they were under clinton.
The list goes on. This question is an example of what is called 'talking points,' a republican marketing strategy. There is no weight to it, but as a marketing gimic, its effective.
2006-08-07 05:43:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by john_lewin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The attacks by al qaeda were in response to him shutting down a chemical weapon plant of Bin Laden in Morocco. It was a major blow to Bin in his terror network. He had never been even checked since the CIA funded him while run by George Bush Sr. to the tune of 3 billion dollars. Mostly to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan so Citgo and the Bush family and Bin Laden family through their joint venture Carlyle group could build a pipeline across northern Afghanistan, which they did. This is why the Russians wanted that country. However Bin Laden supported by a number of Mideast people turned on the US after numerous activities we did. Clinton broke his back heavily during his terms. Al qaeda struck back as best it could with what remained. Bin Laden exiled to the place that supported him in Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan. According to the 911 commission Bush's cabinet members were asked why nothing was done to Bin Laden since Clinton was in office. None had an intelligent response. Not even to the repeated warnings that we were going to be attacked with airlines. Rice said the security warnings were too vague. This in action led to the biggest attack on US soil and was predicted. The earlier trade center bombing had no warnings. When they originally were attacked under Clinton that brought a heavy response. Clinton is the closet person to actually killing Bin Laden missing him only be 30 minutes in a missile attack. Yet in the summer of 2001 Bush had Bin Laden in his sights with a drone plane but never permitted the attack. This also was asked during the 911 commission.
Clinton also helped the high tech industry and left office with a 300 million dollar surplus. He also had a health care plan for everyone that by all statistics when people are taken care of, even crime reduces. He also had a plan that by 2005 social security would have been fixed. Now under Bush it has to be privatized since he has blown all the budget and money fighting Iraq.
So how can you compare Clinton as a bad president when Bush allowed 911 to happen, in business with the Bin Laden family, he waged war in a country that had nothing to do with 911 and basically has handed Iraq to Iran, and allowed Enron to steal millions by deregulating electricity?
No president is perfect by far but you do have ones that actually tried to fix things and not use their office as a business deal.
2006-08-07 05:56:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Fantasy Girl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
A number of years of uninterrupted economic growth.
Not getting involved in immoral wars against countries who do
not attack us.
A quiet Israel
As far as your view of his sitting by vs. AlQaeda. Your lack of memory is typical. While he was being pressed for impeachment,
The United States launched a cruise missile strike against Afghanistan. That was met with cries from Bush Lamebrian that the administration was trying to divert attention from his character flaw. Do you remember that "Character Counts". How do you reconcile that with Carl Rove and the Plame Affair, Scooter Libby, Bob Ney, Lying about Iraq, and,and,and........
How about the Clinton administration exit interview warning the Bush crowd about AlQaeda only to be offered the deaf ear.
2006-08-07 05:46:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Flagger 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
he ratified the constitution to redefine and allow certain forms of torture to detainees in others countries and here, which allows us to violate international and our own mi;liyary laws as we hold detainees indefinitely and give euphemistic names for torture such as waterboarding,which sounds kinda fun,and George Bush is the president whose watch it is happening under, so we can vilify Republicans ,when Democrats are just sneaky *** republicans when they think no one is looking (on the down low),they are paid to represent corporate interests by the same lobbyists as republicans.
this administration did just not happen when George Bush came into office it has been an evolving process, and if you want coherent answers maybe you should ask coherent questions.
stereotyping, and labelling others is dehumanizing and vilifying a particular group with similar political views and stereotyping them as all sharing the same thought processes,is offensive, ignorant,and provokes defensive or negative responses.if you would like to argue then try using logic not arguementum ad hominem and asking leading questions,or tacit implications, like liberals will give incoherent,or inarticulate answers unless prompted to otherwise when we could say the same about conservatives among other things, but it is pointless and gets us nowhere. try finding common ground with others,treating them with the same dignity that you expect to recieve,and using the rules of debate or arguement one would use in a critical thinking or debate setting if you wish to establish real dialog or truly seeking understanding of someone else's view point.
2006-08-07 05:47:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not a very big fan of Bill but............
Bill Clinton Huge Surplus
George Bush Huge deficit
Bill Clinton 8 years of peace
George Bush 5 years of on edge war and global chaos
I think these are the most notable things
2006-08-07 06:38:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by DEEJay 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He never got high on his own supply!
No, just kidding. His biggest accomplishment was appeasing Kim Jong Il. Kim Jong Il threatened to persue nuclear weapons, and Bill got on his knees in submission and sent N Korea food and money to feed their starving people.
Making the US N Korea's servant was Bill Clinton's biggest achievement.
2006-08-07 05:37:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He got the country out of debt from 12 years of ReaganBush and left the country with a surplus.
That whole Monica Lewinsky incident
2006-08-07 05:32:55
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋