I'm not a USA citizen. What I say is hearsay. A friend told me that Republican leaders said about Clinton: "He's not my president!" Now - if you criticize Bush - you are disloyal to your country, because you "criticize your president".
I think that Clinton - with all his faults - was a better president for the USA. The budget was much better, the world was less antagonistic towards the USA and there was less war mongering.
2006-09-10 20:09:03 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You're right about about the world during Clinton's time
I would agree with you about Bush as would the majority of Americans.
But as far as the "patriotism" being called into question when an American questions their president is just ignorance. One of the most patriotic things an American can do is question and even speak out against their president. The President answers to EVERY American. We above all others should know our own constitution and history. This country was born on a desire for Freedom and disobedience.
I LOVE this country, but do i think it's the best? Why do we always have to qualify everything? I DO think we could learn a thing or two from others in the world though. Having the power we do also carries the weight of some great responsibility...a responsibility that I don't think the Bush administration takes seriously.
-------
And in answer to WESTERN DUDES post:
You are correct about the abhoration of the act in Yugoslavia. But let us not forget who SUPPORTED it. Namely the countries of NATO and the act was overall smiled upon by The United Nations as the end of a brutal dictatorship where Milošević committed GENOCIDE.
The United Nation was the primary relief agency for the refugees that escaped with their lives. And Clinton made sure to act because the biggest regret he had in his administration was the inaction during the Rwanda and Burundi genocide.
Milošević is now considered (and rightly so) amongst the ranks of Stalin and Hitler.
The War mongering you refer to was a retaliation on a very humanitarian basis. Where as REAL war mongering would imply INSTIGATING a war, which Clinton didn't do in this case.
2006-09-10 20:23:21 · answer #1 · answered by nutsack.jack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh really? Less war mongering? Do you remember that Clinton lead NATO's illegal aggression against Yugoslavia? There, he supported terrorists allied with Al Qaeda and Iran. And the world was not happy with the US for it. There were protests all around the world in support of Yugoslavia. Even America's usually staunch ally Israel spoke out on behalf of Yugoslavia, and the aggression was denounced by major world powers China and Russia.
2006-09-11 03:14:51 · answer #2 · answered by Benjamin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am also not from or in US, and overall I agree. I think Clinton was not perfect, but he was certainly a better ambassador for the US and US interests than Bush is.
2006-09-11 04:32:20 · answer #3 · answered by Sincere Questioner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well first you should be consistent yourself. You are trying to compare presernt working president to ex which itself is wrong. How can you compare response to an ex President with the running one?
2006-09-11 03:15:25 · answer #4 · answered by webmaster@complete-webs.com 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is none. Politics is NEVER consistant. It's a contact sport- where the other "guy" is always the "loser..."- & there is no honor among thieves.
2006-09-11 03:18:55 · answer #5 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'Slick Willy' was riding the Reagan/Bush I wave in the economics. Programs THAT idiot put in place have us where we are today.
As for 'consistency?' Yeah, we have it -- politicians CONSISTENTLY LIE!!
2006-09-11 03:18:02 · answer #6 · answered by Lonnie P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋