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

46 answers

He was a very dishonest president.

2006-09-14 09:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Ray 7 · 0 1

History will judge Bill Clinton to be one of our worst presidents, Bush 41 below average, and Bush 43 in the top quartile.

2006-09-16 16:26:02 · answer #2 · answered by Answers1 6 · 0 0

ALL Presidents have extenuating circumstances with regards to the America they serve(d). (different times--different challenges)

Instead, Americans should stop the politics and realize the world doesn't care if they kill Democrat Americans or Republican Americans --rich or poor, hetero- or homo-sexual. Some of America's enemies do not even care if they kill themselves in the process.

America needs to unite as one. This isn't a statement to unite under a Clinton or a Bush, but unite as give and take-- a common philosophy that ensures our survival.

2006-09-14 10:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by Teacher Man 6 · 1 0

Yes. When Clinton left office, the federal deficit was at its lowest level since Eisenhower and we weren't at war anywhere. He also eliminated a lot of the red tape that frustrated people. He just couldn't keep his pants zipped.

Bush has given the largest federal deficit ever and got us into two wars. He's created red tape with the medicaid prescription plan and given tax breaks to the rich at a time when we need every cent we can get for his wars. On top of this, he's cut judicial oversight out of spying issues and spied on Americans who have absolutely no connection to terrorism. He's also tried to get permanent control of the National Guard. For the first time in my life I am scared of the White House.

2006-09-14 10:09:53 · answer #4 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 1 0

Yup. Peace, prosperity, and a balanced budget rate big. The intern was giving him head, he lied about it, and everything falls apart.

Bush started an unnecessary war. He cut taxes, but the very wealthy benefitted the most. The government is borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for the budget shortfall resulting from these tax cuts. Cheney said that future revenues will cut the deficit by 50%...in 2009! (Whoopee!)

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar (Yale and Oxford). Bush went to Yale and Harvard on his family's money and influence, but he can't string words together to form a sentence (unless it's written for him).

2006-09-14 10:05:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes. I think President Bush is an idiot for too many reasons to list. Americans were too caught up with who Clinton slept with, and that is an issue that only Hillary should be concerned with.

2006-09-14 09:57:40 · answer #6 · answered by GreenEyedSista 4 · 1 0

Boy you sure stirred up a hornets nest!! - Kind of a stupid question .... because you cannot compare the two - not even as Presidents - they both had different agendas - one to be loved forever (like Kennedy) and one to be remember forever (like Roosevelt) Remember, poor George is still trying to win the war for his father - and Clinton is trying to clean up his act so Hillary can RUN AND WIN the next election...

2006-09-14 10:04:43 · answer #7 · answered by peaches 5 · 1 0

He had a better Foreign Policy, but liked to make the middle class pay through the nose in taxes and give it to people who don't work (ie the earned income credit). All in all I would say Clinton was a better president though.

2006-09-14 09:58:06 · answer #8 · answered by ♠KPT STYLE♠ 6 · 2 0

UMMMMMMM, LET ME THINK ABOUT IT???? Of course Bill Clinton was better, the economy was never better. He was a great diplomat, we weren't in any ridiculous wars. Everyone had a job, he made great strides towards alternative fuels and saving the environment. Bush can up heave the entire World to the brink of WW3, but Clinton gets a B.J. and they try to impeach his ***, ridiculous....

2006-09-14 10:00:48 · answer #9 · answered by boogatt66 3 · 1 0

Bill Clinton was lightyears better than both George Bush's combined...and that was on one of his bad days.

2006-09-14 09:59:01 · answer #10 · answered by spackler 6 · 1 0

Overall, yes. I am not what you'd call a Clinton fan (I didn't vote for him either time) but I was never under the impression that he was merely a puppet on strings. (Sure, people like to say that Hilary was the real president, and I'm sure she played an active role in decisionmaking, but I still believe that he was the one truly in charge, not her.) Conversely, I have never believed the GW was even remotely his own man. It's apparent that he was selected to be a presedential nominee by people who wanted to be in charge, but couldn't have gotten themselves elected (Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.) He's a stuffed shirt, that's all.

2006-09-14 09:56:48 · answer #11 · answered by yossarius 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers