2006-10-11 06:29:31 · 25 answers · asked by Matthew I 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Um... NO.
The economy flourished. We were respected around the world.
Heck, had the Republicans, and "holier-than-thou-ites" not been so focused on the man receiving oral sex while DOING his job, Osama Bin Laden would have been killed almost a decade ago.
Clinton never got us into a seemingly un-ending war. (think Vietnam and/or Iraq) Clinton had the national intelligence to investigate when things went down. Under his watch those behind the first WTC bombing as well as those that bombed the Cole, the OKC Fed. building and our embassies overseas were ALL investigated and most were resolved.
Once again, I remind people that when missles were sent into Afghanistan the vast majority of conservatives called it "The tail wagging the dog." They mocked about how it wasn't about justice as much as it was about distracting the media from the "Lewinsky scandle." No, it was about finding and eliminating the man called Bin Laden BEFORE most of us had a clue who he was.
To Compare President Clinton to another "leader" in the White House... When trouble hit, who addressed it, and who stayed in a class room reading storybooks about goats.
Which President went after Bin Laden and which one went after the man that embarrassed his daddy?
Which President cut the debt and eliminated the deficit and which one increased BOTH?
Which one let North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons programs?
Which one eased Israel and it's neighbors toward peace and which steered them to war?
Perhaps Bill Clinton cheated on his wife... but at least he did it while doing his JOB. Personally, I prefer that than to our Commander in Cheif being on vacation while a major port city and tens of thousands of lives lives are destroyed.
That does not bring up the failed policies of George the first, the Vietnam fiasco created and fostered by Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Do I need to mention the lame duck years of Gerald Ford? The lack of progress, economic and energy woes or the hostages in Iran that marred the Carter years? The energy crisis under Nixon and Ford?
again.... the answer to your question is a resounding "NO."
2006-10-11 06:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by baseballfan 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He wasn't. That honor would go to Wilson or FDR. Someone said Hoover, and he wasn't anything great, but my God..FDR presided over the Depression until death. And admitted to continuing Hoover policies. LBJ was pretty terrible too. I'd still have to consider it Wilson or probably FDR. The only thing Clinton did that would put him as a contender...if this is what you're getting at, is basically letting 9/11 happen. He had multiple opportunities to apprehend Bin Laden, but refused to do so. When that plane crashed in the White House lawn, people joked it was his intelligence chief trying to get an audience with him. His former advisor Dick Morris, says he saw eye to eye with Clinton on every issue but one...terrorism. He plainly said Clinton did not take it seriously. Clinton's actions were noted by Osama himself. Or lack of action, rather. Clinton stated himself he let Bin Laden slip through his fingers, though it was more like at least twice, maybe three times. So that's pretty bad. But I still can't place him as worst, honestly. A Fascist like Wilson(and FDR supported many of his atrocious policies) is a better candidate, by miiiiiiiiles.
2016-03-28 05:06:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Among second half 20th century presidents, AT A MINIMUM, Carter, Ford, LBJ, and probably Nixon were worse than both Clinton and G.W. Bush.
But then, most Yahoo Answerers don't remember any of these earlier presidents firsthand.
2006-10-11 06:54:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jamestheflame 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I don't think so. I will say I was disappointed that he lied on the stand, but he didn't do anything that a lot of other presidents haven't done and will continue to do. He just got caught. Take a look at our present president and then ask the question about him.
2006-10-11 06:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, Clinton was a Newbie compared to Reagan. He was such a handsome and trustworthy Pres. you wanted to believe everything he said. What about when he promised the American People on TV, that he wouldn't trade arms for hostages, during the Iraqi Hostage Crisis! I,m sure Reagon would have a few more for company if he started his own Presidential "Shaftfitters" Club!
2006-10-11 06:53:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope Bush is one of the worst presidents .........Clinton looks like an angel when compared with bush....
2006-10-11 09:29:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's an awful lot of competition...
But he surely showed serious judgement problems.
Can you imagine risking your marriage AND the presidency over Monica Lewinsky????
Geez...I wouldn't hit on her if I was intoxicated.
Of course, I can't look at a humidor now without laughing.
2006-10-11 06:39:44 · answer #7 · answered by mmd 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, one of the very worst, along with the two Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and Kennedy
2006-10-11 06:46:54 · answer #8 · answered by Nitrous McBread 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, I believe we are currently experiencing THE worst President EVER.
2006-10-11 06:38:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
He was one of the best, even better than the current. Proof is in the war and potential wars to come.
2006-10-11 06:40:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋