do you think Bush is better than Clinton was?

Answer 1

Bush was better than clinton. 1st off the economy started slipping while clinton was still in office and went way down hill before any of Bush's policies took affect. The begining of Clinton's time in office was the result of a good economy left by Bush Sr. Basicly clinton just rode out others success and the democrats keep calling it his. Clinton didn't have anything like 9/11 hapen during his time in office and has even said him self that he couldn't have done anything different. That was just after 9/11 and he now disagrees with most of what Bush has done. Clinton never had anything like Katrina hapen during his time in office. Luckly bush had increased funds to military prior to katrina. If katrina had happend during the Clinton administration then the National Guard would have been no help because we were so underfunded. I know this because I am in the military and also served during the clinton administration. Prior to Bush's election we had very few vehicles and most of them were so old we couldn't rely on them. We were way under staffed and it would have probably taken every soldier in the national guard to be able to help with the disaster. I was in commo at the time and we didn't even have a single radio till Bush was in office. Bush has had two national crissis in his term and we have waged war on two countries. Afganistan is beter off today than it ever has been and Iraq no longer has a dictator who alowed his sons and military to rape and kill children. Yes their has been losses of life but freedom does not come cheap. Iraq will be free one day because of the actions we have done. I know clinton wasn't horible and that monica thing was bull **** except for him lying under oath. He should have never been asked that but then again under UCMJ adultury is a crime. He was head of the military so don't that mean he should be held accountable for any laws his men are held accountable for.

Answer 2

I don't know. I will say this. Bush has faced far greater challenges, and he has risen to those challenges and has had some success and failures in dealing with them.

Bush has also pretty much done what he said he would, including tax cuts, continuing to fight the war on terror, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, and getting the economy moving again.

Of course, he's also invaded Iraq, which we now know through the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was a mistake. Iraq did not have an effective WMD program.

Clinton on the other hand never faced any great challenges, so we never had the opportunity to see if he would rise to meet them.

We do know that Clinton was lucky enough to be there for the birth of a new industry, the dot.com boom. And during those very prosperous times, he never took that opportunity to do something great, like reform Social Security or reform health care in this country. I personally view Clinton as a placeholder in history. Pretty much anyone could have fared as well as he did, because Clinton actually did very little.

Clinton's accomplishments include Welfare Reform and NAFTA, much to the consternation of his own party. He also went against his own party and did not regulate or tax the fledgling dot.com industry, which turned out to be a good thing. He also participated in holding down spending, which enabled us to actually pay down the national debt a little.

His failures include weakness in responding to multiple terrorist incidents, and passing a tax increase shortly after attaining office, when he had promised a middle class tax cut, and never reforming health care as he had campaigned on doing as his #1 issue.

To Chris W: Bush has created about 6.5 Million jobs in the last 3 years. Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and see for yourself.

Answer 3

It's certainly interesting to see how you've stirred up a lot of unfounded opinion with this question. Ultimately, the answer lies in what your belief system and value system are founded on. In the end, I believe historians will treat the Clinton administration just as fairly as the Bush adminstration. Of course that means that liberal, revisionist historians from the East will fawn over the Clintons, and lay the problems of the world at the feet of the Bush family. While right leaning and right thinking historians will slam the Clintons and treat Bush as the Silver Knight.

Answer 4

They both suck. But Clinton gets the better rap because he was fortunate enough to sit in office during the dot com boom, and is credited for an economy he had nothing to do with. There were no serious disasters while he was in office, and he had very little to do other than sign bills passed by republicans....

Bush has been faced with many challenges, so its easy to point out his shortcomings.

Many of the challenges Bush has faced in office are blamed on Clinton. Like giving North Korea light water reactors, and now the left blames Bush for allowing their nuclear program to come so far. Not going after Osama after 93 WTC attack, hence 9/11. Leaving the economy in a recession (Nasdaq went from 4000 to 2000 in Clintons final months) etc...

As for the entire "Bush lied" thing, consider this.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Was Clinton lying too?

Answer 5

Bush is better by far. Clinton was an insult to the office and made us weaker in the eyes of other countries. Not the mention the man couldn’t keep in head business while working in the White House. Clinton is the definition of corruption.

Answer 6

ok...the President has little or no to do with the economic device. For that, the Federal Reserve Board is employed. humorous, the comparable guy, Alan Greenspan, become chairman throughout the two those phrases. think of roughly: the only president who isn't allowed to coach regulation in his domicile state. the 2d president in US background to be impeached. Monica Lewinsky, Yassar Arafat and a mysterious Cuban cigar. Casa Grande. Mena Airfield. Vince Foster. The record is going on and on... however the main heinous ingredient ever performed via BJ Clinton become to bomb the human beings of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina because of fact he have been given caught together with his pants down. Oh, and another ingredient that incorporates the territory- 2 phrases: Hillary. you attempt to have a constructive day.

Answer 7

Clinton was so vastly superior, it isn't funny. Just one item: Clinton balanced the Federal budget, eliminated the deficit and ended up with a surplus. Bush gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy and has declared war on the middle class...big time. His response to Hurricane Katrina was criminal, he went to war on a lie, and has destroyed our reputation in the world community.

Answer 8

Bush is better only if you consider the deficit, Iraq's fiasco, and lying to the public as good things. Clinton left office with billions of dollars in surplus. He didn't start wars based on lies. And when Clinton lied, nobody died !

Answer 9

At least Clinton created jobs. Bush created war.

Answer 10

It's very sad...Clinton was a good president, but he got caught having an affair (which most presidents did) and he was labeled "slick willy" and every one thinks he was awful. "Oh but he lied under oath!" BFD!! He lied about having an AFFAIR!!! Not about war or money or anything else that really matters! What he lied about has NOTHING to do with the American people. It was none of our business and taxpayer money shoud have NEVER been used for that circus!!! Bush lies all the time to US, about things that matter to US. He ignores all his advisors to the peril of our security and loss of lives on American soil....says he'll get the guy who did it...but instead, invades a sovereign nation causing it to collapse into civil war at the cost of 1000's of American lives, not to mention 100s of 1000's of Iraqi lives, creating a cesspool of terrorist training grounds and in the mean time - he allows another country that was a threat, and is now a REAL threat, to continue on the path to nuclear weaponry. And he's labeled as some kind of hero. I don't get it.

Then pile on all the OTHER scandals this administration has been a part of - but no one seems to care about that...it's ok to "out" CIA opps, it's ok to protect pedophiles, it's ok to start a war on bogus info, it's ok to use fear tactics to win votes, it's ok to use the tragedy of 9/11 to further your political agenda, it's ok to be associated with all the shady dealings of a certain large corporation, it's ok to be associated with the lobbying scandals, illegal wiretapping, torture and secret prisons, intentionally causing the country to be divided, thumbing his nose at our allies, lying about cost of Medicare, intentionally distorting facts to gain votes, allowing an Arab (or any other) nation to control our ports, not making any changes recommended by 9/11 Commission, Katrina....no accountability.....etc etc etc...

BUT GOD FORBID you get a B.J.!!!!

no administration is perfect, there's always scandals, there's always lies, there's always sex....but this one has a LOT of lies....and a LOT of scandals...and now the sex is starting to come out....and no one seems to care. He just whips out the fear card and everyone shuts up!