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

2006-11-09 22:35:17 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

37 answers

bush Jr is disliked by most of the people in the world. he second to ladden in some countries as per polls done by the guardian news papers. except UK, there is no friend to the USA .he is considered as danger to world peace even in countries like Israel and the UK.but it was not so in the case of Clinton.he did not take a brutal decision like invading Iraq without valid reason and caused for the deaths of more than 600000 iraqis.

2006-11-09 22:54:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 17 0

Being an outsider, I find this question ridiculous. Clinton is/was the best president of US after Roosevelt and among the top 3-4 America has produced. Although I don't have any ideas how good Roosevelt was. Roosevelt is considered good in US because of his success during the World War 2. The world loves Clinton for his flamboyance. He charmed/charms people wherever he went/goes.

Bush Jr. Well he might have tried to do well for US but he messed up the World. People are talking of putting him on International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice (I have answered a question on this...see my Yahoo Answers profile).

There is no way comparing Clinton and Bush Jr. From an outsider's point of view Clinton was a World Leader (for his charms if not works) while Bush is a mess.

2006-11-10 00:17:54 · answer #2 · answered by sharethyknowledge 2 · 0 0

Pussycat, do you honestly believe Clinton wasn't put to the test?

2/26/1993 - the first World Trade Center bombing
8/7/1998 - car bombs destroy U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
10/12/2000 - the attack on the USS Cole


All done by Al Queda, and Clinton turned and ran!!!!


At least Bush has tried to do something about it. Unfortunately, he had to start with a decimated military. And that was caused by Clinton's cuts. Yes, Clinton balanced the budget, but we now know at what cost.

Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq also.

2006-11-09 23:20:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Much worse. Also lazy, incompetent and couldn't put on his pants without a guide. Had excellent media backup though- they praised him no matter what he did or failed to do.

Bush is unpopular among the media moghuls- SFAIK all the media outlets in the US belong to 5 companies, 4 of which are run by registered Democrats. Which might explain a few of the media's revelations...
But the fact remains he got 3 countries out from under the terrorist boot. That is "only" 50 milion people. Maybe not much, as compared to China's slave camps, but it is definetly a good start.
Had he been given even an ounce of support from the Dems, he could have achieved much, much more. But then, to the Dems, slave trading in Sudan is irrelevant, but blaming hurricanes on Bush is all-important.

2006-11-09 22:53:54 · answer #4 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0 0

Clinton was the playboy president and Bush jnr the funny president who entertained millions around the world every time he opened his mouth, but one thing in Bush's favor he truly believed in the security of his country that he was prepared to go to war to protect it.

2006-11-09 23:33:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes in terms of intelligence and his foreign policies. Clinton had the respect of the other world super powers, and he at least knows where Warsaw is. Bush made yet another gaffe saying out loud that he hadn't been to Chechoslovakia in a "long time" when somebody asked him about going to Warsaw. How can a president of the greatest super power in the world not even know simple geography much less be able to direct foreign policy.

Who cares if he got bl*w jobs while in office? The economy was better and billions of dollars wasn't being spent on an "unwinnable" war.

2006-11-09 22:45:34 · answer #6 · answered by nquizzitiv 5 · 1 1

I'm not American so can't comment from personal experience.

But I never liked Clinton. He was like an American version of Blair from what I could see. Very nice and personable but not entirely trustworthy.

All that oral sex in the oval Office stuff was nasty and cheap and embarassing.

Plus many Brits thought it was a bit sick the way he played matey mates with a Terrorist (Gerry Adams). Especially as America are now so "anti terrorist" (or is that only the Muslim ones not the Irish ones?)

2006-11-10 08:43:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

YES YES YES: Clinton did very little (always a good start!) while Bush Jnr has decimated the opinion of the world against America, has engaged in a huge costly and damaging war on the basis of false evidence, and has set up global resent against America and the West: we will be reaping the harvest of George Dubya for decades to come.

2006-11-09 22:38:07 · answer #8 · answered by hallam_blue 3 · 3 2

I'm glad Clinton wasn't president when 9/11 happened, and I'm glad he's not president now with all these terrorists running around.

Bush inherited a great many problems from Clinton -- a military in decline, terrorism festering around the world, a declining economy (yes, it was declining during Clinton's last year in office). Not to mention that foul odor coming from the Oval Office.

2006-11-09 22:40:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Who's Bush Jnr?

It seems americans are forgetting that the US had one of their most prosper periods after WW II with president Clinton.

Let the man have as man BJ as he can take.

You will see Hillary in presidency. She sure can talk to the microphone in public... go wonder in Private!

2006-11-09 22:38:01 · answer #10 · answered by another911 4 · 0 3

Clinton could at least keep his secretary happy, bush can't make anyone happy. he should be next to saddam with a rope round his neck too

2006-11-11 01:39:17 · answer #11 · answered by stonedsmartninja 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers