Why has Bush failed at everything?
2006-11-15 10:33:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In regards to the Somalia comment...President Bush Sr. promised the American people that we would send in troops to create a secure environment and then get them out. He creates a time-table and when Clinton came into office, he followed that time-table. The U.N. replaced the troops that we took out. US Defense Secretary Les Aspin was the one who denied more troops after Clinton started sending in elite forces.
2006-11-15 10:58:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was/is so popular because he is straight out of Hollywood. He says what he needs to say, shows up only at the appropriate times, and caters to the media and younger generations. Clinton definitely had his problems, i.e. rape allegations, infidelity, perjury, but his smoothness allows you to look beyond that.
Bush is by no means smooth. But he has definitely had his ups and downs and has actually accomplished quite a bit. Unfortunately, he has handled the Iraq war horribly, mainly just by his comments regarding the war and his lack of communications skills. Had Clinton done the exact same things he would have been able to shmooze his way out of the bad light. I don't think anyone could have done much better. He may have had more success with immigration had he not leaned so left. And, as far as the economy, I think we have rebounded very well since 9/11, which would have clearly been tough for any president, although he has not been a typical conservative on spending, which would be to spend only what you bring in.
2006-11-15 18:58:18 · answer #2 · answered by straightup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why has Bush failed at everything as President? Incompetence would be the easiest answer.
That's been his track record his whole life - mediocre student, only admitted to the best universities through an Affirmative Action program for the rich and powerful known as legacy admissions. Same goes for his business school record.
Started up many oil company ventures backed by rich friends of his father, all of which were dismal failures. Was asked to be part of the ownership of the Rangers largely because of the family name, but that venture succeeded for the ownership largely because the tax payers were duped into dumping massive amounts of money into the franchise.
As governor, he pretty much rode the wave of the Clinton-year boom, economically, and, statutorily, the governorship of Texas is one of the weakest in terms of power.
He had no foreign policy experience, or even interest. He was described by most who encountered him as remarkably intellectually incurious - not a good thing if you didn't do well in school and had no interest in the outside world afterwards.
He's failed at everything he's tried because he hasn't been qualified for anything he's tried.
For those who refer to the Clinton years as failure and Bush's as success, I suggest you come up with an objective criteria for measuring, and see how the facts fall.
Clinton is popular because, by most basic measures that hit most people, he improved the lot of Americans. Despite wailing and gnashing of teeth when they raised taxes on the richest of the rich, all sectors of the nation did well. It was the longest, most profound period of economic growth and prosperity, and, unlike the Reagan economy, it wasn't put on a charge card.
Did Clinton add to the national debt? Yes. He inherited record deficits. He reduced, eliminated, then turned them into surpluses. No one had turned surpluses in decades. Now, inheriting surpluses, how much more in debt has Bush added in less time?
2006-11-15 19:27:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
president clinton wasnt that successful and many of Bush's failures are from Clinton mistakes. Such as pulling out of Somalia in the early 90's. Huge mistake.
2006-11-15 18:38:31 · answer #4 · answered by Zac P 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He hasn't failed at everything. He has been terrible with Iraq, and so has Donald Rumself, but in terms of domestic policy; we don't have a dictator, there is a whole other branch of government to be blamed.
Also, you have an obvious political bias, and I could list ten things off the top of my head that would take Clinton out of a category that you put him in-successful and popular.
2006-11-15 18:36:52 · answer #5 · answered by billy d 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton popular? Yes
Successful? No. He left an economy in deep decline & ignored our security for 8 years. Bush is cleaning up his mess.
2006-11-15 18:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So once again a lib thinks that because slick willy could zip and un zip his pants he was successful, He was the most arrogant unqualified, lying individual ever staining the carpet in the White house, GW has not failed at anything and the only people who believe he has are the ones who worship a lying , womanizing lowlife.
2006-11-15 18:43:41 · answer #7 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
president Clinton never got over 46% of the vote. He was the reason repubs took back house and senate. just like bush.
2006-11-15 18:38:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Clinton and Carter were thr two biggest failures of this century. Add to that the fact Clinton was a whoremonger and you have a real disaster.
2006-11-15 18:41:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's compare Clinton's and Bush's record on terrorist attacks on US soil. Clinton-1993 WTC bombing, perpetrators caught and convicted. 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing, perpetrators caught and convicted. Bush- 2001 WTC/Pentagon attacks, Osama Bin Laden still free. 2001 Anthrax letters, perpetrator still unknown.
2006-11-15 21:36:51 · answer #10 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋