Billy Boy lied under oath. Just a minor difference......
He was Impeached.......for LYING>
That is the difference.
2007-01-22 06:53:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by cappy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually Mayor Giuliani did receive a lot of bad publicities about his personal life and his standing in public opinion polls was sliding dramatically before the event of Sept. 11, 2001. The United States was attacked for the first time on our soil since Dec. 7, 1941 and NYC got hit the hardest that day.
Giuliani did perform well in the minutes, hours, days and weeks that followed and we must give him that. Media coverage was very intensive for months following the tragedy, concentrating on the people and the officials of NYC of which the mayor was the foremost leader/citizen, thus giving him a lot of exposure, almost all of it positive.
Why? Our nation and much of the world rallied around the embattled city and its mayor, giving them all the support we could muster to ease the pain and to help in the reconstruction and normalization of the affected areas. Giuliano was not subjected to the kind of critism a politician would normally be subjected to during more normal times. There was no partisan conspiracy as far as anyone can say; everyone just wanted to unite with NYC and its mayor, whether he be republican or democrat.
President Clinton, on the other hand, did a great job as president in many important aspects but our country was not attacked by outside forces in one big blow during his eight years in office like NYC was on 9/11. He was thus not exempted from media scrutiny and partisan attacks on his policies as well as his personal life.
In reprospect, you may say the sum of his challenges and achievements in 2,920 days far exceed those for Giuliani hundreds of times. But, as mentioned , our nation always unite behind its leaders during times of attacks and the 24/7 media coverage of NYC and Giuliani helped him gain national and international recognition that few has before been afforded.
In the final analysis though, Bill Clinton's achivements have not been forgotten by many Americans and people throughout the world and he will no doubt go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever.
2007-01-22 15:44:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rudy Giuliani was a Mayor (of NYC) and, therefore, answered to the people of NYC. If no one was offended enough to bring whatever charge they thought may apply against him, then that is between Rudy and his wife.
Bill Clinton was President of the United States and, therefore, answered to the American people. Plenty were offended by his liaisons in the Oval Office to have an impeachment proceeding broght against him. He compounded one lie with another. It's not about sex with a fat, ugly intern. It was about lying under oath. Regardless if one voted for him (and I did once), he LIED UNDER OATH.
He was not crucified. Jesus Christ was crucified and Bill is no Jesus Christ. Nor is Rudy. Funny thing is, though, that Hillary is probably no more faithful to Bill than Bill was to her.
Incidentally, that 2 bloc disaster you mentioned flippantly was the crashing of the WTC killing thousands of human beings as a result of a terrorist attack. It required an immediate reaction to organize the rescue operations under severe circumstances and a leader who had the wherewithal to rise to that level. Giuliani rose to that level.
Your remark smacks of a snot nosed punk.
2007-01-26 01:04:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by crusty old fart 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bill Clinton was/is never bad. You are right to question it because people paint it that way and hope that will hold up in history.
The problem is he was a lightning rod for criticism. He stands for the people and not big business. He is and was everything the conservatives hate to see in a politician. That makes him a polarizing figure. It's not his fault, it's the fault of the people that wanted to "take him down" in politics. They wanted to find something wrong with Hilary's infamous "Whitewater" dealings and when that came up clean as a whistle they just had to find something so they dug harder and found Monica.
As far as I am concerned that was just between him, his wife, and Monica. It was a huge waste of taxpayers' money to blast our livingrooms with the smut they spewed to try to make him seem like a bad man. It wasn't my business to know about his sexlife, that's private.
2007-01-22 15:03:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by freakazoid 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Rudy was never impeached as Mayor of NYC and he did not lie under oath to a Federal Grand jury multiple times..that goood enough?
2007-01-22 15:31:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by mr_methane_gasman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Men in a position of public leadership should be morally above reproach as it is upon their shoulders to set the example for society as a whole. They both suck in that capacity. It's just a shame, and that's all it is.
2007-01-22 14:55:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jeri C 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Amen to that,freakazoi... my feelings exactly. Rudy did his job on 9/11. As an example to the people who paid his salary, his morals are terrible.
2007-01-22 15:13:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by lucysmom 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's against the law for Democrat's to get head jobs. The higher your position the more of an offence. Thats just the way it is. Keep your zipper up. (;-}
2007-01-22 15:08:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by wmf936 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Rudy is a self-absorbed megalomaniacal creep.
Bill is a sleazeball.
Depends which one you think is worse :)
2007-01-22 14:53:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by EC 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have it all turned around
2007-01-22 15:46:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by xyz 6
·
0⤊
0⤋