The first President Clinton was a real dissapointment, the next President Clinton could be detramental to our economy, as well as, our National Security. Can we afford anotther, "Clinton" in the White House.
See how our Ex-President really feels about 9/11. Read and see who he feels is really at fault. If you can agree with him, then vote his wife into office!
2007-02-14 05:54:48 · 20 answers · asked by tropicalstardancers 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
SURELY ANYONE would be better than another Bush?
Forrest Gump would be preferable.
2007-02-14 05:59:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Bill Clinton had a balanced budget in the black until Bush came in and broke America. All the foreign countries loved Clinton , Monday it was announced that Bush was by far the most disliked President of any country. If you have no foreign relationships , that is the reason we have no other countries that will come in to Iraq and help us fight to save our troops. Oh, yes I want another Clinton in fact 2 Clinton's back in the White House. You say Clinton lied that was about personal matter that was no ones business. Bush has told nothing but lies, he doesn't know how to tell the truth, He lied our troops died. I will vote for Hillary and I will back her in all she does in the White House. You should be ashamed to use Bush name in the same sentence as our great President Clinton.
2007-02-14 06:13:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
even as I agree tax cuts or a stimulus for the individuals is critical, it really is what ought to were performed the first time. it is going to in elementary words artwork if the authorities stops spending on each and every beef mission popular to guy although. Tax cuts will enhance the debt also, so should be utilized in particularly stimulating, no longer this the following is $12 and also you'll pay it decrease back at tax time. If the U. S. greenback fails or loses that's maximum gratifying score, it received't count what percentage cuts they make, it is going to likely be too overdue.
2016-11-03 10:54:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having another Clinton in the White House would be even worse that having W there now.
2007-02-14 06:02:37 · answer #4 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Clinton wasn´t the best, but things went a lot smoother with him as president. Atleast he thinks about women, and jazz and weed. Instead of fighting against the grain he just went with it. And come on, a second bush. That just shows the whole world how dumb people are for allowing such a farce. Peace.
2007-02-14 05:59:36 · answer #5 · answered by nassim420 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm afraid that women across the United States are JUST going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is female...
2007-02-14 06:03:32 · answer #6 · answered by OU 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You people on the rabid Republican right are pitiful. You only have 2 strategies, you still try to blame someone gone for almost 4 years, Bill Clinton, and/or you attack and smear any and all critics, domestic and/or foreign. Bill Clinton is not running for president. What Clinton did about 9-11 relative to this year's election is moot; though he did a lot more than George.
And actually, if we are looking to place historical blame, it falls to Ronald Reagan and his failure to retaliate followed by his cut and run after the Beirut bombing in 1983 killed 240 Marines. We are paying for that mistake, big-time now! But, if Clinton were somehow able to run against George Bush (a 3-peat), what he and George did about 9-11 would be fair game in judging their performance side-by-side. But Bill Clinton is NOT running.
However, even if you were to accept the proposition that Clinton did not do all he could, that does not excuse George Bush from not doing all he could. Cause Johnny didn't do his homework, I didn't do mine. That excuse doesn't work for my kids either.
George Bush is running for President and he's running on his record of fighting terrorism and being a wartime president. Consequently, Bush's performance or lack thereof on 9-11 and after, along with his Iraq failures, are fair game for voter consideration. The facts seem to clearly indicate they dropped the terrorism ball on hand-off. A "fumble" caused solely by the Bush administration. That's the fact, plain and simple. And while bad intelligence that was wrong did not stop them from invading Iraq, they didn't even ramp-up their efforts on good terrorist Intel that was right.
Bush and the rabid right want all the credit for Bush when something goes well and they want to blame "everyone" else when something goes wrong. Never, never, do they accept any responsibility. Bush has been wrong in just about everything he told the American people about Iraq. We had most of the world on our side after 9-11 and now the overwhelming majority of the world views us as the greatest threat to peace in the world. Who is responsible for that?
They also whine and whine and whine about the Democrats being partisan and politicizing 9-11 and the Iraq war, but every time you turn-around there is a Bush Campaign Ad exploiting those very things.
Actually, my first reaction was, whom are they kidding? This photo-op, "mission accomplished", happy Whitehouse does not make a move without full consideration of political ideology and how it "Looks". And the minute that the Bush administration ran a campaign commercial with the 9-11 images, their complaints about "politicizing 9-11" rang pretty hollow.
Secondly, 11+ years of personal partisan attacks from the Republicans, including an 8 year taxpayer financed witch-hunt against the, last "twice-elected", democratic president, didn't happen in a vacuum. Now that the Republicans have poisoned and divided the American electorate and the shoe is on the other foot, they are suddenly bothered and shocked by partisanship.
Lastly, this is an election year and everything is about politics. Republicans complaining about "politics" make themselves look like petulant children. The fact is this administration is inept and is falling apart and their carefully constructed facade is melting away with each new revelation about the goings-on in this Whitehouse.
The right wing's rabid cult loyalty to Bush is the only thing keeping them going. But as in the 8-year Clinton smear-fest, that just means they are obviously much more concerned in doing what's right for Republicans, instead of doing what's right for our country. Partisanship ??? No apparent problem as long as it is Republican? This is the Republican party "leadership" running our government and this country [into the ground].
2007-02-14 05:59:09 · answer #7 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
no we don't and THANK YOU BEAR.
a lot of people are not aware of how the Clintons get rid of their dirtiest dirt.
i am sure if you dig around the governor mansion in Arkansas who knows what/who you will find...maybe some old girlfriends of Bill's who can tie him to some illegitimate kids to prove he is, was and will always be a lying dog, perhaps?
2007-02-17 04:35:00 · answer #8 · answered by atlas shrugged and so do i 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They said that about Bush, yet they voted for him twice. And in 5 years we'll have to put up with Jeb trying to get office.
2007-02-14 05:57:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I really don't want a Hillary in the white house and don't think Bill wants to run again.
2007-02-14 06:22:53 · answer #10 · answered by George G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let us pray the other Clinton will NEVER be elected.
2007-02-14 07:08:13 · answer #11 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋