Clinton. He didn't start a war, there was no terror attacks during his time, and the rest of the world didn't completely hate us, he didn't deplete our social security, didn't send us into ridiculous national debt, left our private lives alone (thought I admit he was no one to talk about how one should conduct their private life), and didn't lie left and right, up and down.
2007-02-18 11:41:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ice 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'll give the fact that Clinton has superb speaking skills, unlike our current president. I'll praise him for reforming welfare by limiting it. I'll praise him for signing NAFTA which his a lot of benefits.
Although, here's the problem. Since people say he did a "good job" on the economy, what has he done to do so? Isn't it a mere coincidence that he decided to send missles to Iraq in 1998 while the Lewinsky (which having another affair was dumb while on duty, probably) event went on? Also, it appears that Clinton did not do much to stem Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks eventhough there were signs. The non-partisan group Factcheck.org did find some flaws on what he said he did here: http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html.
For Bush, I think it is much wiser to have a pre-emptive attack. Yes, Saddam may not have done anything against the U.S. but if there is adequate evidence that he maybe a threat then something has to be done before it is too late...at that time. Bush thought there were WMDs but none. Now, what evidence indicates that he "lied"? Now that we didn't find any WMDs, if we did leave, Iran might take over and, to a lesser extent, Al Qaeda, too. The only thing the troops should do is just make sure that this does not happen. Also, I believe that the troops should not police the civil war. Bush should have done more before 9/11. I remember terrorism was talked about little.
The other dumb thing is illegal immigration. He has not done much to close our borders. As a matter of fact, he should pardon border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who did there jobs of not "out there to shoot Mexicans." He may have the biggest deficit but that in terms of size dollars. In terms as a percentage in GDP, Bush's is small compared with WWII. http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html. He may be smarter than what he behaves like.
I think Bush wins here because he is attempting to do what he THINKS is right which could be LONG-TERM smartness. As for Clinton, he was smart, all right, maybe trying to make sure that his poll ratings is high ALL THE TIME. Still, Bush always needs to look what people think and to see if it is the right thing.
2007-02-21 12:02:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Batch D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton must be smarter because as a dope smoking liberal who used the presidency like the Playboy Mansion, and only having a couple months left as president, did nothing when receiving intelligence about imminent terror attacks about to take place, was smart enough to know it would all fall on the Bush administration. What really makes me think he must be smarter is some of the American people and other Countries still think he did a good job and still support him.
Bill Clinton must be "the man!"
PS-To those who think Clinton didn't start the war on Iraq or have anything to do with it click below link. Don't worry it's from CNN not Fox.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
2007-02-18 12:40:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
although both men are typical Washingtonian cheats, Clinton is smarter than Bush by 500%. Bush is more dedicated.
2007-02-18 11:53:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, Bill was a honor student all through high school and college, Bush was absent most of the time. You can make up your own mind on this one. Bill was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush was a party man with below average grades.
2007-02-18 11:52:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Clinton was smarter when it came to political maneuvering. Bush is MUCH smarter when it comes to policies for our country.
2007-02-18 11:41:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Bush thinks with the head on his shoulders as God intended while Clinton thought with the head in his pants
2007-02-18 12:03:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Arthur W 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
2d, Bush's IQ is under elementary relative to that subset of the U.S. voters who additionally controlled to artwork their way into the White domicile. basically, his mind falls close to the backside of the distribution. in assessment with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt by means of Clinton, in basic terms Harding has a decrease score (a minimum of on 3 of the 4 estimates). an identical end is reported by utilizing the psychological Brilliance degree, albeit to that end there at the instant are 2 twentieth-century presidents with decrease rankings, extremely, Harding and Coolidge. in addition to, Bush's IQ falls approximately 20 factors--greater desirable than one primary deviation--under that of his predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that would have created a assessment result that made any psychological weaknesses all the greater salient. Clinton's psychological attainments as a Rhodes student and Yale regulation college graduate, his ordinary capability for learning superb quantities of complicated and focused techniques, his verbal eloquence and fluency, and his logical adroitness and class--at situations, as for the period of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, verging on sophistry--places Clinton head and shoulders above his successor in terms of psychological skill.
2016-12-18 06:10:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The real question is: who is smarter, George W. Bush, or a plate of pineapple jelly? (note: think carefully, this may be a trick question)
2007-02-18 11:43:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by surroundedbyimbeciles 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Clinton's smarter, no doubt, but they're both equally crooked.
2007-02-18 12:13:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
1⤋