on a scale of 1 to 10 how much better is GW Bush to Clinton...?

Answer 1

I'd rate Clinton a 2 and GW Bush an 8. Clinton didn't have to face any challenges during his presidency. In fact, he had so much time on his hand, he started having sex with interns at the white house.

Answer 2

The better question is, "How would you rate each of them?"

If you want to be objective, Clinton did some good things. These may have been his doing, or just happening to be at the right place at the right time. His best achievement was taking us out of deficit spending and putting us on a path of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this is a path that we are no longer on.

He also failed in certain senses as well. He failed to identify and neutralize the threat that Al Qaeda posed. He also had personal failings (aka Lewinsky) that dragged the nation into a scandal that it really didn't need. One can criticize the Republicans for harping on it, but the bottom line is that if he had not conducted himself in this way, they would not have any ammuntion.

On an objective scale, I'd give Clinton a 5.

The book on Bush 43 is still unwritten, and probably will be for some time. On the negative side, his fiscal policy obviously can't hold a candle to Clinton's, as we continue to mount enormous debts. For his positive achievements, he led the nation successfully post 9/11 and had defeated a Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

However, his overall grade is still an incomplete, and will largely depend on how Iraq turns out. It will define him. If somehow Iraq can become stable, become truly democratic and become a model on how Middle Eastern States can co-exist, particularly with Israel, then he could become one of the greatest presidents in history. However, that is a tall order. If Iraq contines to be unstable, becomes a base for terrorist operations, and we continue to pump money and lives into a failing cause, Bush falls into Nixon territory.

In summary for Bush 43, if Iraq succeeds give him an 8 (still low marks for fiscal responsibility). If Iraq fails, give him a 2. (at least he hasn't done anything impeachable).

Answer 3

Rating the Presidents ;
1: totally sucks
10: totally awesome

Bill Clinton: 8
George W. Bush: 1

Answer 4

There is no comparison.George Bush is such an order of magnitude worse than Clinton that it would tie up the combined computing power of the planet for days on end.

Answer 5

7 or 8

Answer 6

I gained't play your stupid recreation becase i'm no longer qualified to attest to GWB's mind and neither are you. yet, Bush like 0bama remember some distance to a lot on the opinion of others, at the same time as an elementary certain or no is all it is needed.

Answer 7

Hard to say. Clinton wasn't a very good President, but he had a Republican-controlled Congress to keep him in check. Bush, however, has not been adequately kept in check. That's a problem for America. I'd give them about the same rating.

Answer 8

He's probably a lot better to Clinton these days...I mean, now that Bush has found out that he's a complete dunderhead when it comes to running a country, he's probably more willing to actually listen to Clinton's advice.

Answer 9

8

Answer 10

Negative 10.