There were more attacks on Americans under Clinton than Bush.?

Question

and Liberals still say Clinton bought Peace to the world??

now tell me who is the better president?!

Answer 1

president bush is definitely the better of the two.

Answer 2

We were attacked on 9/11 world trade center that's 3000 people, the war in Iraq we are still getting attacked 300 + Clinton never had to deal with what Bush has. But I stand by the president after all the crap he had to deal with. The Question is who will be the next president? I see no body good enough out there. And if anyone says Hillery cut me a freakin break.

Answer 3

If you are counting the 3000 9/11 and the over 3000 americans killed and tens of thousands injured in Iraq, the number of Americans killed and maimed under Bush pale in comparison to the few hundreds killed in all the attacks under Clinton combined.

However, this kind of "death arithmetic" is hardly the measure of either President. I happen to agree with the Republican Senator Chuck Hegel when he says that the Iraq War is the biggest Foriegn Policy Blunder in history -- making Bush a far worse president than Clinton any day. He has destroyed the international reputation of the country, wasted billion and billions of dollars, argueably weakened the military, undermined the constitution, repeately tried to deceive the people on critical issues, appointed and kept incompetents in office -- I could go on -- but worst president ever isn't far off when you are talking about George W. Bush

Answer 4

I have more questions than answers here. The facts that you are using as not within my experience. The politics do not reflect on leader doing any better than the other. Debt is passed around and small countries pay the price. People get a little angry at us. We have money for conflicts around the world and they do not like the way we give the money. Million dollar bombs do not seem to make them like us any better.

Answer 5

comparing numbers to effect...

while there was more attacks, there were overall fewer Americans killed... and very few from international attacks on U.S. soil under Clinton...

basically, living in America, I would rather take my chances with Clinton than Bush... playing the odds of dying...

and I don't think Clinton brought peace to the world... he did what he could, but should have done some things differently... as Bush should have...

Answer 6

How about neither?

You know, I usually don't play this little game, but if certain people hadn't have been so absorbed with where Bill was putting his johnson, maybe everyone would have noticed Bill's mistakes in handling terrorism.

Personally, neither has done a good job because neither of them understands how terrorism work. Few people do. I know I don't.

EDIT: Thank you, Kermit! I was just thinking back to when I was a kid and I heard more about terrorists taking over planes than I have in my adult years. Terrorism hasn't gotten more rampant. Just more dangerous.

Answer 7

Who cares who the president was? I think Bush is worthless, but I don't blame him for 9/11. People who hate America will hate it regardless of which one of our two ineffectual parties our president comes from.

Also, the president can't stop terrorist attacks by himself. Failings in knowing about major upcoming terrorist attacks are more the fault of the CIA or FBI than anything.

Answer 8

More severe attacks under Bush. Bill Clinton is the best. He is the best since Franlklin D. Roosevelt and J.F.K.

Answer 9

Yes, the attacks were policies perpetrated by the Republicans
who said he brought peace to the world?

Answer 10

There were also plenty of attacks on Americans during the Reagan years as well. Have you folks all forgotten Beirut. Reagan cut and run and nobody blinked.