Why Does the Left have No Tolerence for Criticism or Debate of Bill Clinton?

Question

The Left likes to cite Bill Clinton, and make ample references to his "Golden Age" of a wonderful economy, the enemies of America under control, where things were rocking so well, that all the Republicans could do in an attempt to slime Clinton, was to make a big deal out of the Monica Lewinsky thing. But what is telling is that the Left will not tolerate the other side to make criticism or even discuss or debate Bill Clinton. It is for forbidden territory. To discuss Clinton, to them, is to dwell on the past- which has no relevancy to the world today, and is a smoke screen not to look at the failures of GWB.That is very odd that the Left disdains looking at the past, since it seems apt for them to discuss and have (fake) documentaries and such on Bush's Vietnam service, on Prescott Bush, on the president's past driving record or drug use. One could be rich if they had a nickel for every time the war is compared to Vietnam by them, and hearing of certain Democrat's war service. No prohibit on discussing the past seems to apply to argue their points.
Liberals are fond to cite the golden age of Clinton at every opportunity, but will not tolerate any discussion of their former commander-in-chief that is not controlled strictly by them. Why?

Clinton is forbidden ground, because it is damaging ground for them.
The Clinton era was a dismal failure; it is the very image of what the Democrats are about: mismanagement, corruption, and dereliction of duty. GOP corruption is usually about some form not processed in time or correctly, but for Democrats, it is Bill Clinton selling out America for his own short term personal gains. We don't need to cite Democrats stuffing 90K into their freezers, it is about Clinton refusing to ask the Saudi prince permission to interrogate terrorists they held, that the FBI begged Clinton to do. Instead, Billy saw the golden opportunity to hit up the prince for a donation to his library. That is the Bill Clinton of history the Left does not want you to speak about.
Clinton was about raping, grouping and molesting women -while Enron and other company scandals were brewing, while turning a blind eye to Alqaeda. Clinton's legacy lives on in today's headlines of Sandy Burglar shredding top secret arch

ival materials requested by a Congressional Select Committee. Imagine if Condi did that: Would there be any howls?
The Golden Clinton Years are a fraud- and point to Democratic excesses, ineptitude, and abuse of power. The Democratic way of governing is to pardon Marc Rich and to flee from Somalia with the first sign of difficulty. It is about letting Bin Laden go; it is about sex in the oval office: it is about a cynical party that hates the military and American values.
To talk about Clinton to the Left is dangerous; we might remember what it is like to be ruled by Democrats.

Answer 1

I think it might be because of one of two reasons.

The first is that conservatives in general do use Bill Clinton as a scapegoat and love to cite his failings in opposition to questions about inadaquacies in our own chosen leadership. It occurs so often that when someone does try to make an honest criticism of the man it gets relegated into the category of bashing whether it is or not.

The second is that Bill Clinton by all accounts wasn't that bad a president. The country did not suffer unduly during his tenure. He is the first Democrat since Kennedy was president to be so loved by the people in general. It is natural that you are going to want to defend such a legacy. If people remember, before Clinton, Kennedy was the man. Whenever Democrats wanted to point to success in the office he was the man they cited.

Look I don't care for some of the things which occured when Clinton was in the Whitehouse, but I can still acknowledge his positives. It is valid to criticize in an honest manner, but slander of any type should never be tolerated in a free thinking society. The only thing I wish is that liberals in general could take a cue from that and tone down their rhetoric towards Bush. Again valid criticisms are acceptable, but some of the absolute slander which occurs regarding this man do not constitute anything close to a valid criticism and are just destructive to the well being of the Union as a whole.

Answer 2

"that all the Republicans could do in an attempt to slime Clinton, was to make a big deal out of the Monica Lewinsky thing."

It was a big deal, please. He committed perjury, that is correct, because he lied under oath. But the important question is what did he lied about? Watergate, Iran-contra, the death 3000 Americans, outing a CIA agent for retribution.. or some intern giving him a *******? its irrelavent. Its mud slinging.

If He is that bad, why didnt the Republicans come up with a better impeachment case?


" It is for forbidden territory. To discuss Clinton, to them, is to dwell on the past- which has no relevancy to the world today, and is a smoke screen not to look at the failures of GWB"

It is a SMOKE SCREEN.


"That is very odd that the Left disdains looking at the past, since it seems apt for them to discuss and have (fake) documentaries and such on Bush's Vietnam service, on Prescott Bush, on the president's past driving record or drug use."

Wow..
Show me 1 evidence he served in Vietnam
Didnt he said it himself he use marijuana back then?
And past driving records? why would dems want to fake that??

"One could be rich if they had a nickel for every time the war is compared to Vietnam by them, and hearing of certain Democrat's war service"

Yes some are VERY rich because of this war. This war is vietnam because its a civil war. Vietnam was vietkong vs North Vietnamese, now is Shiites vs Sunnis, which side are we going to pick and armed this time? Its a quagmire.

Which Democrat are you talking about?
John Kerry? Murtha? or Dick Cheney?


"Liberals are fond to cite the golden age of Clinton at every opportunity, but will not tolerate any discussion of their former commander-in-chief that is not controlled strictly by them. Why?"

Its mostly mud slinging and idiotic comments.

Answer 3

The Right doesn't want to "debate" Bill Clinton.They want to use as the very thing you cite in your question,as a smoke screen for the failings of the Bush Administration.

They're doing it yet again this week in the justice Department scandal.They have no real defense for the facts in the case,so they repeatedly bring up the fact that Clinton replaced all the US Attorneys at the start of his second term,when the two situations have nothing to with one another,and are in no way similar.

If there was an attempt at real debate,instead of false comparisons and accusations,the Left would gladly debate you on any relevant point.

Answer 4

Feel free to criticize and debate. But bear in mind that bringing up Bill Clinton as the answer to EVERY question about Bush's policies gets old. Bush has been President for six years now. It's a stale excuse to say that he's been ineffective because of Bill Clinton.

Answer 5

many people in politics found some way to escape military hardship for themselves or their family. Bill and George are quits on that one.

Marijuana or Cocaine, quits on that one as well.
Alcohol - Clinton 0, Bush well oiled
Financial oddities - Clinton Whitewater (disproved), Bush Harken, Arlington Baseball, Bin Laden (not prosecuted)
Wars started - Clinton 0, Bush 2
Deaths in combat - Clinton <100, bush > 3,000
Balanced budget - Clinton yes, Bush no

Freedom - Clinton no action, bush patriot act / homeland security / wiretapping

political prisoners - Clinton 0, Bush > 300

Lying - Clintons cigars, Bushs WMD / mission accomplished
Impeachments - Clinton 0, Bush 0

Clinton WINS.

...and what do you mean "Bushs vietnam service"? What unit was he in?

The Clinton vs, Bush smoke screen is brought up by Rush and Fox to distract people from Bush and Iraq.

Debate with you? Whats to debate?

Answer 6

I am happy to admit that Clinton had his faults. I just think it is funny that whenever we point out the mistakes Bush has made, Republicans bring up a president that has been out of office for six years. Quit pretending like you know something about liberals. Your assumptions about liberals are based on hate filled shows like Rush and Hannity. I know people on both sides of the aisle and they are all good people. The fact is that you don't really want to debate, just throw bigoted comments out to see how much support you will get.

Answer 7

Because Clinton was a super-star when compared to the previous Dem president, Jimmy Carter. To them, he is a hero, because he was an improvement over Carter. I don't know how many times I've read "Clinton isn't president anymore, get over it" by someone who in other questions replied "Clinton had a budget surplus." (which is easy to do if you don't spend any money on necessary services, like defense)

Answer 8

i'm liberal. dont care. he replaced right into a competent president with a raging ***** and no flavor on the thank you to apply that means (I propose heavily president =ANY woman...he in basic terms handed off to browse the bbw class of tube sites i assume :) i do no longer hear to republicans reason I have not have been given any appreciate for them. supply you an occasion. Carter installs photograph voltaic panels to whitehouse. Regan removes them. Its that kind of mindless waste for an ideaology that makes me automobile track to filter out BS on each and every occasion any words come from he precise. i do no longer believe each and every coverage he had. Nafta sort of unfolded the international to this indian tech team and company friendly kiddy workers who you pay in rice which leaves us with low-fee products- yet no real industry. i did no longer hate each and every coverage of bush the two (I dont think of dividends from shares could be taxed two times!)

Answer 9

Personally, I have yet to come across an intelligent question about President Clinton that is not just a diatribe filled with innuendo. If you could point out an intelligent question regarding the former president, I would gladly answer it to the best of my ability.

Answer 10

The President Bush years have not be easy or smooth to get through. I don't think that the President is getting any respect for navigating our country as safely as possible through these years of World conflict. The Clinton years appear on the surface to have been better. No one takes into consideration his lack of action to end the Terrorist attacks against us. He simpled would defer to the will of the U.N. Liberals choice to only remember the good parts and forget the injustices.