Why don't Republicans admit that things were much better in the 90's than today?

Question

Is it only because of Bill Clinton? Or do they seriously belive that garbage...

Answer 1

Perhaps I would agree with you if it was not fact that President Clinton could of taken OBL out 2 times, and chose not too.

Could you imagine how much better things would be for us now if he had back bone then?

Answer 2

There was a lot going on in the 1990's that lead up to the attack on 9/11. The Clinton administration is mostly guilty of not taking the necessary action. The key data to prove this was what Sandy Burger stole from the archives.

President Clinton was more of a rock star than a president. He lacked the seriousness required to be a world leader. He didn't even want daily security briefings from the CIA.

He is a dashing, charming man. But he was never worth a damn as a president. He delegated most difficult decisions to others and then stood back ready to take credit if it went well and blame them if it did not.

He traveled all over the world with Air Force One filled with his fellow merrymakers and had a wonderful time attending parties. To his fellow democrats he was poisonous. Both houses of congress were lost after 40 years of democrat control. His vice-president did not even want him near him when he ran for president.

So, in many ways things seemed fine in the 1990's. Since President Clinton has no core values anyway (according to Jim Carvel) he gladly went along with the republican congress and signed welfare reform into law even though he promised his supporters he would not. The republican congress managed to get a lot done with this party boy in the White House.

But since defending this nation is not the democrats strong suit, an awful lot of the terrorists ground work was successfully completed during his watch. He either did not know or did not care about the intelligence the CIA and other agencies were gathering.

I admit the 90's seemed much better mostly because ignorance is bliss. We did not know a freight train was heading at us at full speed. It started it's trip in the 90's and struck us on 9/11.

All of this terrorism did not suddenly appear when President Bush was elected. It had been building a long time. I really do believe we were either blessed by God or just damned lucky George W. Bush was the Commander-in-Chief when it did. Can you imagine the nightmare it would have been if Al Gore was?

The last democrat that was worthy of the title "Commander -in-Chief" was FDR. Kennedy was so/so. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were a complete waste as Commander-in-Chief.

This is not opinion. It is factual information.



.

Answer 3

Because I don't believe in lying. Clinton had NOTHING to do with creating the economy of the 90's. Reagan's military build up of the 80's allowed Clinton's downsizing. The military of earlier years created the infrastructure that has turned into the Internet. Arafat played Clinton like a fiddle to get concessions from Israel. He gave away technology to China. They ONLY go item he did do was stop the ability to live on welfare for life. The republicans forced his single contribution to the long term advancement of the US.

He was also great at selling lies. His one before even being elected was I didn't inhale. He told all of us what he thought of our intellect. In most marijuana parties there is enough trapped smoke that one doesn't have to tale a hit off a joint.

Now You tell us what He initiated that puts him in high esteem with you.

Answer 4

They have some weird thing going on where liberalism is the biggest threat to America ever.Thought the November election would have cured them.I thought that if they saw that God didn't come of a cloud to strike down with lightning on America for voting Democratic that they would get less scared.But that was idle hope it seems.And they are still to frustrated all the mudslinging against Clinton never worked.

Answer 5

I'm willing to bet that over half the conservatives on this
website were 12 yrs. old or younger in 2000 & really don't
have a clue of what having a good president is like.

President Clinton did try to do something about terrorists,
but the Republican congress was so busy dwelling on his
sex life, he couldn't get anything done.

Answer 6

At a time when the nation is bogged down in the war in Iraq and chafing under Bush's leadership, Bill Clinton's tenure is taking on a rosier glow. In the USA Today/Gallup Poll, 71% said he was a good president - more than double Bush's 34% approval rating. USA Today March 29, 2007

Only 34% still support Bush, so according to this poll, some of them have seen the light.

Answer 7

You recommend how does it experience to be a patriot today. via the far extra democrats help SOPA than republicans via fact it helps there values of extra suitable government. A democrat presented PIPA and in factor of fact via fact that bush left place of work the unemployment cost as in no way been decrease and record numbers of people our now on government tips courses. One vast *** Mistake u.s.

Answer 8

Things may have been better in the 1990's. We could still convince ourselves that there were not enemies to our nation. President Clinton had very little to do with the economic growth of the 1990s. He just kept his hands off of things and did nothing, which happened to be the best thing to do during that period of time.

Answer 9

The squeaky wheel gets the oil....
They think their power of suggestion will make people blind to the facts.... well, that is how they got into office and it worked then, so why not now?

Right after Bush took office the stock market began declining, the republican press kept "forecasting" a slow recovery that all the retardicans believed, but the market kept declining until 9/11, so then they have something they could blame it on.

Answer 10

Well the standard opposing argument, is that the storm that led up to 9-11 was brewing in the 90's.

... I am not blaming anybody, I am just saying, that in some ways Bush walked into an inevitable ...

however, the efficacy of his diplomacy is up to debate.