Wow, I guess that is why GB Sr was voted a second term. Oh...wait... he wasn't was he? Democrats are the ones to have in office during times of prosperity. We are the ones who make sure the wealth gets spread where it needs to go. You do know that the Bush's were in business with the bin Laden family right? That is why when 9-11 happened, they rushed to get any of the bin Laden family that was here in the states out. And Clinton made all the mistakes... phew!
2007-04-04 09:53:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by firey_cowgirl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton had the fortune to be in president during a huge expansion of our economy created by the Internet boom and paralleled by a huge housing boom.
History will show us that Clinton was a good "status quo" president. He didn't do anything too stupid while he didn't really do anything too great either.
People who want to blame Clinton for the late 90's early 2000's recession are not looking at the entire picture.
GB Sr, wasn't all that great either. His claim to fame was the gulf war (never fully finished that mission) and the war on drugs (which we are still losing).
As a Republican, I have the maturity to see GB Sr, Clinton and GWB for the type of leaders they are: mediocre at best.
What we need is a visionary with a grounded-in-fact plan. None of the past three pres had that.
2007-04-04 09:12:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by xujames21 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's funny because these GOP politicians have spent so much time spinning bull **** that they can't even figure out what is truth and fiction anymore.
Presidents do very little for the economy in general. Congress exerts the most control. If the Rep's claim was right, what this means is that the right-wing congress elected in 1994 actually benefitted from the good economic measures put in by the previous democratic congress until the end of the 90's when the failed policies during the Gingrich years started to negatively affect America.
2007-04-04 09:11:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Fuller 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Of course George W has made some mistakes but some economic problems did come from the Clinton Administration. I also think the war did too. Sadam should never have been allowed to kick UN inspectors out! If Clinton had taken care of it then, we would not be in a war over there now. I also heard that Clinton had a chance to catch Osama and did not because he was busy watching a golf game on TV. In George's defense, how well could anyone have dealt with Sept 11th and hurricane Katrina.
2007-04-04 09:55:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by curiousgirl112 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
... he relied on North Korea. and because he did no longer negotiate a gadget of assessments into his contract with them. meanwhile, Bush has been insisting on the six-social gathering talks for which liberals begged concerning Iraq. thus far as Foley, i could say that if the Democrats had a coherent approach and have been greater focused on shifting our u . s . a . forward than tearing it aside with hateful ideology considering that 2000, it is obtainable they'd 've capitalized on the sagging ballot numbers of Bush and the GOP by ability of now and gained some seats back in the two the living house and the Senate. Had that been the case, no longer in basic terms would desire to Foley have been conquer by ability of a Democratic opponent, however the Dem majority in fee could have been chomping on the bit to take down a Republican living house member.
2016-11-07 05:34:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by javoronkov 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's tempting to think that, but GWB has had 6 years of to fix those problems, and to make a few mistakes of his own. In reality, the president can only influence history - seldom can one actually make history. For example, there's only a finite amount of oil left, and no amount of exploring, tax breaks, or tax increases will change that. No president can change the fact that we WILL run out. The best that he can do is to spur research and development of alternatives, and delay that day when the big gas gauge in Texas (or the middle East, or the North slope, or the offshore oil platforms) hits the big E.
2007-04-04 09:11:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ralfcoder 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Perhaps if he had enforced the conditions of the cease-fire at the end of the conflict liberating Quwait instead of systematically dismantling our military we would have never been attacked on 9/ll.
Hindsight is 20/20, the future is for Miss Cleo, however reality is what is facing us today. Yes, we are paying for his mistakes, however who is to say we won't prosper due to our current president or wind up blaming him for even more.
The Presidency is not for armchair quarterbacks, but for citizens who strongly believe in what they are doing.
Whether we agree with them or not, now that is our problem, isn't it.
2007-04-04 09:14:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're darned right Bill is the problem!!! The son-of-a-gun went and sent all those Marines to Lebanon and they were murdered in their barracks!! Then he turned around and had Ollie get involved in the Iran/Contra mess and poor old man Bush got blamed for that. Then he went and convinced old man Bush to cut back on the armed forces. The economy plan, "trickle down", that bill forced down Reagan's throat just about did us in!! That freakin' Bill did it all !!!
2007-04-04 09:16:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by supressdesires 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Clinton's mistakes?
Clinton did not make us go to Iraq and run up the deficit.
Clinton did not cause the horrible job after Katrina.
Clinton did not send all our soldiers to war to die.
Clinton did not turn his face to genocide in another county.
etc, etc, etc.
2007-04-04 09:10:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by tHEwISE 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
The terrible thing Clinton did was to leave that massive surplus knowing full well that whoever followed him would not be capable of resisting the urge to spend it....
2007-04-04 09:26:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋