Why is it when someone criticizes GWB, someone feels the need to bring Clinton up?

Question

First of all, what does Bill Clinton have to do with GWB's mistakes? I ask a question about Bush and I get replies about Clinton. Is that your way of defending GWB? Or are you upset that Clinton had a successful presidency and GWB ...well...you know. Please explain your self.
Note: If you don't do this, then this question doesn't apply to you.

Answer 1

Because the can't defend Bush, so they attack Clinton, and or liberals.

Funny, how they will NEVER forget Clinton's BJ in the oval office, but they NEVER seem to remember that Gingrich had an affair also, during the same time as he was throwing stones at Clinton for his marital infidelity.

I guess because Newt divorced his second wife to marry his mistress that makes it all OK.

(actually, this reply is to hold up a mirror to the tactic that you are describing, perhaps everytime a neo-con brings i[ Clintons marital infidelity, we should bring up Newt's sexual misconduct, (or Foley's, or any other conservative from the long list of conservatives with sexual misconduct)

Answer 2

There were missteps and decisions durring the Clinton presidency, that, in hindsight, look like they may have contributed the challenges that Dubya faces, particular with regard to, of course, terrorism. People also wrongly blame Clinton for the dot-com bubble and the recession it's collapse triggered, which really hit early in the Bush presidency (such economic events, of course, are almost entirely outside the influence of the President).

Clinton was really a pretty mediocre president, perhaps about on par with Carter, perhaps not even quite as competent and committed to doing what was right for the country. But, while Carter was faced with numerous difficult challenges, from stagflation to gas lines to the Hostage Crisis, to the emnity of his own party and a hostile media; Clinton assumed office right after the end of the Cold War, and just as the economy was being bouyed by the internet boom (and, ultimately, dot-com bubble) - the challenges he faced he either deftly ignored with a little spin and some token responses or brought upon himself.


Carter and Dubya aren't likely to be remembered as great presidents, because they weren't up to the overwhelming challenges they faced. Clinton might well be fondly remembered within his lifetime, for the good times he presided over, but I don't think history will place him on the same level as Roosevelt (either of them), Lincoln, or the like.

Answer 3

I guess comparisons are obvious in this case. During the Clinton regime there were no wars, and in both Bush Administrations there have been. I do believe Bush went overboard with his paranoia about war and the strange way he actually got to be President. People also find his friends have benefited from the wars and America has been completely caught unawares by terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The guys appointed by Bush to run certain areas were not up to it, and many shortcomings have come to light.

Clinton's wife is now looking to become the Presidential Candidate, so the comparisons are obvious as well.

Besides, in the last twenty years or so, what other reference do people have except the Bush and Clinton Administrations? I sure as hell don't hear them talking about Jimmy Carter or Nixon.

Answer 4

Well Clintons wife is trying to get the job, and Clinton did not do his job, otherwise why would Sandy "The Pants" Berger go to great lengths to remove classified documents from the archives. Clinton did get impeached and I believe there has been no impeachment vote on GW as of this writing. The Economy is doing much better under Bush, while some of your favorite Liberals are ripping off the poor in the Sub prime Market. How about all those Big Oil Stocks Hillary has, you that industry her and her Marxist friends want to Nationalize and prevent refinery expansion, I believe Rahm Emanuel is a Clintonista also, He says he is trying to be green while another refinery in Ill, is going to dump it's waste in a river. Bush has been trying to expand fuel production While Clinton has tried to close it off. Clinton Got involved in a war we had no business fighting, Bosnia but you were supportive of that fraud of a war, while Clinton ran like a woman from Mogadishu, You complain about the Patriot act but yet you were a punk on the FBI files, and the Waco Massacre.You need to look at the forrest my friend and not focus on the tree.

Answer 5

Tell me about it. No other Presiden had to deal with so many hard issues during their presidency as GWB has had. I think he has done a good job.

The mistakes Clinton made are pathetic because he lied under the oath.

Answer 6

Privately among just conservatives, Clinton is next to Satan and is used and an epithet or an insulting slur. They come from a culture where Clinton's name has a huge negative impact .Its how their idiology shapes their perspective.
By that reasoning invoking the Clinton is supposed to make " Liberals" fall silent and skulk away. It never works, but they do it all the same. They are invoking the worst curse they have. Its also a red herring and a falicy of logic.

Answer 7

Its the same thing when you bring up Charles Manson Sharon Tates name pops up .


You have a criminal mastermind and a victim and people love to blame the victim .

So every time Bush is mentioned in a bad way people always bring up Bill Clinton like using the victim now that he is a private citizen subject to Bush rule that its his fault some how .

Answer 8

You your self are tying Bush and Clinton jointly by skill of evaluating their Presidencies. you moreover could are lumping Hillary and bill jointly as one candidate, which they at the instant are not. No different candidate is being dealt with this sort. the sole element Bush has been efficient at is taking the lives of 1000's of persons.

Answer 9

I think that you are right in saying that people around here would rather criticize each other, rather than argue on terms of what they believe to be right.

I think you can compare it to political ads. Its much easier to criticize someone else's actions than to glorify your own. You see it on TV in election year. The opposing sides will criticize each other instead of highlighting their own qualities.

If someone wants to defend GWB, they should defend him, not criticize others. For example, Bush started out with an approval rate of 93%! That is one of the highest the country has ever seen. Than due to an unexpected domestic attack and a string of decisions that may not have been thought through in their entirety, it has lead to his downfall. Critisizing your opponent, to me, just screams "I don't actually have any qualities of merit! But I know what you did wrong."

Seriously, if you are going to support someone, inform yourself about their decsions and policies, not the faults of their advesaries.

Answer 10

Because the best form of defense is attack. People with any form of intelligence know they can not possible defend GWB ( i think there might be some supporters of his who have some intelligence) and the really thick ones just go on about libs