2007-11-19 05:50:42 · 11 answers · asked by Liability Of The Left III 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No he would have been terrible on his own. He ruined the military by neglect and under funding, NAFTA, numerous illegal business deals, and cover ups. They were made for each other.
2007-11-19 06:01:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm not sure how the advice and involvement of an obviously intelligent and experienced person is considered 'meddling.'
Ask Dubya what it will mean to his legacy (or 'our nightmare') to have listened to Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Norquist, and Delay to name a few.
2007-11-19 14:00:41 · answer #2 · answered by LatexSolarBeef 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who knows. He was so distracted throughout his 2 terms from the endless parade of scandals, about 20 or so, that he was unable to do much besides cover up his and Hillaries illegal activities.
2007-11-19 13:55:10 · answer #3 · answered by booman17 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. Hillary ran the show!!!!! I hope that she gets it. Bush has ran the country to nightmare.
2007-11-19 14:17:40 · answer #4 · answered by kdrck1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say as I never could stomach either of them. But my personal loathing of Hillary was always more passionate than her husband.
2007-11-19 13:54:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, he would have been a much better President if a Republican majority didn't trim his airline security proposals.
2007-11-19 13:54:21 · answer #6 · answered by Boss H 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He sucked on his own. Put the two together and it's a recipe for disaster.
2007-11-19 13:54:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well he won 2 terms so he cant have been that bad. ;)
2007-11-19 13:54:45 · answer #8 · answered by Paranormal I 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A is a a thing is a thing, a thug is a thug.
2007-11-19 13:58:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
this has got to be a joke right?????
2007-11-19 13:54:54 · answer #10 · answered by Angelbaby7 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋