English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you ignore the white Stain on the dress did you think Bill Clinton did a good job governing the country?

WHy or why not?

2007-11-24 05:46:08 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

Bill Clinton was the best president in the last fifty years, maybe one of the greatest ever. Even though President Clinton had to deal with the dirty cheap political attacks of the neocon repubs who actually investigated the Presidents sex life (proving how depraved repubs were at the time) Clinton managed to turn the U.S. economy around, and brought prosperity back to the working class after the dismal Reagan years. Terrorist activities dropped markedly during the Clinton years, as did crime in the U.S.. The nineties was a period of great economic and technological expansion in the U.S., the longest in U.S. history after Clinton's changes in tax distribution.

Here is a nice quote

"Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history."

Here is another website that tells about Clinton's anit-terrorist activities, and repub efforts to sabotage his efforts in defending our country.

If you care about the U.S., you will bother to read the links and learn the truth.

2007-11-24 06:24:25 · answer #1 · answered by poet1b 4 · 3 5

The economy was terrible, even though the lapdog media kept telling people it wasn't.
We were subjected to numerous terrorist attacks that the president made no response to.
The stock market crashed.
We pulled out of Somalia, which resulted in mass murder and genocide taking place.
Advanced military technology was sold to China in return for campaign contributions.
Illegal insider trading.
Use of FBI files to carry out vendettas against political enemies.
Numerous women molested and raped, only to have their names smeared by his friends in the media when they were brave enough to tell the truth about him.
Through all of this the President spent eight years with out any move to deal with even one of the problems that the country faced.
Does that pretty well sum up eight years of abuse of power and total non-performance in what should be the most influential office in the world.
But the media told people the economy was great, it was worse than it is now, or was under his predecessor. The told the public that he had a budget surplus, he didn't. So all the people who didn't look at the facts for themselves were conned, but conning people really was Bill's only skill.
Maybe that's why liberals write all the fiction they do about Bush. The false accusations they make about Bush were the reality of the Clinton administration.
But of course he had the"unbiased " media as his first line of cover-up. No one dared tell the truth about Bill with out the news media attacking them in order to divert the public's attention from the facts of Bill's coruption and incompetance.
And, for anyone who thinks he would have dealt better with 9/11. The first World Trade Center bombing happened one his watch, he did nothing. Our embassies were bombed on his watch ,he did nothing. Our naval ships and military installations were bombed on his watch, he did nothing.
The complete amnesia that seems to grip some people when they look back on the Clinton administration is truelly amazing. But that's what Hillary is counting on.

2007-11-24 14:19:56 · answer #2 · answered by Mark S 3 · 4 3

No, the economy was going down the toilet, he sent our soldiers into Bosnia and two other conflicts when he didn't have the knowledge of what he was doing because he ran out of the country to get away from the draft. There were are 44 people who died that stood in his way to become president (coincidence I think not), he allowed gays into the military with his don't ask don't tell which he essentially told them to lie about it, etc., etc.

2007-11-24 14:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

No, because he traded in the US military to reduce the deficit he encouter during his presidency. Imagine discharging thousands of servicemen who had 20 or more years of service to reduce the force to a smaller government. He took away years of mature and trained individuals from serving combat action and that's why we have the fatalities into 2007. Just imagine a unit with all ranks with no simulated combat experience whatsoever sent to an aggressive hostile combat environment. We were bound to repeat it and I thank GOD it wasn't me.

2007-11-24 14:21:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 3 2

No, not at all. The Monica affair was just one of about 20 scandals that keep him busy covering his tracks throughout his entire 2 terms. He did very little for 8 years and was rendered ineffectual from the constant scandals. A rating of slightly less than mediocre is being kind to him. On a side note, the last Dem President to serve 2 full terms without being impeached was FDR, 62 years ago.

2007-11-24 13:50:39 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 6 4

Absolutely. We had a great economy and peace in the world; ethnic cleansing was stopped in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti; Mexico's economy was bailed out to our benefit; crime decreased dramatically largely due to his Crime Bill; Welfare Reform was instituted and appears to have been beneficial to all; tax breaks (the Earned Income Tax Credit) for the working poor were increased significantly, pulling many above the poverty line; the peace process was finally begun in Ireland under his direct supervision; Saddam was kept in check; North Korea put its nuclear program on hold due to his efforts; terrorism in this country was stopped after the 1993 WTC bombing; and much more.

He was an excellent leader and, had he been forced to face a serious crisis (like 9-11) he would have gone down in history as one of the greatest.

2007-11-24 14:02:09 · answer #6 · answered by golfer7 5 · 3 4

Yes, I did like it. The economy was booming, we had answered threats quickly and the correct people were who we went after. The neocon agenda was thwarted when Clinton vetoed the budget bills with the barnicles of neoconism attached to them. I wasn't pleased with the Lewinski incident but that was minor compared to many of the things we have seen over the last 7 years.

2007-11-24 14:01:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 4

Compared to the current President? Yes, he did a tremendous job. Republicans would be smart not to try and run a campaign against Bill Clinton, they'd lose almost every time.

2007-11-24 14:04:21 · answer #8 · answered by Alex G 6 · 3 5

He's a lying, cheating, misogynist scum bag, who should have never been let out of the Hot Springs, AR trailer park. But his welfare reform and war in Bosnia were good. He's not the worst president ever.

His wife is scary.

2007-11-24 14:08:08 · answer #9 · answered by Chang 2 · 5 2

Without a doubt! Our economy was brought back to speed after Reagan and the first Bush, the rest of the world respected us, he was able to speak well, not slouch on his podium, and acted like a dignified president. President's have been having affairs since G. Washington. It's nothing new. It's just the Republican's, like Gingwritch (sp) who was having an affair himself, posessed so much hatred for Clinton, he took him away from his presidential duties and cost tax payers tons of money to impeach him on such a ridiculous personal matter. The bottom line is Bush and his administration have degraded themselves and this country.

2007-11-24 13:57:15 · answer #10 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 6 6

fedest.com, questions and answers