Many Republicans detest Bill Clinton. What did he do or not do to be considered a worse president than Bush?

Answer 1

He is a Democrat. Period. That is why they hate him. If Bush did the same things as Clinton they would take up for him. Of course we have some on our side that is the same way, just not to the point of ragging on them 7 years after the fact. I detest Reagan, but I didn't try to use him to justify Clinton's screw ups.

Answer 2

Okay, here's an answer from a liberal Democrat.

Bill Clinton's personal involvement with a vulnerable young adult over whom he had supervisory powers, constitutes sexual exploitation. I know of no misbehavior of that sort by President Bush, and that situation and the subsequent political flap ought to have been seen as predictable by Democrats in 1992.

Clinton was my absolute rock-bottom choice from the seven or so Democrats running then. That being said, I was quite astonished at his accomplishments in office. The fiscal conservatism (not really popular with a lot of Democrats) was admirable; the fact that it actually wiped out the deficits seemed almost miraculous.

And President Bush's effect on the country ought to have been equally predictable in 2000, as he was promising to return us to borrow-and-spend government throughout the campaign.

Answer 3

One, never taking any appropriate action against Bin Laden and the countries responsible for all the terrorists attacks that happened under his 8 years of Presidency. From Marine base bombings, WTC bombing in 1993, 2 US Embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing. All he says is do not overreact towards the terrorists, that was in 1996 when he gave his first speech regarding the 1993 WTC bombing at a luncheon.

He had a chance to catch Bin Laden due to the Sudanese government keeping a leash on him, Saudis did not want to interfere for fear of backlash with other countries so they stayed clear (understandable in that part of the country) but Clinton, well this was 1997 and he said Bin Laden was not a top priority. After all the attacks thus far in his Presidency from Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he is not a top priority. Nice.

At least Bush had the backbone to go to war with al-Qaeda.

Oh and Clinton cut back on national security, shut down military bases, cut back over 25% military funding, sold China rocket technology, now China has a powerful nuclear weapons program. He has that disaster of Waco, which imagine if Waco would have had happened under Bush's watch and how everyone would be demanding his impeachment and really tearing into him. Not a peep like that from the media with Clinton, though. My no.

So far we have not been attacked by al-Qaeda under Bush. We are finally exposing terrorists where they are. Capturing terrorists and putting them in courts/prisons. Only problem I see with Bush is he isn't pardoning the border patrol agents or Marines who are being falsely accused for a "massacre" that never happened. The Dubai ports deal and his lack of doing anything about the border and illegals. Beyond that compared to Clinton he isn't all that bad.

Answer 4

Oh please, there's no longer even a opposition right here. Clinton pointed out the al Qaeda hazard and made going after terrorists a precedence. while Bush took place of work, he and his administration disregarded the al Qaeda hazard, demoted the counterterrorism unit, left counterterrorism out of the DOJ precedence funds, and disregarded repeated warnings of an drawing close attack. Bush individually disregarded the August 6, 2001 PDB. Then, to authentic all of it off, after our u . s . replaced into attacked, Bush desperate to invade Iraq, a rustic completely unrelated to the attack thereby diverting components removed from the conflict in Afghanistan and uselessly expending lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds. meanwhile Osama bin weighted down remains at super. Bush has plenty to respond to for with regards to his coping with of this so-called conflict on terror.

Answer 5

bill clinton balanced the budget. something bush senior and junior never did.

I am 100% sure Both (all) presidents LIED, only clinton lied about a BJ while Bush lied about WMD.

For those who never had a BJ, you should try it..you will like it. :)

can someone give GWBush a BJ so we can impeach him?

Answer 6

Two things:

1) He lied under oath to congress and the American people.

2) His lack of respect for the office of the president. A BJ in the oval office is just wrong.

Answer 7

Clinton got the Hoes and those uptight republicans can't handle it, eventhough they are all closet freaks. Clinton was the man and should not even be mentioned in the breath as bush since he is so pathetic. The rest of the world laughed at us when Clinton got caught foolin around and there were talks of impeachment, they didn't see the big deal. now the rest of the world thinks our whole administration is a joke.

Answer 8

He stood by and did nothing when our Embassy's were attacked, when the Cole was attacked and our soldiers killed, when he let ben Laden go........... As a result we're in the mess we're in now! Bush is trying to clean up Clinton's mess.

Answer 9

Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Sexual Assault, Selling out to the Chinese, Ignoring Islamic terrorism, Taking credit for an economy that was none of his doing and turning it into a recession (without the help of high oil prices or a war). Increased class hatred. Brought shame and disgrace upon the office of the President with his sexual hi-jinks with a girl the age of his daughter. This after promising to the American people that his would be the most moral administration in the history of the US.

Answer 10

You mean besides:

Increasing the trade deficit 1,302%
Increasing the uninsured from 12.9% to 16.3% ( the record)
Passing NAFTA
Increasing the National Debt 8 years straight
Cutting the Military 40%
World com and enron which occured under his watch

having 38 indictments against administration members
Having 33 convictions of administration members
( the record of any administration )

Attacking/invading six countries on four separate continents, without congressional or UN approval


Should i go on ?