Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

[1967100]

Clinton

Pros: handling of economy and financial house kept in order

Relatively peaceful era of leadership

cons: was dishonest and didn't go far enough with terrorism

Bush

Pros: No terror attack since 9/11 and sees the potential of terrorism to harm America unlike Clinton.

Strong employment

Cons: Horrible government spending led to a trillion dollars deficit.

Who did a better job?

Edited December 8, 2007 by 1967100

[bush_cheney2004]

Effectiveness transcends political lines and pro/con judgements....was the president and administration able to implement policy objectives without gridlock? By this measure, both enjoyed successes and setbacks in domestic and foreign policies, but having Congress on-side favored President Bush over President Clinton (37 vetoes), so one could argue that effectiveness was better or worse when faced with stiff opposition on the Hill.

[Carinthia]

Clinton lied but nobody died!

[capricorn]

Blue and green

Should never be seen.

Edited December 8, 2007 by capricorn

[bush_cheney2004]

Clinton lied but nobody died!

Hmmm....dead Americans, Iraqis, Serbs, Albanians, Rwandans, Sudanese, Somalis, and others might disagree.

[Guest American Woman]

Clinton lied but nobody died!

Hmmm....dead Americans, Iraqis, Serbs, Albanians, Rwandans, Sudanese, Somalis, and others might disagree.

Ummmm....you really don't get what that means? When Clinton lied, no one died because it. When Bush lied, thousands upon thousands died because of his lies-- and they continue to die, with no end in sight.

That Clinton is listed as "dishonest" in this poll is a joke. That Bush is credited with "strong employment" is another joke. As for no terror attacks since 9-11, Clinton went just as long without terror attacks on our soil.

What matters now is-- 410 days left until Inaugaration Day.

Edited December 8, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

I voted with Bush, but it was a narrow vote. Clinton had his share of positive accomplishments, the leading of which was welfare reform, something no Republican could have gotten away with. As far as deficits, Clinton had the benefit of relative peace (or deciding to ignore trouble spots to negotiate some questionable deals, such as the Arafat-Rabin handshake and Oslo). Also on the positive side, he was a better "monarch" (a President is a combination monarch and PM) than Bush. Katrina, relief for which is in general a state and local matter, would not have become the debacle it was with Clinton since he would have been seen as caring. He "felt people's pain" better, and that is important.

On the negative side, as I hinted above, Clinton compromised the interests of our allies to score media victories. The Oslo Accords and the White House Lawn preliminaries. He sent Gore to Kyoto Conference despite instructions from Senate not to agree to any treaty that didn't bind India and China. He failed to effectually attach terrorist lands in order to maintain approval from foreign buddies such as Chretien and Chirac. As a result of his appeasement, the US suffered repeated attacks on its interests, both here and overseas:

1. WTC1;
   
2. Khobar Towers;
   
3. 
   
4. Kenya and Tanzania embassies; USS Cole
   

Some of these attacks must be layed at his doorstep. In fairness, his admiinistration did foil a diabolical plot to blow up NYC traffic tunnels and the UN, and creatively and imaginatively resurrected a law from the 1790's relating to seditious conspiracy to successfully prosecute this.

Overall, his record was mixed, not as bad as Carter or Bush I and not as good as Reagan.

Bush was a far stronger protector of America's interests, and, unnlike Clinton, knew how and when to say "no". 911 turned out very badly for the Muslim world, though not badly enough. US interests have not been attacked since 911, whereas under Clinton there were more attacks. Since security of the US is the number one job of a President, Bush gets my vote despite some strong negatives.

Those negatives are, as I see them;

1. He was a lousy communicator, making him somewhat of an embarrassment domestically and on the world stage;
   
2. He did little or nothing to shrink government (though he, unlike Clinton, was/is a wartime President)
   
3. His pubic face, initially, was callousness in the face of disasters such as Katrina; and
   
4. He infuriated all sides on immigration.
   

As far as deficits go, he is a wartime President. On the other hand, unike Viet Nam and its aftermath, the US is not facing soaring inflation or shortages.

Both Clinton and Bush belong in the second tier of Presidents, beneath such greats as Washingon, Lincoln, Ted Roosvelt and Reagan, and alongside Truman. A solid B+ for both.

[xul]

When Clinton lied, no one died because it. When Bush lied, thousands upon thousands died because of his lies-- and they continue to die, with no end in sight.

That Bush is credited with "strong employment" is another joke.

It is not entirely a joke. At least American munitions industry has got the strongest employment since the end of Vietnam War, I guess.

What matters now is-- 410 days left until Inaugaration Day.

What matters now is----Whatever who will be the next president, Bush administration has changed the history of the world. Gorbachev pulled the world into unipolar and Bush administration has partly pulled it back.

[Topaz]

Both lied, GW lied more, had a liar for a VP. Take a poll in US, North America, the world, GW would come up on top as the WORST president in US history. He surly will go down in history, just wonder who will write it honestly! Genghis Khan kill i million people in Persia which is Iraq now, GW has killed just as many by going in with the invasion.

[jbg]

Both lied, GW lied more, had a liar for a VP. Take a poll in US, North America, the world, GW would come up on top as the WORST president in US history. He surly will go down in history, just wonder who will write it honestly! Genghis Khan kill i million people in Persia which is Iraq now, GW has killed just as many by going in with the invasion.

Truman ranked that way at one point, but history has treated him more kindly. Should Bush have slapped everyone's back and pretended that all was right with the world, that the WTC and Pentagon were only three dispensible buildings, and subordintated the terror issue to "other concerns"?

[jbg]

What matters now is----Whatever who will be the next president, Bush administration has changed the history of the world. Gorbachev pulled the world into unipolar and Bush administration has partly pulled it back.

No. Mohamed Atta did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmm....dead Americans, Iraqis, Serbs, Albanians, Rwandans, Sudanese, Somalis, and others might disagree.

Ummmm....you really don't get what that means? When Clinton lied, no one died because it. When Bush lied, thousands upon thousands died because of his lies-- and they continue to die, with no end in sight.

Patently false....President Clinton's WMD speech before Opeation Desert Fox reads nearly the same as President Bush's...if that be "lying"....to wit:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons....President Bill Clinton (Dec 1998)

[Topaz]

Patently false....President Clinton's WMD speech before Opeation Desert Fox reads nearly the same as President Bush's...if that be "lying"....to wit:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons....President Bill Clinton (Dec 1998)

You know what, I don't trust either Clintons or the Bush's. Since Clinton was Governor he and Bush sr. have been friends in crime only haven't gotten caught. America needs to rid itself of both families and elected someone with no connection to either of them!

[bush_cheney2004]

Truman ranked that way at one point, but history has treated him more kindly. Should Bush have slapped everyone's back and pretended that all was right with the world, that the WTC and Pentagon were only three dispensible buildings, and subordintated the terror issue to "other concerns"?

Agreed...the parallels with President Truman are striking. US presidents have a responsibility to protect American interests, and the power to do it. Polls from the rest of the world are largely irrelevant, and I would vote against any president or candidate who pandered to same.

Where are the polls for the effectiveness of President Michelle Bachelet?

[Guest American Woman]

Patently false....President Clinton's WMD speech before Opeation Desert Fox reads nearly the same as President Bush's...if that be "lying"....to wit:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons....President Bill Clinton (Dec 1998)

No. That's not what I'm referring to at all. But I'm guessing you already know that, so I'm not going to waste my time getting into it with you. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the lies and exaggerations Bush et al used to get the American publics' support to start a war against Iraq; lies and exaggerations that have been repeated in the media often enough so anybody who's not in a coma would be aware of them-- unless they choose not to be.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. That's not what I'm referring to at all. But I'm guessing you already know that, so I'm not going to waste my time getting into it with you. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the lies and exaggerations Bush et al used to get the American publics' support to start a war against Iraq; lies and exaggerations that have been repeated in the media often enough so anybody who's not in a coma would be aware of them-- unless they choose not to be.

I agree..the topic is administration effectiveness, not the partisan whining of those who lost an election. By that measure, the Bush Administartion was very effective.

Still...you can repeat anything you wish...doesn't mean you are right.

[Guest American Woman]

Still...you can repeat anything you wish...doesn't mean you are right.

Ummm. It's not me repeating it. I clearly said I was referring to the media repeating what's been proven false. The key word there being "proven." That means they are right.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummm. It's not me repeating it. I clearly said I was referring to the media repeating what's been proven false. The key word there being "proven." That means they are right.

Whatever...stick to what you know...not what you think I (or others) should know.

[Carinthia]

lies and exaggerations that have been repeated in the media often enough so anybody who's not in a coma would be aware of them-- unless they choose not to be.

Nothing wrong with party faith so long as it's not blind.

I didn't think it was possible that a dictactorship could form anywhere in the industrialized world, especially in the U.S. Others obviously feel the same. The reluctance to rectify this state of affairs is due to the fact that people, including those in power, can not seem to grasp the fact that it has ocurred. Never having had to deal with anything like this in its young existence, as well as the fact that democracy and the constitution has been held sacred and almost foolproof, the U.S. was not prepared. Trying to fight leaders who have broken all the rules by using the same rules, is akin to fighting a large fire with a garden hose.

Next November, democracy can prevail, as long as the voting machines record the true will of the people.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Carinthia

[bush_cheney2004]

...Next November, democracy can prevail, as long as the voting machines record the true will of the people.

And of course, the voting machines will have been compromised if a Democrat doesn't win (again).

[Carinthia]

And of course, the voting machines will have been compromised if a Democrat doesn't win (again).

Oh come on, we all know that the machines were strategically placed to compromise underprivileged African Americans and others from voting in 2000. The chad and dimple fiasco in Florida and the denying of voters in the larger states with feeble excuses etc. As well as no ballot paper trails and ballots found in the garbage etc. All of this came to light even before Bush/Cheney went to war or comitted other atrocities.

I happen to believe that most right wing people will vote for a party that governs by administering their conservative ideologies and would not sanction a party that would compromise the democratic right of any citizen. Everybody loses in the future and both right, left or centre folks are wise enough to figure that out. The controversy had nothing to do with sour grapes and a lot to do with shock and fear of what the future could hold.

.....

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh come on, we all know that the machines were strategically placed to compromise underprivileged African Americans and others from voting in 2000. The chad and dimple fiasco in Florida and the denying of voters in the larger states with feeble excuses etc. As well as no ballot paper trails and ballots found in the garbage etc. All of this came to light even before Bush/Cheney went to war or comitted other atrocities.

But of course...you have proven a mass conspiracy that the rest of the US knew as usual business, with overvotes, undervotes, spoiled ballots, and dead voters. Please contact the FBI at once with your evidence so that voting fraud prosecution may commence at once. Also, please advise your left leaning candidate heroes to at least win their home state.

I happen to believe that most right wing people will vote for a party that governs by administering their conservative ideologies and would not sanction a party that would compromise the democratic right of any citizen. Everybody loses in the future and both right, left or centre folks are wise enough to figure that out. The controversy had nothing to do with sour grapes and a lot to do with shock and fear of what the future could hold.

.....

Sure...unlike the JFK victory in 1960 (Chicago, Illinois). Drama noted, but many people don't even bother to vote...it's so important.

Edited December 9, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[xul]

No. Mohamed Atta did.

With huge territory, advanced technology, better system and 300 million creative people, America is not weak. No one outside could knock down America except American themselves.

In fact, the handling of Bush with 911 event and invade Afghanistan later was correct. But in Iraq, He established two self-contradictory goals, establishing democracy in Iraq and controling oil from Iranian influence, for the war. But to a country with population of 60% Shiah Muslim and only 20% Sunni, Mr. Bush could not reach the goal of manipulating its oil and keeping it from Iranian influence by democracy. So American soldiers was deeply involved into the conflicts between Iraqi Shiah and Sunni militants because Amercia wants to weanken those pre-Iran clergies but these guys are not the category whom can be easily dealt with. I guess this is the problem that American have to face now and this is the bigest mistake Bush administration have made.

Edited December 9, 2007 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

..... So American soldiers was deeply involved into the conflicts between Iraqi Shiah and Sunni militants because Amercia wants to weanken those pre-Iran clergies but these guys are not the category whom can be easily dealt with. I guess this is the problem that American have to face now and this is the bigest mistake Bush administration have made.

No...it was not a mistake, but a continuation of US foreign policy for the region. 9/11 presented an opportunity to extend and expand long existing Iran-Iraq counterbalancing and destabilizing policies. Concurrently, America cemented a much larger footprint in other Arab states (Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, etc.), while reducing the presence in Saudi. (Liberal UK and AUS PMs agreed.)

[jazzer]

I guess this is the problem that American have to face now and this is the bigest mistake Bush administration have made.

Right on. BC will never admit the mighty U.S. has ever screwed up or apologized for anything. Hopefully his is only a minority opinion of how Americans feel.