Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

[Moonlight Graham]

How could anyone vote for Bush on that poll? You've got to be kidding me.

[jbg]

How could anyone vote for Bush on that poll? You've got to be kidding me.

I did, and explained why. If you're literate you can read for yourself. Ask the other four.

[Carinthia]

How could anyone vote for Bush on that poll? You've got to be kidding me.

They supposedly put him back in power in 2004 too. Go figure!

[bush_cheney2004]

They supposedly put him back in power in 2004 too. Go figure!

Actually, he would have been "in power" (such a quaint Canadian notion) until January 2005....but it was still a very sweet victory.

[Moonlight Graham]

Actually, he would have been "in power" (such a quaint Canadian notion) until January 2005....but it was still a very sweet victory.

And that's worked out very well i hear.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

You forgot the part about misleading a nation and international community into a war based on false, misleading, or questionable reasons that has led to the deaths of innocent people numbering in the 6-figures & costing a disgusting amount of money.

I must agree that Clinton had an easier time in office. No 9/11 for him. But i have to assume he would have done a better job post 9/11 because its very difficult to do any worse. The one thing i'll tip my cap to Bush on is that there hasn't been another terror attack on domestic soil. Unless you count that weird anthrax period. That's really the only major thing i see he's done well at.

I give Clinton a C- and Bush an F+.

[BubberMiley]

I give Clinton a C- and Bush an F+.

It must be so cool being their teacher.

[Guest American Woman]

You forgot the part about misleading a nation and international community into a war based on false, misleading, or questionable reasons that has led to the deaths of innocent people numbering in the 6-figures & costing a disgusting amount of money.

I must agree that Clinton had an easier time in office. No 9/11 for him. But i have to assume he would have done a better job post 9/11 because its very difficult to do any worse. The one thing i'll tip my cap to Bush on is that there hasn't been another terror attack on domestic soil. Unless you count that weird anthrax period. That's really the only major thing i see he's done well at.

I give Clinton a C- and Bush an F+.

Clinton went longer without another attack on American soil that Bush has. I too believe he would have done a better job post 9-11. As you said, it's difficult to imagine anyone doing worse. But given that the absence of another terrorist attack on American soil, in light of the number of years between the two attacks here, really doesn't give Bush any more credit than Clinton is deserving of in that respect, I give Clinton a B+ and Bush an F-.

[sharkman]

Clinton would have done better post 9/11 in these ways:

There would have been days and weeks of navel gazing, receiving counsel from 'experts' on just why exactly the terrorists are so mad at America. Then a national Day Of Apology, when the American government apologized to terrorists the world over for everything the US has ever done. American flags would have been removed from American Embassies(as they were at some liberal schools of thought, aka universities) and at said universities various Muslim flags would have been raised to make a big show of being sensitive to the needs of ALL students.

There would have been no invasion and toppling of the taliban government in Afghanistan. He would have lobbed cruise missiles as he did with previous attacks on American soil. Since this one was worse than US embassies, maybe 40 or 50 instead of a few missiles, mostly again hitting empty tents and Aspirin factories. Iraq? fugetaboudit. Saddam's mysterious WMD would not have disappeared, and by now, 4th and 5th generation improvements would have been made on their effectiveness.

Next up Clinton would have taken another crack at solving the middle east, since he had done such a great job with 9/11. That's until the emboldened terrorist networks, still with their top generals and captains, would have made at least two more attacks on the continental US. Then Clinton would have woken up and realized you just can't pull a Neville Chamberlain on crazy fanatics.

This, of course would actually add up to a dismal failure for Clinton. But it would have counted as wild success since the Main Stream Media would have crammed that bias down the public's throats.

[Oleg Bach]

Clinton would have done better post 9/11 in these ways:

There would have been days and weeks of navel gazing, receiving counsel from 'experts' on just why exactly the terrorists are so mad at America. Then a national Day Of Apology, when the American government apologized to terrorists the world over for everything the US has ever done. American flags would have been removed from American Embassies(as they were at some liberal schools of thought, aka universities) and at said universities various Muslim flags would have been raised to make a big show of being sensitive to the needs of ALL students.

There would have been no invasion and toppling of the taliban government in Afghanistan. He would have lobbed cruise missiles as he did with previous attacks on American soil. Since this one was worse than US embassies, maybe 40 or 50 instead of a few missiles, mostly again hitting empty tents and Aspirin factories. Iraq? fugetaboudit. Saddam's mysterious WMD would not have disappeared, and by now, 4th and 5th generation improvements would have been made on their effectiveness.

Next up Clinton would have taken another crack at solving the middle east, since he had done such a great job with 9/11. That's until the emboldened terrorist networks, still with their top generals and captains, would have made at least two more attacks on the continental US. Then Clinton would have woken up and realized you just can't pull a Neville Chamberlain on crazy fanatics.

This, of course would actually add up to a dismal failure for Clinton. But it would have counted as wild success since the Main Stream Media would have crammed that bias down the public's throats.

Bush senior and Clinton - once the Tisma relief money entered THEIR system...,it was absorbed = not one fishing village or hotel was rebuilt -WHERE IS THE MONEY? WHERE IS THE RESUTLS?

[sharkman]

Bush senior and Clinton - once the Tisma relief money entered THEIR system...,it was absorbed = not one fishing village or hotel was rebuilt -WHERE IS THE MONEY? WHERE IS THE RESUTLS?

Oleg, you quoted me, but I fail to see how your comments have anything to do with my comments.

[Shady]

To set the record straight.

Clinton presided over pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity.

His "great" economy burst as his term ended. And his "great" peace burst in 2001, from an attack being planned while he was in office. He failed to make any difficult decisions that might negatively effect his approval numbers. He coasted for 8 years, leaving the next several President's to tackle the difficult issues that face America and the world.

[jbg]

To set the record straight.

Clinton presided over pseudo-peace and pseudo-prosperity.

His "great" economy burst as his term ended. And his "great" peace burst in 2001, from an attack being planned while he was in office. He failed to make any difficult decisions that might negatively effect his approval numbers. He coasted for 8 years, leaving the next several President's to tackle the difficult issues that face America and the world.

I remain positive towards Bush, but in the U.S. booms have a way of getting out of hand and ending suddenly. As we now know.

[peter_puck]

I am sure that Iraq had no direct role in 9/11.....but it was on the US's ass-kicking list long before that. Hell, even Canada helped to strangle Iraq to death. President Clinton bombed them for days in 1998. So President Bush is the bad guy for doing what should have been done 12 years before?

Maybe it should have been done 12 years ago, but it should not have been done when it was. It was a huge strategic blunder, right up their with Hitler opening up a second front by invading Russia. You should finish your first war before you start another.

In a war with Al Queda and Iran looking for nukes, Saddam, as weird as it seems, served US interests. The Iranians were afraid of Saddam and the only Al Queda members in Iraq were found in mass graves. Now Iran has left the reservation because they face no credible threats to their power. Al Queda has rebuit in large part due to the Iraq war. It is a huge recruting tool, and the troops who could have finished them off were pulled into Iraq from Afganistan. Hey, and even if the Iraq war ended tomorrow, what do you think happens to all the people who were inspired to join Al Queda for the Iraq war ? Do they go home to raise goats, or do they go somewhere else...like maybe New York ?

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey i can upgrade my ratings.

I give Bill a B- (was a little too harsh on him)

Bush gets a F- x 100

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hey, and even if the Iraq war ended tomorrow, what do you think happens to all the people who were inspired to join Al Queda for the Iraq war ? Do they go home to raise goats, or do they go somewhere else...like maybe New York ?

The Iraq "war" has already ended......same as the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Germany. Same as the Confederacy, Federales, and Crazy Horse. Are they all in New York too?

You are ignoring that many were inspired to kill Al Qaeda members as well. Any "mistake" that bags Libya and North Korea is welcomed.

Edited November 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jefferiah]

Clinton lied but nobody died!

Bush's 16 words. FactCheck contends he was not lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

[GostHacked]

The one thing i'll tip my cap to Bush on is that there hasn't been another terror attack on domestic soil. Unless you count that weird anthrax period. That's really the only major thing i see he's done well at.

Bush has nothing do do with the anthrax scare. He could not even combat it. It turned out that it was one of their military scientists that put out the letters. Domestic terrorism. But it served a purpose to put more scare into people after the 9/11 attacks.

And we could say Clinton did a better job, because there was no 9/11. Which is facetious at best.

BC-2004

You are ignoring that many were inspired to kill Al Qaeda members as well. Any "mistake" that bags Libya and North Korea is welcomed.

But Lybia is a friend of the US now. They denounced the old ways. And not to mention the DPRK has been taken off the USs terror group list. So if there was a mistake, it is how the US is now dealing with these two countries.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Within 1 year, 8 months of clinton leaving office the stock market had crashed and 3,000 people died in the first ever major terrorist attack on American soil.

On Clinton's watch? I would say yes.

If you disagree, you would also accept that Obama is to blame for the upcoming deep US recession, no?

[GostHacked]

Within 1 year, 8 months of clinton leaving office the stock market had crashed and 3,000 people died in the first ever major terrorist attack on American soil.

On Clinton's watch? I would say yes.

If you disagree, you would also accept that Obama is to blame for the upcoming deep US recession, no?

The difference here is that the Clinton Administration warned the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was going to attack. So you can blame Bush for not heading the warnings. If the Bush Administration had, they could have prevented the attacks.

Bin Laden will still be at large after Obama leaves office.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And we could say Clinton did a better job, because there was no 9/11. Which is facetious at best.

Except that we know what Clinton was doing all the while....along with WTC attack #1, Waco, and OKC.

But Lybia is a friend of the US now. They denounced the old ways. And not to mention the DPRK has been taken off the USs terror group list. So if there was a mistake, it is how the US is now dealing with these two countries.

Why do you think this came to pass? Hint: Invasion of Iraq by AUS/UK/USA/POL. There is/was no mistake.

...three down and one to go....maybe attack Iran on January 19th.

Edited November 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[JerrySeinfeld]

The difference here is that the Clinton Administration warned the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was going to attack. So you can blame Bush for not heading the warnings. If the Bush Administration had, they could have prevented the attacks.

Bin Laden will still be at large after Obama leaves office.

hahahahahahahahahahah

yes, I'm sure that's how things operate at the ol' white house - you know the office of the Commander in Chief...

Clinton: "Hey George, as President I would like to let you in on a little secret: Bin Laden is going to attack"

Bush: "Well, that's too bad. I don't give a shit about thousands of innocent American lives. I'm ignoring you because I'm an evil war mongering friend of big oil."

I love how the left thinks the world works. It's great for a laugh.

[guyser]

hahahahahahahahahahah

Yes it is funny. Too bad it is at instead of with.

yes, I'm sure that's how things operate at the ol' white house - you know the office of the Commander in Chief...

Clinton: "Hey George, as President I would like to let you in on a little secret: Bin Laden is going to attack"

Bush: "Well, that's too bad. I don't give a shit about thousands of innocent American lives. I'm ignoring you because I'm an evil war mongering friend of big oil."

I love how the left thinks the world works. It's great for a laugh.

Maybe one should not laugh at the left since that is how it works.

One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.

Ever heard of the PDB ? It didnt contain Calvin and Hobbes cartoon there skippy.

So go ahead and laugh, but hold the mirror up first.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9629C8B63

ETA: link

Edited November 18, 2008 by guyser

[GostHacked]

hahahahahahahahahahah

yes, I'm sure that's how things operate at the ol' white house - you know the office of the Commander in Chief...

Don't take my word for it, take Bush's word.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

This was only 7 months after the 9/11 attacks. According to Bush, Bin Laden had been more than marginalized. But since Osama and the Taliban moved to Pakistan, we can see that the US is definately not publicly saying they are attacking Pakistan where they are currently hiding. No, for some reason they are respecting Pakistani's borders by not going in. But Bush will pass the buck to Obama. Like Clinton passed the buck to Bush. So, I will say again, that by the time Obama leaves office, Bin Laden will still be at large (or dead but not reported).

I love how the left thinks the world works. It's great for a laugh.

Only if you are blinded by your 'right'eousness.

[peter_puck]

The Iraq "war" has already ended...

I suppose this depends on your definition of war. For the purpose of it ending for Al Queda...well, they are still killing members of the US military and civilians, so to them it is still a war- they don't care what you think. They didn't care about Bush's "mission accomplished" either.

...same as the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Germany. Same as the Confederacy, Federales, and Crazy Horse. Are they all in New York too?

No, but they never were in New York - Al Qaeda was. They are a different animal. If the Confederates/Federales/Germany/Korea went to New York, they would be killed. Same with Al Qaeda, but they don't care cause they will go to heaven and be given lots of women without face masks.

You are ignoring that many were inspired to kill Al Qaeda members as well.

I doubt "inspired" is the right the word. The Sunnis were more than happy to have Al Qaeda kill Americans. It was when Al Qaeda started to threaten the power of the tribes and the remains of Saddam's army that people became "awakened".

They don't like the US either, but the US gives them guns that they just might use against the Shite's.