ShadowWraith

Just wanted to see what you guys thought about this. Personally i think that aside from personal matters and taste in women (look at lewinski..) Clinton was a far better President. He brought the U.S. out of the deficit Bush Sr. had left and made sure international relations were good. Just today the newspaper printed alarming statistics that showed popular opinion of the U.S. has nearly halved since the war. For example, France went from 62% to 31%, Britain went from 83% to 48% and Germany fell from 78% to 25%.

Thoughts?

tikki

I think this could divide across party lines, but I am going to vote for Bush only because he brought the country together during 9/11, and did an excellent job with that nightmare.

I am not too big on his policing the world policies, but I can respect it more than the passiveness of Clinton (well, besides bombing Iraq to divert attention from the Lewinsky thing)

__________________
Take notice. Take interest. Take me with you.

Nyenrodian

Clinton. No contest.

As the TS stated, Clinton pulled the country out of a deficit and turned it even into a 6 billion dollar surplus.

Dubya managed to turn it into a deficit in no time. Starting two wars that were totally unnecessary and ignoring international treaties and conventions.

Although, I loved *that's my Bush* which wouldn't have been possible without dubya.

Dragonlich

Nyenrodian, as much as I dislike Bush... I think you're totally wrong.

Clinton did not do anything special to pull the country out of a deficit; with the economy soaring, deficits were turning into surplusses all over the world. Bush took over when the economy was starting to go down, hence he "turned the surplus into a deficit", like every surplus worldwide turned into a deficit again.

"It's the economy, stupid", not the president in charge - you only notice results of current programs years down the line.

Anyway - I dislike both of them. Clinton was a lying bastard, while Bush is too stupid to lie.

Nyenrodian

Even if the economy was soaring it takes a good president and mostly staff to guide the economy. If you let it loose completely the booms will be high, but brief. Clinton extended it for a long time. Together with his staff and the FED of course.

Bush is just an ass hole.

seretogis

Do you have any links to back that statement up? Even if it were true, would you prefer an asshole for president, or a slimey crook that lies straight-faced to his wife and the American public?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Nyenrodian

I'd prefer Clinton over Bush, even if Clinton was 6 feet under.

seretogis

Go-go gadget logic.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Nyenrodian

I'm sorry, but imho Bush is the worst president you've had in ages. Especially his foreign policies are terrible. He was doing badly before 9/11. and after 9/11 he was doing even worse.

9/11 was one of the few things he handled right.

fnaqzna

IMHO, 911 was easy... clearly defined problem with a clearly defined solution... removal of Al-Qaeda.

A monkey could do it...



... wait a minute... a monkey did do it.

isandro

Clinton, hands down.
Far as I can remember, he always tried to calm things down before settling a dispute. He was reaching out to other countries, not just telling them what to do.

Bush, after killing support for abortion hospitals, dragged the nation into a war that no body wanted over weapons that were never to be found and is now found trying to shove his shoe into his face because soldiers are dying every day.
I mean, I don't even know what it means when a country just says 'O no, we're not bankrupt at $290 billion, but at $360 billion' (I don't remember the exact figures)
-The government may spend $400 billion more this year than it takes in, dwarfing the previous record, the $290 billion deficit of 1990. To accommodate the imbalances, Bush signed a bill Tuesday adding nearly $1 trillion to the federal borrowing limit -- a record boost exceeding the total debt the government had accumulated in its history through 1980. Yet the resulting $7.38 trillion debt cap will probably suffice only until sometime next year.

More info can be found at:http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

I'd still prefer Clinton, he had a personality and was more fun to watch.

p.s.:I had the 'Bush: wanted for terrorism' poster in my window during the war.

__________________
-Life, liberty and the pursuit of hamburgers.

sixate

And we have a winner. I agree with this 100%.

KillerYoda

Where is "none of the above?"

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

Phaenx

I prefer Bush, if not only because he actually makes use of himself. I really think Clinton was asleep behind the wheel, and I never cared for his crippling the military.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

oldman2003

Excuse me? I may be a rookie but who do you think made the military that this admin uses so strong? Even bush said that!

XXXs

No contest. Bush is the better president. Previous posts stating that the 90's economy was due to Clinton are wrong. A solid foundation must be laid in order to have the growth we saw. I would have to give the Reagan economic policy the credit.

Those that say Bush is responsible for the current economy are flat out wrong. The economy made a turn during 2000. Lets see...who was president then???? Clinton!!! Clinton killed the growth in the economy, not Bush. Plus 9/11 kicked the economy while it was down.

Honestly, neither has been a great president. Neither is/was a leader.

As for the military, Reagan made it strong. That is a fact even democrats see. Clinton, along with most previous democratic presidents, cut military spending all while deploying the troops all over the world. This is a horrible thing to do. It stretches the military too thin. Yes, Bush has sent the military all over, but he also raised military spending to give our troops what they need.

Clinton was lousy. Bush is so so.

ShadowWraith

Bush did have a hand in turning surplus into deficit. It costs billions of dollars a month to wage a war, money that could have been spent on schools, healthcare, and other programs to help not only the American people but those worldwide. Consider this, one tomahawk cruise missle costs about $1 million to build. One dose of nevirapine, a drug used to combat passing on AIDS hereditarily costs about $5. Thousands of children in Africa die each year due to AIDS from their parents when money spent killing people could have been spent saving people.

As for raising military spending, Bush seems to subscribe to the NRA school of "Its better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it." Clinton realized that its a waste of money to maintain thousands of tanks, planes, and warships during peacetime. Look at Canada, (my home country ;p). We have a rather small army/navy/air force but we don't need a huge one in spite of the fact Canada's landmass is rivaled only by that of Russia. So why does Bush feel the military constantly needs to be expanded?

Dragonlich

By the way, wasn't Bush the only leader ever to lower taxes during a war???

Phaenx

I don't think you understand the concept of killing to save lives. It is a bit of a paradox, but think how many people Saddam would have killed if we allowed him to continue running his country the way he was, regardless if he had nukes and decided to nuke someone, or sell the information/nukes to terrorists/rogue nations.

I'll tell you what, it would have been a hell of a lot more then the casualties we caused. Also, Canada doesn't need a large military force because you have America there to protect you.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Sty

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

- Gandhi -

__________________
br,
Sty

I route, therefore you exist

Sparhawk

To say that Bush's economic policy has nothing to do with turning the budget into an enormous deficit is GROSSLY naive.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Nyenrodian

I don't think you understand the reason WHY Bush invaded Iraq. Let me give you a hint, it was not because there were WMDs, or to help the Iraqi people.

ShadowWraith

I'm not saying Saddam was a good leader, but he hasnt done anything lately to warrant attack other then the so-called attempts to acquire WMD. All of the massacres he committed were in that past and when he was still an ally of the U.S. So if they wanted to take him out for that why didnt they do it before? As for killing to save lives, whos lives have they saved? At first the iraqi people welcomed the Americans as liberators but lately that has degenerated into mindless looting and fighting in the streets of Iraq. An average of 1 U.S. soldier is lost per day and most likely, many more Iraqi people. Senator Kennedy has termed it "a shooting gallery" and civilians are caught in the crossfire.

As for Canada, yes America is there to protect us, but no one in their right mind would randomly attack Canada. We have done nothing to antagonize anyone and the world sees us as a peaceful nation.

sportsrule101

Bush by a long shot. Clinton helped disable the military, which made terrorist braver. He gave miltary weapon specs to china, which in turn sold them to countries who hate all americans. Bush brought us through 9-11, and is setting up our military, economy and other factors up for the long term, which i'm sure who ever is in office next will be credited for. Most decisions made today don't have an overall effect till later, just look at how regan helped clinton look good.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

sportsrule101

First terrorist are not what you call in the "right mind".
second canada also has no real power in the world
even if you did antagonize someone, i doubt they would attack, because the USA has your back.
i wouldn't recomend becoming france.

ninety09

I find GWB hilarious and terrifying in equal measures.

Trouble is, he'll win a second term.

God Help America.

Kadath

No shit?

__________________
it's quiet in here

Xell101

Clinton is the only elected president to have been impeached for good reason.

Daval

You echo my thoughts exactly.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

hiredgun

This link is perfect for this thread:

http://www.mikehersh.com/article_61.shtml

You can glean from that how I voted.

Daval

Here is the article that hiredgun linked above.



Never send a Bush to do a President's job
By Mike Hersh
May 29, 2003


How good was the Clinton Presidency? History's pending verdict becomes clear when we ignore the hysterics and contrast Bill Clinton's success against two failed Bush presidencies. Bush I and Bush II - gloomy bookends before and after the eight great Clinton years.

Look at the Clinton record. The best economy ever. Real wages up, unemployment down. Housing up, poverty down. Stock market up, crime rates down. Progress toward peace in strife-torn areas like Ireland, the Balkans, and the Middle East which knew bitter conflict dating back decades, even centuries. A true Golden Age. Just wonderful!

Right wingers and some in the media resent President Clinton for his talent, his genuine compassion, and his self-made success. He not only kept the campaign promises he made, he even fulfilled those Reagan and Bush I made and broke. All without breaking a sweat. Grace under pressure.

I'd love to see psychiatric studies explaining why petty people hate such a good and great man so much. It can't be because he taxed them more, because he only raised taxes on the top 1.2% or so richest - and his policies made even those wealthy few much wealthier.

Sexists, racists, gay bashers and other haters hate Clinton because he dared to value people they hate - gays, minorities, and women - as much straight white males. But that can't explain the animosity among the elite media. Perhaps it was envy after all?

When history forgets the right wing hysteria and smug hypocritical media sanctimony, it will mark William Jefferson Clinton among the greatest Americans of our time if not all time.

A true heir to FDR, President Clinton is a leader who accomplished so much against great odds. He overcame ruthless enemies who revile him with lies to this day. Despite the spite of vicious minds, America and the world miss Clinton's smart, sensible leadership more with each passing day.

Why? Because Bush so badly fails to fill Clinton's shoes. Clinton strode confidently. Bush stumbles and falls like a small child trying to walk in his daddy's wing tips. Bush's economy - flaccid and flailing as his father's before him - replaced Clinton's eight years of record expansion.

Just as Clinton's sound fiscal policies and widening opportunity replaced Bush I's stagnant, backward, failed approach, Bush II replaced Clinton's success with unfairness, folly and failure.

Clinton gave us record surpluses. Bush threatens to break his father's record for the worst deficits in history. The smart money on Wall Street has already voted with its investment capital. Their verdict on Bush's Voodoo Enronomics? No confidence.

Don't blame Bush? Can't credit Clinton? Maybe not for everything, but consider this one fact: Clinton's policies helped to create 22 million net jobs in eight years. During six years under two different Bushes the economy failed to create even one net private sector job. Not even one!

The record shows how well the economy did with Clinton's policies, and how badly the same economy did just before and after with a Bush in office. The same holds for the successes President Clinton achieved after Bush I's international failures, and how quickly hard-won progress toward peace crashed and burned under Bush II's notorious neglect.

Bush the elder delayed US recognition of the former Soviet states, and sat on the fence, hapless and impotent as Yeltsin stared down the tanks.

The Balkans burst into open warfare and ethnic cleansing under Bush I who did nothing to help anyone. Even Bush I's triumph, the Gulf War, resulted from his inept attempts to "bring Iraq into the family of nations."

The Bushes - like all Republicans - at best clean up part of their own messes and kick the can down the road leaving others to fix problems they create - Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, North Korea and more.

Contrasts most stark: Bush I stood back confused and befuddled as crises raged, but Bill Clinton plunged ahead and fostered peace. Clinton partnered with Yeltsin, and helped prevent Russia from backsliding into tyranny. Clinton's leadership, against harsh Republican opposition, quelled the Balkan crisis.

I could go on about Bush I's failures domestic and international forever, but this article is mainly about the current Bush's failures at home and abroad vs. President Clinton's successes. However, noting how bad Bush I failed helps illustrate how well Clinton succeeded by contrast.

Clinton almost solved the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, but failed. He couldn't do it all, after all. Rather than build on this progress, W. Bush's announced a non-policy and let the Middle East languish.

The conflict exploded for lack of a steady hand directing the sole Super Power. Bush's negligence, lack of will and lack of ability presents a stark contrast against Clinton's engaged, informed and impassioned leadership in matters foreign and domestic.

That's what we need in a President. Engagement, knowledge, and passion to help us get where we have to go. That's leadership. When we examine the failure by both Bushes, we see profound lack of leadership.

We look at the endless litany of Bush failures versus our stellar economic and international performance under Clinton's leadership and realize success is no accident. America floundered both before and after the Clinton Presidency. History will give due credit - and blame - to the men who set the domestic and foreign policies.

We don't have to wait for the history books to know neither Bush measures up to the Clinton standard. This is how we know America didn't, doesn't, and never will look to AWOL Bush for leadership.

On 9/11, Bush hid. It took him 2 days to gather himself to go on national TV. We the people were eagerly awaiting leadership, but by then it was too late for Bush to matter.

We'd already gotten the leadership we needed from others like Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton who rushed home from Australia to press flesh and slap backs in NY City.

Think about this: Bill Clinton made it back from the other side of the planet and still beat Bush to Ground Zero by days. By the time Bush got there, rescue workers had sectioned off the area.

Bush still shirked and shunned even firemen and police. He blathered empty platitudes from a distance through a megaphone. Americans know what a President should do, and Bush didn't do it. President Clinton did. He strode into the crowd, comforted those missing loved ones and in every way acted as a President should act. People flocked to President Clinton, as they do where ever he goes around the world.

In Bill Clinton we see a President - honor, dignity, the whole thing. AWOL Bush in stark contrast was and is a scared little boy. He hides behind security and confines protesters to "First Amendment Zones." To emphasize, Bush refused to approach or shake hands with the NYPD and NYFD at ground zero, much less the public!

Bush is afraid to face the American people in person, and only clumsily, reluctantly faces us on television. We react accordingly. Let's look at the facts. By the time Bush addressed America two days too late, we'd lost all interest in him.

TV ratings show Bush's "leadership" wasn't the most watched in its time slot. That honor went to an episode of "Survivor." Did Bush come in a close second? No. The next most watched was the comedy "Friends."

Well, what about #3? Again, no. On 9/13 two days after the terrorist attacks, more Americans watched a cartoon called "The Family Guy" rather than look for "leadership" from AWOL Bush!

The so-called leader of the free world addressed us in the aftermath of the worst attacks on American soil, and Bush finished fourth in viewer interest behind a hokey "reality" show, a sitcom, and a cartoon.

Leadership? What leadership? Bush went on the air to talk to America in a time of crisis, and most Americans said who cares what you think, Mr. Bush? They watched people eating bugs, Ross and Rachel and a cartoon which was off the air soon thereafter!

That's not just sad, it's pathetic. Pathetic describes Bush pretty well. I watched Bush. He was not a leader. He was befuddled and blinking, and he still hasn't kept his promise to bring the terrorists to justice. I should have watched the other cartoon.

If President Clinton went on the air it would have been on 9/11, not two days too late. He would have explained the situation, captivated our attention, and provided real leadership.

Remember Clinton's speech after the Oklahoma City bombing? He said what needed saying, brought us together, and led. That was a real President. George W. Bush? A leader? A real President? Not even close. And America knows it. The moral of the story: Never send a Bush to do a President's job.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

TaLoN

to everyone who blames the economy on bush, i recall the economy going to shit months before he won the election. maybe consumers didn't notice, but if you are a business owner you sure did.

TaLoN

and his reasons matter why?

fnaqzna

This just in... It was the Clinton administration that made the victory possible in Iraq. The Bush administration has absolutely nothing to do with the current capability of the U.S. armed forces.

seretogis

Uhh.. how do you figure that?

Clinton wasted military resources bombing aspirin factories and delayed the ABM system nearly to death. In his last year in office, he proposed a $12b funding increase for 2002-2007 which was a last ditch attempt to look something other than anti-military. This, after giving China our weapons technology.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

fnaqzna

My friend, there is much more to the military than Tomahawk missiles and anti-ballistic missile systems.

It's people. I'd have to look at the retention figures, but I think it's safe to bet that the majority of the current military personnel served when Clinton was in office.

fugue_life

Im all for Clinton, at least he was amusing in a good way. Plus Bush has pretty much gotten rid of every environmental act this country spent the last 30 years implementing. But I forgave him after all the WOMD he found after invading Iraq. O wait... Course you shouldn't listen to me since I pretty much beleive that there are no such things as countries anymore, really only corporations. The lobbyists pretty much have the power here. But the general masses all need someone to follow/ blame/ praise so that is why we somehow elected this retard. O wait, we didn't elect him. Hmmmm

O yeah, militarys budget needs to be slashed in half at least( I personally after reading Machevilli's Prince coud now take over the entire world with only a small team of navy seals, a sack of potatoes, McGeyer, and Ron Jeremy, course thats another thread all together), and communism and socialism had the right idea. anyone else I didn't offend let me know and Iwill respond to their wishes

__________________
ba-weep=gra=na-weep-nini-bon?

seretogis

Yeah, like allowing oil drilling in protected parts of Alaska, right?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

ChaoticLimbs

I vote Bush by a hair. The policies Clinton PASSED were very successful. However, some of the ones that were shot down in the House and Senate were extremely foolish. One good example is the Family Medical Leave Act. The version that originally passed is a good idea because it encourages women to take adequate leave from work during and after pregnancy. This leave is not paid since you aren't working. It's fair to the employee since she keeps her position and doesn't start at square one, and fair to the company because they're not paying for a three month vacation. Clinton tried to change that to make it a PAID leave at employer expense and that was shut down. Imagine what could have happened: Employers silently excluding women 21-35 just so they don't go bankrupt. Small businesses just don't have a billion dollar bank account, and the funny thing is that big businesses don't either.
(Not when 3000 women out of 20,000 employees goes on paid FMLA in one year)

isandro

let's not forget how Bush bailed out on the Kyoto agreement to do something about global pollution and bailed out of the nuclear disarmament program.
America has been one of the most influential countries for decades (or more), but only since Bush has it started to disengage itself from the rest of the world and create animosity towards itself.
No one gets away with being so arrogant as to tell other governments how to run their county. Especially when you're making such an total craphole out of your own country.
I've never resented any public figure as much as him.

Would that be because he put the 'ass' back in 'assistant', or because he lied about it?
If it is the latter, how about some proof about them WMD's we've been hearing so much about?

And is it just the newscoverage (or me), or is Bush really doing next to nothing for the U.S.? All I hear is about foreign policy.

okay, i'll stop rambling...

__________________
-Life, liberty and the pursuit of hamburgers.