Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Clinton or bush
Lincoln:
Bill Clinton.
PinkTowelGirl:
cant playa hate... Bill all the way 8)
Trauma-san:
Does anybody actually even think about these things, or just say what your political affiliation tells you to?
Lets break it down.
Clinton - During Clinton's years in office, we had a great economy, tons and tons of jobs were created, the economy was rising, etc. However, what Democrats don't want you to know is, the Economy started rising by 3% in the quarters preceding Clinton even ANNOUNCING his run for president, while we were still in George Bush Sr.'s presidency. George Bush Sr. was the president who started the economy turn-around, and really, Bush Sr. never even had a recession; becuase of the strong conservative principles put in place by Ronald Reagan (with Bush Sr. as VP) the United States had an incredible economy through the 80's, slowed down while Bush was in office, and then started growing again in Bush's last year. So, here comes Clinton, and even though he tried to deep-six the economy by attempting to nationalize 1/3rd of the u.s. economy (health care), the economy continued it's strong growth, primarily because of the emerging tech stocks on the NasDaq average on Wall Street. In Clintons last year, after he was fucking impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives... in Clinton's last year, the Economy started falling, again.
On the foriegn front, Clinton refused to accept Bin Ladin on 4 seperate occasions when he was offered to us to be brought to trial for his crimes against the united states (Bombing of the S.S. Cole, etc.etc.etc.)... Clinton didn't want to deal with such a touchy subject, so he kicked the ball effectively down the field, to the next guy's watch. Let him deal with it. Clinton ignored issues of National Safety, and made a fucking huge mess out of Kosovo. I do give Clinton a lot of credit for working diligently on the Israel/Palestine conflict though, with Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon. He tried his best.
I think Clinton is a good man, but he's not a good leader. He doesn't have the stand up inititive required for such an important position, and he also didn't have a strong set of principles to base his decisions on. I feel he made decisions because he thought they were popular decisions to make. He's a politician.
Flash forward to Bush. He comes into office with the economy in a recession, and then gets blamed for it. He's right about now stopping the recession, and the economy for the last 2 quarters has shown strong signs of growth, but nobody's talking about that. All economic indicators point to it going strong from here out... Where Clinton rode out an economy that was already growing, and left office with the economy headed towards recession, Bush took office with the economy in a recession, and has stopped and reversed the downfall. Nobody wants to believe this because unfortunately he's a conservative.
On the Foriegn front, Bush has had to adress every single issue that Clinton ignored. Clinton ignored North Korea. Clinton ignored all of the U.N. violations that were violated in our cease-fire agreement with the Iraqis, and throughout Clinton's presidency, he stood by while Saddam Hussein continued to violate resolution after resolution, because Clinton knew a war would be unpopular, and would lead to Negative sentiments in the middle east. Clinton also ignored Afganistan, and didn't even name it as a state harboring terrorists, even after he was offered Bin Ladin for prosecution 4 times, and passed. Bin ladin we know went on to Bomb the WTC and kill 3000 Americans. I'm not saying that's Clintons fault, because it's not. However, if Clinton would have been more concerned with America's foriegn policy, perhaps this could have been prevented. Now Bush has to handle all of this, and it makes him look bad.
Bush is a stand up man, who takes on any challenge, instead of ignoring the problem like Clinton did for his entire presidency. In 2 years, when the economy is booming like it was in the 90's, the Clinton fans will still be saying he's a better president, when if you look at what he actually did, compared to what Bush has been forced to do by Clinton's inaction, it's easy to see who is the better leader.
UnstoppableForce:
--- Quote from: Buddy Holly on October 21, 2003, 09:04:46 PM ---Clinton also ignored Afganistan, and didn't even name it as a state harboring terrorists
--- End quote ---
LMAO... did he not bomb Afghanistan and Sudan? I don't see that as a good thing, but it does prove your point wrong.
UnstoppableForce:
In my honest opinion, I don't think either of them was a wonderful president. Both had many flaws, but Bush hurt the country more than Clinton ever did. Our foreign policy sucks no matter which party holds office.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version