Who was worse - The Clinton or Bush Administration - and why?

Remove all ads!

Lets see, commiting perjury, the whitewater scandal(which it was), the whole vince foster debacle, the murders authorised at ruby ridge & waco( at ruby ridge, the fbi agents where issued shoot-on-sight orders, which are illegal BTW & then when the after-incident investigations were going on the fbi awarded cash bonuses & promotions to officers being looked into.
Including "The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General yesterday said in a report the bonuses and promotions went to former FBI Deputy Director Larry A. Potts, later demoted and suspended for improper oversight of the deadly siege; and E. Michael Kahoe, a senior FBI executive sentenced to prison for destroying a critical Ruby Ridge document.

Other cash awards and promotions, the report said, went to Danny O. Coulson, former deputy assistant director who worked for Mr. Potts; and three senior FBI executives, Charles Mathews, Robert E. Walsh and Van A. Harp, accused of not conducting proper after-the-fact investigations to determine what happened at Ruby Ridge."

Then the justice dept blocked prosecution of Lon Horiuchi for the murder of vickie weaver in idaho(a case of the executive branch interfering in the judicial branch)

Janet reno went on tv & lied about the reasons for the murders at waco, claimig that the children were being abused(they weren't) & authorising the murders. Died she ever face charges? nope, her buddy clinton made sure of that.
What about the cambodian children not allowed to be adopted by 12 us families because a clinton appointee, Kent M. Wiedemann(at the time the Ambassador to Cambodia). He went straight into the state dept as a careerist after serving in the peace corps.
Of course in that time he was learning all the "why it is good to hate America and middle class Americans" mantras until he turned into the perfect example of why State needs an " America " desk.
"It's not just the ambassador. There are dozens of organizations that scream all the time about "cultural imperialism." They are enraged by the really odd notion that American families would rather bring the children to the United States and raise them in loving homes than have them die on the streets under some syphilitic pimp. They use the "stolen from their parents" rationale as an excuse, but when asked for numbers can't find any. Is it really better to people like Ambassador Wiedemann that a child die poor and starving in Phnom Penh than grow up fat and middle class in Fly-Over country? Is it better that they have a one in a billion chance of ever meeting their family again than that they have a roof over their head? Apparently so. Better dead than American. Anything but Akron ." - this is from an op-ed from john ringo in the New York Post.

Take off YOUR Clinton tinted glasses & really look at the truth. Republicans aren't to blame for all the evils of the world.
They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, well the democrats have killed more people with good intentions than all the wars that republicans have prosecuted ever.

 

My prediction is.... Nothing good shall come from this thread.

And everyone here who knows me, knows how I would vote.

 

yep i was actually responding to a post by death rabbit but taluntain decided not to move that post for some reason.

 

The Bush administration was worse. Not apologizing for any of the crimes Clinton did do, such as those you point out, but in my opinion, the long term damage that the Bush administration has done to almost every aspect of our country's well being, at home and abroad, is an order of magnitude worse than the Clinton administration.

Specifically,

On the home front: the No Child Left Behind Legislation; deregulation of nearly everything, it is not always for the common good; the health care system of our country; the loss of civil liberties and the secretiveness of the Bush administration; there are many other items, but that is a start.

Abroad: the Iraq war; the way the U.S. does things unilaterally with little or no concern for either our allies or other nations; the damage the war is doing to our economy; the LIES that were told to us leading up to the war.

Do you really think we are better off today than we were in 2001? If so, do you really think it is because of the leadership of the Bush administration?

 

I hate Clinton and his wife with a passion. His policies, his smarmy, snake oil salesman smile, his disgraceful behaviour that degraded the office of the President, pretty well everything about the guy.

That said, and despite my right wing stance on most things, comparatively speaking Bush is the worse president of the two. I like some things about Bush, and his idea that we should stand up to terrorists instead of rolling over and letting them push us around are good and all, but his implementartion sucks and his cronyism is nauseating. His administrations response to Katrina makes my blood pressure go up just typing about it. I'll be glad to see him go and even gladder to see Hillary take the name Clinton away from Presidential discussions. Then perhaps we can all put the last 16 years or so behind us.

 

Like hell, the American Civil War killed more Americans than any other war. And a Republican was president - Abe Lincoln. You can argue that the South actually started the Civil War, and that IS a good argument. But Lincoln "prosecuted" the war to keep the country together. Thusly, the Republicans get that one.

Btw, did you actually bother to look and see what DR meant when he asked you the meaning of the word "troll?" Sorry, but I'm not feeding the troll. So like TGS commented, you can guess how I would vote.

 

How is it even a contest? What American wouldn't choose the US as it was during the Clinton era over the US in it's present state?

 

The short answer is that Bush makes Clinton look good.

 

Seriously. It's hard to find any category in which Bush didn't outdo anything Clinton did, except perhaps sex.

 

From the non-american perspective I think this is a non-issue. Bush has made many who did not like Clinton remember the years fondly. All the things you list are very poorly known abroad (well except for the sex scandal) and get far less criticism than say the Bush adminstration policy on torture or the war in Iraq. I think you'll have a hard time finding foreigners who actually think Bush has done a better job.

From what I've read of the Clinton years in my studies from the purely political scientific perspective the first years of Clinton are generally regarded as worse than the latter years when Clinton was more capable to negotiate with the Republican Congress. Bush seems to be quite lacking in that same department and finding common ground with a democratic majority seems to be giving him some trouble and is paralyzing him and the congress. Of course the atmosphere is very different than during the later years of President Clinton but I can't help but think that Bush in a large part to blame of creating that division between him and the congress.

 

Clinton was worse because Laura is better looking than Hillary, Jenna and Barbara easily outshine Chelsea, and don't even get me started on the Janet versus Condoleezza comparison....

 

This is like,

"Which is better: Ghandi or Hitler?"

 

A bit of an exaggeration there Proteus.... Bush and Clinton are both shades of grey -- not a black and white comparison like Ghandi and Hitler (unless you hated Ghandi).

 

yeah, true it was an exaggeration.

Nonetheless, the US administration has, for the past few years, done everything that I think a government should never do.

Most notably, I think the separation of powers is being eroded steadily. Government now makes the laws it needs to support what it wants to do. A case in point, the FISA bill, which Bush threatened to veto unless it helped his corporate cronies. The war in Iraq, the use of torture.... The list goes on.

If I were to make a fictional conspiracy movie about the US, I could scarcely make it more scary than to use the truth about Bush and what he has done in his 2 terms.

 

Well, as Rags' signature states (I forgot which comedian it came from), on this world reality beats satire. It beats other fiction as well.

Edit: T2Bruno makes a very good point. Clinton may be way better than Bush in many areas, but comparing the two to Gandhi and Bush is way too much. In fact, the way Bush led the USA to the Iraq war was in some ways familiar to how Clinton led it to the Kosovo campaign.

 

Yeah, the Rehab Twins....

http://www.bettybowers.com/campdavid.html

 

It's things like that that make me sure I never want to enter public life. That was hilarious, Chandos. Those poor girls!

 

WARNING - SUPER ULTRA MEGA RANT TO FOLLOW:

Obviously I'm going to say that Bush is worse. And I think it's pretty obvious why. While I think Bill is not a nice guy for running around on his wife, and while his actions certainly tarnished his legacy (and arguably the presidency itself), it did not effect me personally. How much did Clinton getting a blowjob and they lying about it while under oath negatively impact my life? Nada. Zero. Zilch. I fondly remember getting out of college in 1997 and finding a job relatively quickly, buying a little Toyota Corrola, and even starting a little saving account. From a financial standpoint, things were about as good as they could be expected for a guy in his early 20s.

How much has Bush negatively impacted my life? Plenty. And I don't even have as much to complain about as a lot of other people. Keep in mind that I am not a member of the military, nor do I have any close personal friends or family in Iraq or Afghanistan. If either of those thing were true, the negative impact would be obvious. It also would be obvious if I or any member of my close family or friends lived in New Orleans. But that's not the case either. No, my problem lies solely with the economy. (Granted spending billions on the War in Iraq DIRECTLY impacts the current state of the economy so I have to touch on that too.

Never mind the fact that I'm taking it up the ass every time I fill up the tank of my car at $4 per gallon. There's tons of other things about the economy I also find annoying. Like my 401k plan with Wachovia - that was a pleasant surprise when they announced they lost nearly $9 billion last quarter. I wonder how much less I have saved for retirement now that I did yesterday? When my son was born last year, I laughably started a 529 college fund for him. Let's just say that I would have been much better off stuffing the money in a sock under my bed than placing it in the 529 account.

Or how about the fact that I can't sell my house because there are no buyers? My wife and I had long ago planned to move to a bigger house once we had kids. We didn't worry when we took out an adjustable rate mortgage five years ago, because we said we'd certainly buy a bigger house before the interest rates reset to a higher rate. Well, finding a house to buy today isn't the problem. There are tons of them all over the place. The problem comes when you have to sell your current house first, because the average guy can't afford to hold two simultaneous mortgages. But you look up and down your street and you see 15 other for sale signs up in your neighborhood, and you know your odds of selling are low. And my rate is going to reset this fall, and I'm going to take it up the ass there too.

I also don't like the fact that I get an outstanding annual review at my job, but because economic times are so tough for my company, they can only reward my dilligence by a measly 3.5% raise this year. Which, by the way, is likely to not even keep up with inflation, meaning it's like I'm actually earning less than I was a year ago. Joy. I guess I shouldn't complain though - at least I don't have credit card debt.

In hindsight, perhaps Bush's deregulating the oil industry wasn't the best idea - afterall oil prices have only tripled since Bush came into office. In hindsight, perhaps Bush deregulating of the mortgage industry wasn't the best idea either - afterall we have record foreclosures across the US, and about 10 times as many houses up for sale than there are people to buy them. In hindsight, perhaps entering a war of choice in Iraq and pumping over $1 billion into it PER WEEK wasn't the best idea either. Of course, we technically aren't even paying for the Iraq war - that's being put on the credit card to get us up the ass further down the road. And leave it to Bush to enter a war for oil (we all know now that was the real reason) and NOT GET ANY OIL. What a f***up.

I can say with certainty that things were better for me on a personal level when Clinton was in office. I can say with certainty that I am not better off now than I was eight years ago. And I can say with certainty that Bush is leaving office in January of 2009, and that day can't get here fast enough. Goodbye and good riddance.

 

Very well said, Aldeth.

I guess since I (kind of) started this thread, I should offer my two cents.

Let's take Martaug's list of Clintons misdeeds and condense them, in order listed: Lewinsky scandal, Vince Foster, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Whitewater, and the few instances you listed where departmental corruption/cronyism was clearly going on. Let's also set aside for the moment your categorically flawed, conspiracy-theory understanding of all the above events, as you describe them, and assume there's no dispute. Now let's look at them one by one.

Lewisnky: This was a disgrace for our country, and Clinton did lie under oath. Not before Congress in a matter of importance to the country, it was a civil suit regarding a personal matter - but perjury is perjury. This is a clear example of his abuse of power. But did it have a negative effect on our country as a whole beyond tarnishing the reputation of the office and national embarrassment? Not really, no.

Vince Foster: Let's assume you're right and the Clintons arranged for this man's murder. Actually, let's not - this is too ridiculous even for a hypothetical.

Ruby Ridge/Waco: I lump these two together for obvious reasons. What happened in these two events were beyond tragic. But the Clinton White house was not directly involved in either of these cases. These are examples of failures in the chain of command within US law enforcement. These things often don't go as smoothly as they appear in the movies, as these incidents prove. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that these people - the Weavers and the Brand Davidians - chose to hole up, resist arrest, and take up arms against the government law enforcement officers trying to arrest them. Laying the blame and guilt squarely on the Clinton administration for the events that occurred is leaving out half the story to make your argument. If these people were being unduly prosecuted by the government, fine - there are ways of combating what you feel to be unfair treatment by the government without resorting to violence. Look at the behavior of the FLDS compounds in Texas right now for an example. In many ways, they're beating the government, and haven't gone near a weapon. Any rational, non-conspiracy-theory examination of the events tells us that Janet Reno made a number of missteps in judgement, as did the tactical personnel on the ground. Basically, they blew it. But conspiracy to murder these American citizens and let people off because of it? The evidence just doesn't support this.

Whitewater: Again, let's assume it's been substantiated and the Clintons are truly guilty of pressuring someone to give an illegal loan to a friend. How has this (or would this have) had a negative impact on our nation as a whole?

The pattern here is that all of the bad things Clinton did were localized, domestic, and had NO lasting negative impact on our country, at home or abroad. To state this quite obvious conclusion is NOT the same thing as being a Clinton apologist. To do that would mean that I'm saying all of the above were somehow OK or not that big of a deal. That's not what I'm saying at all. OF COURSE these were bad things and it's terrible for our country that they happened at all. But a little perspective is in order. If these are the worst of the worst of Clinton's misdeeds, and you can compare these - with a straight face - to the things that the Bush administration has done and gotten away with already, and still come out claiming that "the truth" is that Clinton was worse, well...there's a bridge I'd like to sell you. They don't even compare, in quantity or severity. Not even in the same ballpark.

Bottom line: it's you who have the Clinton glasses on. In fact, they seem welded to your face. You're so determined to blame Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, for any dastardly thing you can scrape up that you've turned a blind eye to the mess the Bush administration has gotten us into, and in fact, have quite literally become a Bush apologist yourself. In every respect - the economy, our standing in the world, the threat of terrorism, anti-American sentiment worldwide, the value of the dollar, the good name of the United States of America as a nation of honor, environmental standards, our national debt - we are FAR worse off today as a nation than we were on January 19, 2000. And that, more than any other reason, is why the Republican party is so screwed for the forseeable future. Because Republicans can't seem to come to grips with any of these failings and take responsibility for them, they'd rather employ the same old rhetorical strategy they've used since the seventies as their answer to everything: "The liberal Democrats are worse!!!"

Is it really that surprising that Obama's going to be our next President?

EDIT: @ Snook - Of course we know how you would vote. What I want to know is why.

 

Aldeth, you have a little bit of an anal fixation going on.