President Bill Clinton

Post Reply New Topic

Was Bill Clinton a bad leader and President what are the reasons why besides his affair it just seems that the Democrats think Clinton was and is a great person ?

Clinton Is The WorId's
Leading Active War Criminal

Clinton's crimes, after just seven years in office, are competitive with Suharto's

by Edward S. Herman

Z magazine , December 1999


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/In...al_Herman.html

Clinton: A Moderate Republican

http://www.kellysite.net/modrep.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen ... ll_Clinton

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nhome.html

Myth: There’s no "vast right wing conspiracy" to get Clinton.

Fact: Richard Mellon Scaife and the Republican Establishment have poured millions into the effort.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clinton ... iracy.html

Clinton was not the only president to have an extramarital affair. He was the only person to get caught red-handed doing such.

Let's get one misconception out of the way:

BILL CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR ADULTERY. HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY.

If he had simply said "I did have sexual relations with that woman.", he wouldn't have been impeached.

I don't think the criticisms of his administration should be focused on personal sex scandals. Rather it should be focused on his foreign policy, which had no doctrine or compresent theme.

Domestically, he was no conservative, though he was more moderate than many Democrats. The right-wing policies were mainly from Congress, and the gridlock blocked him from passing spending bills.

The surpluses and curtailed growth of the government were due to the well-being of the economy.

WHICH WAS FROM THE INTERNET RATHER THAN CLINTON'S POLICIES.

He was ok, he carried out some pretty standard foreign policy, and oversaw a period of nearly-balanced budgets as a results of spending cuts, tax increases, and a robust economy.

The tripwire in Kosovo was laid out under the Bush 41 administration. There were national security concerns over a larger conflict erupting in SE Europe, dragging in NATO members. Obviously Britain and NATO had similar concerns.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-29/ ... nistration

His first term was a bit of a mess. He pushed pretty standard liberal issues and didn't get too far even with majorities. He was not as effective as Obama has been during his first term. And then to ensure re-election he brought in Dick Morris to advise him and subsequently triangulated right (confusing poor George Stephanopoulos). To say where he fell ideologically you have to pick a period in his presidency.

He was a good president.

People need to realize that overseeing something and contributing toward something is a completely different thing.

The public, historically, often makes the mistake of associating the skill of a politician, solely based on the domestic/economic conditions of the country.

Oh I get it like people are doing now with this president?
or the last one I guess?

He was a dino (democrat in name only). You could hardly distinguish the result of Clinton's administration from that of a truly moderate republican.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Jul 2011, 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bad husband, good president.

He can't control much of the economy but he's certainly involved with taxes and spending. Clinton made some hard choices to reduce the deficit both before and after the 94 election. It was a popular issue of the time.

He was a pragmatist, not a DINO. I don't see any republicans trying to get gays into the military or push an employer-mandate health care plan. Conservatives created today's individual mandate to counter Clinton's ideas.

He was not elected to be a Good Husband. He was elected as President of the United States.

ruveyn

In my opinion the positive mark of his legacy will be that he along with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, were able to sit down and actually balance the Federal Budget.

QFT. I'll even give you the Gingrich piece. Maybe that says something for the political capacity of adulterers.

I'm just stating the facts, I don't care for Clinton, but at least he was able to sit down with Newt Gingrich and get our fiscal house in order, and because of that I will acknowledge that, because it is the truth.

In all honesty, I would rather see George W. Bush or Bill Clinton back in the White House, than whom we currently have.

Bush's worst deficit was nowhere like Obama's fiscal insanity, and Clinton would have been able to sit down with Boehner, tell Harry Reid to stop acting like a spoiled brat or a hyper-partisan idiot. In fact Clinton would have acted in a way that would ensure his re-election or legacy as one of the men that solved the fiscal crisis, and the fact Republicans in the House were also getting credit wouldn't bother him, because he was also getting political points off of it so their increased popularity would also boost his despite being in opposing parties.

Clinton may have been a liberal, but he was a pragmatist, and could sit down with his political rivals and compromise. Our current President is an ideologue.

Clinton and Obama are near clones.

Clinton was a jerk with flexibility and some strength.

Kennedy was I know not what with flexibility and strength

Reagan was a different I know not what with flexibility and strength

Obama is a spoiled brat with little flexinility or strength.

Carter was a nice guy without much to him.

Johnson was a jerk with strength and low flexibility

Nixon was a swine without visible redeeming features

Statement on Bush withheld as nobody's business

Other post 1950 presidents no comment.

Might have beens no comment.

aside from being an incompetent micro manager Jimmuh Carter is a Jew hating s.o.b.

ruveyn