Which US President do you prefer? Bill Clinton or George W Bush?

[Alexander's Horse]

Clinton is widely regarded as a great President internationally. Mainly because he managed the global economy so well. Clinton was a superb diplomat and very smart, "its the economy stupid" killed Bush one.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Clinton ended the war in Bosnia, prevented genocide in Kosova

Really?

[PLATO]

As I am passing through this thread I think that it is interesting to note that Americans on Poly are virtually split on Clinton-Bush. Even more interesting is the overwhelming support Clinton has from the Non-American Poly population.

Worth considering.

[Dis]

Bush of course.

Strong president vs. weak president.

Bush is a strong president. He believed that taking out Iraq was the right thing to do. And wasn't afraid to stand up to the world to enforce his position. Sure he hurt diplomatic relations. But I feel France hurt the relations just as much as Bush did.

And despite what Clinton said a few days ago in Mexico, Bush did not weaken the U.N. The U.N. did that to itself.

He had the balls to take on every single terrorist in the world. No president dared take on this task. Even G.W.'s father was too weak a president to take on terrorism. Even Ronald Reagan did nothing after the hostages were freed from Iran. This reason alone makes me like bush jr. He didn't make some meaningless gesture to take on terrorists after 9/11. He actually did take on terrorists.

Clinton was weak. When things got tough in Somalia he chickened out. He had no real good plan there in the first place.

he gave in to North Korea. Basically N. Korea did a shakedown on the U.S. and succeeded. Extortion at its finest.

He sold secrets to china. while I don't mind selling secrets to china too much, as china does not pose any threat to the U.S. I'm certain we will never go to war with China. The problem is china turns around and sells this stuff to other nations.

Notice how I did not mention the sex scandal. that didn't bother me too much- except the lying under oath bit. But the other stuff was good entertainment

[Dis]

It is sad you posters all voted clinton.

While I do respect your opinions. International opinion seems like an important quality for a president does it not? I thought the same thing when I was younger. But as you get older, you realize what a president should be doing. Not pleasing other nations, but ensuring the their country continues to operate and does not get conquered.

But as an american, that is not a quality we care for. Call us selfish, call us what you will. What other countries don't realize, is there are many, many people in the world that want every single american dead. We are fighting for our lives here. We have to put the U.S. first on the list.

Therefore we need a president who does things good for the U.S. not the world. If the U.S. goes down, so does the rest of the world. So indirectly we are helping the rest of the world by ensuring the United States doesn't get annhilated by terrorists. Don't laugh it could happen. Before 9/11 no one thought that could happen either.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Dissident
It is sad you posters all voted clinton.

While I do respect your opinions. International opinion seems like an important quality for a president does it not? I thought the same thing when I was younger. But as you get older, you realize what a president should be doing. Not pleasing other nations, but ensuring the their country continues to operate and does not get conquered.

I don´t see, that under Clinton the USA was in danger of being conquered.

Originally posted by Dissident

But as an american, that is not a quality we care for. Call us selfish, call us what you will. What other countries don't realize, is there are many, many people in the world that want every single american dead. We are fighting for our lives here. We have to put the U.S. first on the list.

Therefore we need a president who does things good for the U.S. not the world. If the U.S. goes down, so does the rest of the world. So indirectly we are helping the rest of the world by ensuring the United States doesn't get annhilated by terrorists. Don't laugh it could happen. Before 9/11 no one thought that could happen either.

But I think you fail to see, that it is also (and maybe more) the other way round. If the rest of the world goes down, so does the USA.

As for Terrorists on the other hand:
You have lost one Building Complex with a Death Toll of maybe 3300 People.
As a result you invaded Afghanistan and after estimates you caused a "collateral damage" (i.e. innocent civilians) of 3700
(see for example here: http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2001/msg00235.html )

Compared to the Population size of 25 Million in Afghanistan you therefore killed a much larger percentage of the Civilian Population in Afghanistan than the Terrorists did in your own country.

So I would see it a bit overrated to equal the Terrorist Attack on the WTC with the impending downfall of the USA.

Also of course you would never have known what Clinton would have done as a response to 9/11/2001.
Maybe he also would have invaded Afghanistan but would have managed to maintain international support for America afterwards.
And maybe he would also have managed to establish a stable government in Afghanistan, which is one thing where Bush despite his promises has failed.
Hamid Karzai, the elected President, is a president whose power is confined to the city limits to Kabul.
Sadly the US-Forces within Afghanistan seem to just concentrate on searching for terrorists and not on supporting Karzai

Just my Opinion on the matter.

[DinoDoc]

How many times does that discredited New Hampshire study have to pop up here?

[Dis]

Well I agree we cannot know what Clinton would have done. He probably would have invaded Afghanistan I suppose. It's hard to say. Everyone seems to think Clinton was a genious at foreign relations. Hell, Carter was a better diplomat that Clinton.

There is more to being a president, than being good at speeches and smoozing other leaders. And I do agree Clinton was great at this.

[Jon Shafer]

Though I'm no fan of Dubya, I have to agree with the fact that Clinton was pretty wishy-washy, and everything he did was either to be looked at favorably by the rest of the world or get re-elected.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Lancer
Drogue, why do you not prefer dictators to be scared?

Depends on the dictator. Some dictators do silly things when scared. And my point was about the people. The people shouldn't be scared of terrorists, but they shouldn't be scared of the US either.

Originally posted by Lancer
History will show Clinton to be one of the worst presidents and Bush to one of the best.

It's amazing how you can tell the future. History could judge either way, and our own political opinions won't tell us which way it will be.

Originally posted by Trip
everything he did was either to be looked at favorably by the rest of the world or get re-elected.

What do you expect any politician to do? America is a democracy, and thus politicians will try to do what the people want, and thus get re-elected.

[alva]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
As I am passing through this thread I think that it is interesting to note that Americans on Poly are virtually split on Clinton-Bush. Even more interesting is the overwhelming support Clinton has from the Non-American Poly population.

Worth considering.

Please don't tell this comes as a shock to you!?!?

[MRT144]

I chose clinton simply because he gave me hope in the nation. once bush can do that ill support him.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Lancer
**** you

Great debating skills you have there. Any other words of wisdom you'd like to share with us?