Clinton knew how to handle politics with other countries.
Like how he installed that dictator Aristide back in power in Haiti? Real leadership there. What a foreign policy success that was, Haiti is so much better after Clinton looked into it.
Or how about Clinton's friendly assistance with North Korea's nuclear power program? The U.S.A. gave that dictator nuclear technology, because we all want peace and hugs and hippie love, and they turned around and started making nukes with it. It took the Bush administration to call North Korea on their activities, and demand they stop. This ended our "cozy friendship" with North Korea, so this is perhaps what you are referring to. Bottom line, if you are a dictator or a friend of dictators (like France and Germany were with Saddam), then you don't like Bush.
I'd rather have a president less popular with dictators, thank you very much.
He knew how to keep saddam quiet without firing a single missile.
Saddam keeping quiet is when he is quietly killing and raping his own people? Ask the people of Iraq how much they loved Uday's and Qusay's rape rooms. I guess the new definition of peace is when the world's dictators are left alone to do as they please. Yet that is the sort of peace I've seen the left argue for and demonstrate for my entire lifetime, the peace of the free dictator and despot.
He knew how to talk to Congress, and could actually speak in complete sentenses on top of that.
Clinton ignored Republican calls for a balanced budget and welfare reform until the Republicans won control of congress. Then he stopped his stonewalling and started thinking about his legacy. (Yes, Spectacles,
that's still the facts. Empty promise plans by the Democrat majority went nowhere.)
The economy was MUCH better during Clintons time, and unemployment rates were extremely low. Can't say the same for Bush.
Economic growth and unemployment are fine under Bush, both of which took serious hits on 9/11. We're not in a depression and life is good, not bad considering.
At least Clinton handled the budget rather than running it up to an all-time high.
And how would you pay for Afghanistan and Iraq? Clinton's thriftiness only extended to his depletion of our inventory of cruise missiles.
Did I mention Truman? No. So I'm not saying that am I? Pretty left field there, Ogami.
You claimed that Bush failed to resolve this war that's going on, did you mean the war on terror or the war in Iraq? Either way, three years is an awful short measuring stick. It took a decade for Japan and Germany to be rebuilt. And it took several decades for us to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates.
However, I do wonder if Bush really gives a damn about the needs of Americans. His refusal to help California fix its many broken levees shows he really doesn't give a hoot.
I love this, because you complain of Bush expanding the Federal budget, yet also complain Bush has not spent enough. Which is it? How can you seriously argue this both ways? Either you're for fiscal responsibility or you're not. The federal budget is not a magic pot of gold that comes from nowhere, everything spent is paid for by the taxpayer. And that includes levee relief.
Uh, forget about Bush pushing for the Dubai port deal?
Sounds fine to me, that Islamic country has stood by us since 9/11. Again, you just complained Bush has made some world leaders unhappy, right here is a perfect example of Bush reaching out to a proven ally in the war on terror. Having it both ways in your criticism...
But Bush does have connections to the recent leaks scandal, as does Dick Cheney. Stay tuned for that.
Wishful thinking. I read article after article posted in 2001 hoping that Bush would somehow be indicted as the criminal mastermind behind the Enron/Worldcom collapses. Now we have the same predictions from the same crowd. Whoopee.
Oh, lets see, cutting into educational funding,
Federal education spending hasn't been cut one penny, it's been record spending increases non-stop. What the Democrats like to claim is that they'd spend one dollar more, and if Bush doesn't reach that hypothetical number, then he's cut something.
I thought the complaint was that Bush couldn't balance the budget. Yet the complaint is also that he's not spending enough. Which is it? Both ways again...
screwing with social security,
Social Security is already screwed, it's out of money. It was a scam to begin with, and it's a pyramid scheme that needs reformed. Not that Bush actually managed to get anything changed, so you should be happy he failed to "screw" it.
not doing anything about the problems of companies outsourcing everything to other countries...
You just complained that he was pissing off world leaders, how would curtailing such outsourcing with major countries like China endear him to them again? Either one of these is fair criticism, but you can't argue both. Either you want Bush to make world leaders happy or you don't, choose one.
No. But telling Americans to "drive less" isn't exactly a solution. Telling car manufacturers to produce more efficient cars by some outragiously late date like 2012 is pointless.
Well congress is united in not forcing auto companies to change their fuel economy standards. Americans still want to buy SUVs, even with gas at $3 a gallon. That's the marketplace, and unless we start clamping down on America's industries like some socialist hellhole, it's a good thing that we're not regulating auto companies more than we are.
Not funding a serious development of alternative fuel such as ethynol is also a huge mistake.
We subsidized alternative fuels such as ethynol in the early eighties, it didn't work. It's not economical (yet).
Drilling in Alaska, and building nuclear power plants ruins the environment and ecosystem.
France has nuclear power plants from one end to the other, and their country is not ruined. Aren't we always being told by Bush's critics that we should be more like France? Here's our chance.
29% is really a bad track record. That in itself should raise an eyebrow or two as to what the heck Bush is doing wrong. At this point, he should just stay quiet and his polls may actually improve.
29% tells you people are dissatisfied, but it does not tell you what the people want
Bush to do, as the alternative. And it certainly doesn't prove that Democrats have the answer. On things like energy, immigration reform, and Iraq, people see no movement. Maybe they want Bush to be more aggressive, not less.
Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 05:06 PM.