Whom do you respect more as President - Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

[Loren Booda]

Whom do you respect more as President - Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

 

[SticksandStones]

Bill Clinton by a few trillion light years. The worse he did was lie about having sex with an intern. Bush lied about evidence to start a war, ignored the will of the people, continues to push for war with Iran, refuses to admit to the crimes he has committed with his warrant less wire tapping program, refuses to close Guantanamo Bay, ignores the law, has uses signing statements to essentially make him untouchable, and is just down-right incompetent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Clinton was a disappointment. Bush is not only terrifying on many levels, but the damage he has done is immeasurable. No contest; I think Bush likely belongs in prison for treason.

 

[Kurdt]

:uhh: I didn't know george bush was a member of Physics Forums

 

[trajan22]

heh, I meant to put neither...I think both arent the greatest but I guess only time will tell. Alot of presidents weren't popular by any means but history generally paints a much different picture.

 

[russ_watters]

I respect Bush more, by which I mean I respect him very little.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Bill Clinton easilly, he's quite popular over here, he's also an alma marta of Oxford, so he at least has visited our country for more than 5 minutes. As a president I supose he was OK, Camp David failed because Israel refused to accept the pre 1967 borders, and this is probably what I'll remember from his political office, that and handing the reupublicans a budget positive rather than a defecit, how anyone can run up 1 trillion in such a short space of time is beyond me

I have no respect at all for Bush or his cronies. Neo-con idealogy is redundant.

I know it's gramatically correct but who uses whom in conversation? If I say who's your favourite president, or who do you respect more Bill Clinton or Bush, will the world come to an end, it's an unnecessary conjugation IMO, everyone knows what you mean anyway, very much a fan of lazyness in language, that's why I don't use punctuation after brackets, it's also redundant.

 

[Rach3]

I respect both equally. Clinton is a nice, progressive guy who just made some understandable mistakes. Bush is a nice, religious guy who just gets his priorities confused sometimes.

 

[Cyrus]

I respect Bush more, by which I mean I respect him very little.

Really, Bush more than Clinton? Why do you say that?

 

[Kurdt]

Bush is a nice, religious guy who just gets his priorities confused sometimes.

Why do you want a religious fanatic running your country? From what I've seen he's not very nice either.

 

[Rach3]

I'm sorry, I'm still very drowsy this morning from last night's doxylamine (sleep aid). I think I'm a little less fierce than usual in my political criticism.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=152633

 

[polar]

heh, I meant to put neither...I think both arent the greatest but I guess only time will tell. Alot of presidents weren't popular by any means but history generally paints a much different picture.

It's becoming more and more apparent that history will not compare Bush to other Presidents; he will be compared to other despots instead, Hitler obviously being the despot of choice for such comparisons.

Some of the similarities that are already public knowledge do seem to be very striking. I'm speaking generalities here, like the fear-mongering for war, etc., that is unless anyone here at this board is actually convinced that Saddam was just about ready to conquer the world, without any access to any first tier weapons systems.

 

[trajan22]

Polar I hope you are not seriously toying with the idea that Bush is comparable to Hitler in any way. If so you must just be delirious. I also don't disagree with Sadam being deposed, the man was a tyrant. (whether or not he was working on wmd's)

 

[russ_watters]

Really, Bush more than Clinton? Why do you say that?

Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular. Clinton does not.

 

[Rach3]

Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular.

You mean regardless of whether they work?

 

[SticksandStones]

Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular. Clinton does not.

What? You respect him more because he GOES AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE HE SERVES? Is this a Democracy or not? He is not King George, for the love of god!

His only job, his only PURPOSE is to listen to the people and do as they tell him! Him sticking to his beliefs which are unpopular is exactly the type of thing that Presidents should be impeached for.

 

[Kurdt]

I also think Bush's beliefs kind of threaten the notion of the separation between church and state.

 

[polar]

I also don't disagree with Sadam being deposed, the man was a tyrant. (whether or not he was working on wmd's)

And the difference in Iraq under Bush's rule is what, exactly, oil?

Why not compare Bush's rule in Iraq to Sadam's rule in Iraq?

Yes, tyrants. That's exactly what I was talking about.

 

[trajan22]

What oil?! I haven't heard of us getting any free oil, if so please post some kind of evidence of this. And there is a marked difference between Sadams Iraq and now, the current violence is not caused by the government but by the lack of an effective governing body. And I am not even sure what you are talking about in your third statement.

In almost every government transition(where the current government is deposed) there has been an insurgency, the only real effective way to keep this from happening is to utterly vanquish your enemy. ie germany and japan after world war 2. Otherwise insurgencies are common.

And in reference to sticks in stones this country is not a democracy
it is a Constitution-based federal republic https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
and if any country was controlled entirely by the people it would'nt exist for very long.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular.

I think we should reflect on their beliefs before we blindly give people respect for this quality. The same could be said for any number of criminals, dictators, and schizophrenics.

Presidents are elected to serve the people, not themselves.

 

[light_bulb]

i believe before the war is over 5 to 7 permanent military bases will be left in iraq, history is written by the WINNERS.

if you don't have food on your plate and someone else owns a store full is it wrong to take a loaf of bread or do you have to die to prove that you really needed the bread?

i want to be idealistic too but the hard reality of what I've seen won't let me.

 

[Moridin]

I have less respect for the political system than any single President.

Both Presidents have done things that are great, good, bad and worse and nothing can change that. It is not like President George W. Bush waged the only war that the United States has taken part in during the later part of the 20th century and early 21th. I do not think that a simple change of President will change the overall goal of the US.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular. Clinton does not.

You mean one person is a political animal who can acknowledge that he needs to be flexible in his approach; the other sticks to his guns, despite people telling him he's going to shoot himself in the foot, then when he does he seems surprised. I don't want to tell him I told you so about Iraq, but I did.

Bush has a singular vision, the problem is no one else but his cronies share it, and it's plainly clear it has failed.

 

[devil-fire]

You mean regardless of whether they work?

isn't bush conducting himself the same way in his second term as in his first? i think he is quite unpopular now but for the same reasons he was unpopular before, its just that his supporters have been convinced his actions are not good for the country after all

 

[Integral]

Really, Bush more than Clinton? Why do you say that?

Cause he can't bring himself to admit how wrong he was 4yrs ago.

 

[JasonRox]

So, have fun paying off the national debt.

 

[ray b]

one ''did'' an intern
the other ''did'' the country

 

[russ_watters]

You mean regardless of whether they work?

Sure, that too. But at least he believes they work (or are right, which isn't necessarily the same thing).

The question wasn't asking whether either one was a good president. I respect my boss much more than either of them, but he'd make a worse President than both combined.

What? You respect him more because he GOES AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE HE SERVES? Is this a Democracy or not? He is not King George, for the love of god!

You soooooooooooo miss the point of our system of government. He was elected, wasn't he? If you actually think he stole both elections, fine, but if you accept that he was elected, that's all there is for the country's input (until the next election). The entire point of a representative system is that you elect someone who will make his/her own decisions.

And that was one big difference between Clinton and Bush - Clinton's every move was motivated by how it would affect the next election, not what he actually thought was best for the country. That is one terrible leader.

I also think Bush's beliefs kind of threaten the notion of the separation between church and state.

I agree, but that isn't what the OP asked.

I think we should reflect on their beliefs before we blindly give people respect for this quality. The same could be said for any number of criminals, dictators, and schizophrenics.

Presidents are elected to serve the people, not themselves.

See two sections above - I think Bush is more interested in what he thinks is best for the country than Clinton is/was (yeah - still is).

And again, I said very little. I respect him a little for his guts and conviction, but his lack of intelligence and religious fanaticism are why I respect him very little.

You mean one person is a political animal who can acknowledge that he needs to be flexible in his approach...

If that's how you saw Clinton, you're entitled to your opinion, but that isn't how I saw him. Flexible becomes spineless if the only thing that motivates him is his next election. Don't you see that someone like that will purposely make bad decisions if he thinks people will like them? Don't you see that just because a decision is popular, that doesn't automatically make it right?

...the other sticks to his guns, despite people telling him he's going to shoot himself in the foot, then when he does he seems surprised...

Bush has a singular vision, the problem is no one else but his cronies share it, and it's plainly clear it has failed.

Well, that's a failing shared by both men and a very common problem among a great many people - especially politicians. Both, with a few notable exceptions, surrounded themselves with cronies, yes-men, personal favor appointees, etc., which then makes taking the advice of your advisors redundant, doesn't it?

It's been a while since I checked the score, but I'd be surprised if Clinton's admin doesn't still hold the record for resignations due to incompetence. Bush's worst (Brown) was far worse than any of Clinton's based on severity of the problem, but Clinton played the incompetence lottery with much higher-level appointees. For example, SecDef Les Aspen. It is an open question whether Somalia was Clinton's failure or Aspen's, but the point is that it happened at a very high level.

Cause he can't bring himself to admit how wrong he was 4yrs ago.

Me or Bush?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, guys - all of you - how is it possible to have any respect for someone who you think won't act how he/she thinks is in the best interest of the country if he/she thinks making the wrong decision will be best for his poll ratings? Isn't this the entire problem with Congress? Isn't this the primary flaw in our system of government?

Someone who purposely makes wrong decisions scares me much more than someone who makes wrong decisions but thinks he's making right decisions. At least with someone who is single-minded or dumb, you might be able to change his mind or educate him - how do you fix someone who doesn't even care about which choice is better?

 

[russ_watters]

But at least he believes they work (or are right, which isn't necessarily the same thing).

Yeah, I just quoted myself. I do that...

Do you guys see the difference between doing things that are right and doing things that will work and why sometimes you need to do things that are right even if they don't work?

An easy example is the Americans with Disabilities Act. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that the ADA is a horrible, horrible waste of money. But we still have it. Why? What is the logical basis for it? There is a legal concept that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, so when you get into it, it actually becomes an extremely difficult question.

Now I think Bush probably believed Iraq would be easy (because he didn't think enough about the aftermath of the initial invasion), but it was much more important to him that it was something that needed to be done. And that's the situation we're in now too - it would certainly be easier and would work best (for us) if we just yanked all our troops out now. But would it be right?

These questions are basically rhetorical (I'm not going to get into an Iraq discussion) - I just want to make sure everyone is thinking about the concept that what works and what is right are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Dr Transport]

I also think Bush's beliefs kind of threaten the notion of the separation between church and state.

The first amendment doesn't separate church and state, that was implemented by a liberal supreme court.

 

[Kurdt]

The first amendment doesn't separate church and state, that was implemented by a liberal supreme court.

So the US has a single religious denomination imposed by a central government that subscribes to that religion's dogma?

 

[kyleb]

The first amendment doesn't separate church and state, that was implemented by a liberal supreme court.

Huh, so then apparently you think Thomas Jefferson was off his rocker when he referred to the Establishment Clause as a "wall of separation between church and state"?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Seriously, guys - all of you - how is it possible to have any respect for someone who you think won't act how he/she thinks is in the best interest of the country if he/she thinks making the wrong decision will be best for his poll ratings? Isn't this the entire problem with Congress? Isn't this the primary flaw in our system of government?

Quite the contrary, I think it's one of the primary strengths of our government, particularly in times of peace. To be honest, I don't want the country's future to be very strongly dependent on the will and beliefs of a single person. The will of the masses provides an essential check in the system, even if the masses don't always know what's best for them. Lacking this, governments are prone to engage in frivolous wars, selfish economic policies, and religious fanaticism.

Your view of Clinton as someone with no independent will or ethics seems kinda silly to me, particularly with all I've heard from him since his presidency. To be sure, he wasn't as pig-headed about his own beliefs as Bush has been, but then he didn't have as much time with party control of Congress.

 

[Cyrus]

You soooooooooooo miss the point of our system of government. He was elected, wasn't he? If you actually think he stole both elections, fine, but if you accept that he was elected, that's all there is for the country's input (until the next election). The entire point of a representative system is that you elect someone who will make his/her own decisions.

People are supposed to call and write their senators and tell them how to vote and act. If they dont, they will not get elected come next term. A represnative of the government is not supposed to "make his or her own decisions" in a democracy. To a point yes, but not the way bush does.

 

[Gokul43201]

Both, with a few notable exceptions, surrounded themselves with cronies, yes-men, personal favor appointees, etc., which then makes taking the advice of your advisors redundant, doesn't it?

This comparison sounds ludicrous to me!

When before, were dissenters silenced and dishonored, and incompetent yesmen elevated to positions of unimaginable power and responsibility as under this administration? Who were the Eric Shinsekis, the Paul O'Neills and the Dick Clarkes of the Clinton administration, and who were the Mike Browns, the Harriet Miers and the David Safavians? Did Clinton send pinkfaced ice-cream truck drivers to lead reconstruction efforts at Kosovo? Did Clinton appoint nutjob cronies (who prescribe prayer as a cure for PMS) like Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs committee of the FDA? Did the Clinton administration screen candidates for important Economic and Diplomatic positions based on their stand on Roe v. Wade? When did Clinton silence scientific reports from the EPA or NOAA or technical reports from Treasury or the DoD? When did Clinton eviscerate whistleblower protections with signing statements, decimate the oversight provided by Inspectors General, or require testimonies of allegiance from people that hoped to attend his speeches? When has the CIA had to cater to the "beliefs" of the administration, or else...? Which dissenters under the Clinton administration were avenged by leaking previously classified information or outing members of their family?

When, before now, was 'dissent' made synonymous with 'treason', and 'loyalty' with 'patriotism, and when was competence beheaded, as now, at the altar of loyalty?

To compare the mass graves built for political dissent and the laurels awarded to braindead yesmen under this administration with cronyism under Clinton is...well, mindboggling.