Whom do you respect more as President - Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?
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.
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.
:uhh: I didn't know george bush was a member of Physics Forums
heh, I meant to put neither...I think both arent the greatest but I guess only time will tell. Alot of presidents werent popular by any means but history generally paints a much different picture.
I respect Bush more, by which I mean I respect him very little.
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.
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.
Really, Bush more than Clinton? Why do you say that?
Why do you want a religious fanatic running your country? From what I've seen hes not very nice either.
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.
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.
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 dont disagree with Sadam being deposed, the man was a tyrant. (whether or not he was working on wmd's)
Bush has beliefs and he sticks to them regardless of whether or not they are popular. Clinton does not.
You mean regardless of whether they work?
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.
I also think Bush's beliefs kind of threaten the notion of the separation between church and state.
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.
What oil?! I havent 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 Im 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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.