nkgupta80 said:
So I really don't see what Clinton did badly with terrorism in comparison to all other presidents during his term. As for the good economy, you can argue the real cause of it being Bush Senior or Reagan, but under Clinton's administration, statistics in the US soared. It may have been a short-lived stimulant, but hell Clinton kept it up so he definately knew what he was doing. Even ultra-conservative Rush Limbaugh thought Clinton was running the country well.
I would beg to differ on this point
It is not so much what Clinton did badly, rather what he failed to do
decimating our defense budget comes to mind as an active failure on his part as opposed to his passive failures
not aggresively pursuing AlQaida and other attacks on our interests
now perhaps, given the mindset of the times, at the time, the original twin towers bombing was handled appropriately
but It really should have been a wakeup call to us
everybody was too busy enjoying the 'good times' of the irrational exhuberance of the 90s
However, Greenspan should have reigned in the economy more than, so as not to of resulted in such a bubble
Now the economy is being reigned in by these devastating hurricanes
Oil/gas is through the roof, and what does the retard Greenspan do
He raises rates again
He could have put it on hold
and if there was no significant economical fallout as a result of the hurricanes, then he could have double whacked us at the next meeting
The only credit i give Clinton for the economy of the 90s is that he did nothing to screw it up
but the 90s were due, in a big part, to the tech revolution and all the Investment Capitalists
which could be credited to Reagans reigning in of Capital Gains
Presently, Unemployment is better now than under Clinton, excluding the affects of the current hurricanes
and Bush's unemployment #s were the same as Clintons at the time of both of their re-elections
and mind ye, Clinton did not have a disaster like 9/11 to contend with when it come to employment in his first term
