Who has divided us more-Clinton or Bush

[techs]

We all remember Bush saying he was a 'uniter' not a 'divider'.
And we probably all remember that when asked why he was actually a divider he said that being a uniter was 'hard, really hard'
So I was wondering who divided us more, Bush or Clinton?
And can any President heal the wounds that the last two presidents seem to have made?

 

[Red Dawn]

Bush is more of a Unitier, he's uniting most Americans against his policies.

 

[Stunt]

The president's akilies heel is the Iraq war, and for that key issue...he was a uniter; all people and parties united to send troops to Iraq. Unfortunately those who changed their positions are rallying people against the president causing for unreasonable decisions by the administration...like troop pull outs. I don't think Bush is any more of divider than any politician of the past, he may have been a uniter in Texas, but New Englanders are not the Democrats he is used to.

You can't really compare the two leaders, Clinton was a great leader...I'm a huge fan; very much a pragmatic, admirable statesman. But he wasn't without flaws either, and there's no reason to really make the comparison, who knows what Clinton would have done in the same circumstances.

 

[catnap1972]

When in doubt, always blame the Klenis.

Everything wrong with the world today is Klinton's fault.

Bush is the greatest man who has ever walked on this planet (sort of the lord himself)


(now if you'll excuse me, some strange men holding a white strait jacket are banging on the door)

 

[GTaudiophile]

The Dems hope that Hillary is their future. So the outlook appears to be more polarization and division IMO.

 

[umbrella39]

Not even a close race IMO.

While Clinton's misdeeds were bad, they rarely cost an American life. Mistakes are going to be made, can't avoid them. It is what we learn from them that speaks volumes about our character. Bush is sorely lacking IMO.

Now on the other hand, I have not read about Clinton getting caught in another scandal since the Lewinsky affair. So he must be learning how to better chose his skanks (tight lipped hoes) as opposed the the yappers and their fat friends as in the past

How much Bush has learned from his past mistakes will be gauged by if he foolishly invades another ME country without a plan before his term is up. If we don't, then I will give credit when it is due. However we seem to be slowly but surely headed down the same road again as the banging of drums is starting to be heard.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Dems hope that Hillary is their future. So the outlook appears to be more polarization and division IMO.

Pretty sure the OP was talking about Bill Clinton and Dubya, not Hillary. Hillary has not nor will ever get the chance to polarize the country so pretty much a moot post oyp.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Dems hope that Hillary is their future. So the outlook appears to be more polarization and division IMO.

I love it that the Repubs think that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats' candidate. I hope Karl Rove believes the same thing.

I wonder if John McCain will run on his "Amnesty for Illegals" and "The United States: Mexico's Welfare system" platform.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Dems hope that Hillary is their future. So the outlook appears to be more polarization and division IMO.

Who are these dems? Most online polls put here at <2% when they include 10+ canidates. Maybe you should try to stick to things you know more about.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Mistakes are going to be made, can't avoid them. It is what we learn from them that speaks volumes about our character. Bush is sorely lacking IMO.

I don't think you can examine any President in isolation, as the climate in which they take office has ripples from prior Administrations.

If we want to anchor this discussion on ethics and character alone, neither Bush nor Clinton get passing marks...there is no such thing as an ethics gradient or grading curve...it is binary, you are either an ethical leader, or you are not...both Bush and Clinton demonstrate a lack of ethical leadership...beyond that, saying who is the more unethical of the two is pointless.

 

[classy]

Clinton divided us? In the last 30 years, 8 under Reagan, 4 under Bush Sr, 8 under Clinton, and will be 8 under Bush Jr, the country only thrived and was at its strongest under Clinton. Under Reagan and both Bush's the country suffered economically tremedously and was either at war or at a constant threat of war. Our country is so weak under our current president we couldn't even respond to a hurricane disaster properly. If Clinton divided us, I sure as hell hopes someone comes along just like him to divide us again.

 

[conehead433]

"12 under Reagan' WTF?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"12 under Reagan' WTF?

That's it, find the little error and overlook his overall factual remark.

 

[AAjax]

BOTH, the dems and repubs are the same thing.

Its like looking at the statement "divide and conquer" in the reverse image of a mirror.
"conquer and divide"
They in the end support the same agenda, being $$$, for their elite.

As long as these two partys have a strangle hold on our collective thinking we will continue to reap the "benifits" of loss of civil rights, lower iq's, and the dissaloution of the middle class.

We are taught we have a two party system, but in fact we can have as many party's as we like, of course we might actually have to do something to make that an effective option.

So, yeah I would say both

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"12 under Reagan' WTF?

My fault I will correct it.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush is more of a Unitier, he's uniting most Americans against his policies.

If only you were kidding. LOL

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush is more of a Unitier, he's uniting most Americans against his policies.

If only you were kidding. LOL

Hell even hardcore conservatives like William F Buckley, George Will and Pat Buchanan thinks he sucks.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hell even hardcore conservatives like William F Buckley, George Will and Pat Buchanan thinks he sucks.

And they're just being kind in their understatements on the public airwaves.

Nothing Clinton did cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others, along with minor attrocities like starting a full blown war based on intentional lies.

Clinton and other past Presidents have used the FISA laws to obtain warrants to monitor those who may pose threats to national security, but NO President before Bush has simply shredded the Constitution to do it without warrants, and NO past President ever claimed the authority to do so. Nixon came close, but he was forced to resign in the wake of his crimes.

NO past President ever intentionally outed a covert CIA agent or otherwise disclosed previously secret information for political gamesmanship.

To my knowledge, NO past President has ever claimed the legal authority to hold American citizens without being charged with a crime or being allowed access to legal counsel.

Bush is the first President in my lifetime to deserve to be tried and convicted for treason! :|

Following all the generals' complaints about Rumsfeld, Jay Leno said we finally know the biggest difference between Bush and Clinton -- Bush can't control his generals, and Clinton couldn't control his privates.

 

[Jaskalas]

Clinton did not have a large war in his time and when there was even the smallest action he was attacked for it.

War is a divisive issue today, where a sized portion of the population would subvert all defense in favor of capitulation. Our people have taken a very large page out of the 1930?s Europe and struggles to no end to bring us to that level of ignorance.

We have a segment of the Middle East calling for our deaths, teaching their young how to think like that and how to obtain that goal and all we can do is worry about their feelings and their well being as if we should just capitulate to their demands, roll over and die. I refuse to support their ideology through inaction and would support any President who shared that view.

Debating Clinton or Bush is pathetic. Did you suddenly forget our two party system? The entire goal of the opposing side is to tear down and destroy the other. The only unity I?ve seen has been we all have things about Bush we don?t like. That?s nice and all, but I would want a reasonable alternative and thus far I?ve not been presented with one who shares my goals.

 

[OFFascist]

Clinton was more of a divider, Liberals loved him Conservatives hated him.

Bush is a uniter as plenty of members from both parties are disappointed with him.

Personally I dont think Bush is doing too bad, there are some issues I disagree with him on, but I do know that to alot of people its easier to say "Bush ****** up," than to say I disagree with him on XYZ.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Following all the generals' complaints about Rumsfeld, Jay Leno said we finally know the biggest difference between Bush and Clinton -- Bush can't control his generals, and Clinton couldn't control his privates."

Hehehehehehe

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Clinton did not have a large war in his time and when there was even the smallest action he was attacked for it.

Bush had one small war in Afghanistan, and almost everyone agrees he was right to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there, because they're the ones who were responsible for 9-11.

Bush didn't have a large war on his hands until he decided to start one in Iraq based entirely on lies. The man and his entire administration are criminals, and they deserve to be tried for treason. I'd forego the firing squad. I'll be happy if they just ship them to Guantanamo for a few years while the lawyers argue about which court has jurisdiction to try them.

Once they're convicted, they're welcome to stay out of jail for the duration of their trials at the Hague for crimes against humanity. :|

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nothing Clinton did cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others, along with minor attrocities like starting a full blown war based on intentional lies.

Our deployment to Kosovo was based on lies and faulty intelligence...still waiting for those mass graves to emerge...we did drop bombs on Serbian targets, and killed innocent civilians to include the mistake of bombing a Chinese embassy, as a result.

Or how about Somalia...Clinton's cut and run strategy essentially abandoned the people of Somalia, leaving them to the mercy of the warlords that had torn that nation apart...resulting in thousands of innocent lives lost.

Clinton also failed to respond to the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism...Al Quaida came to power on his watch...Clinton's failure to define America's role in a post Cold War world.

Clinton and other past Presidents have used the FISA laws to obtain warrants to monitor those who may pose threats to national security, but NO President before Bush has simply shredded the Constitution to do it without warrants, and NO past President ever claimed the authority to do so. Nixon came close, but he was forced to resign in the wake of his crimes.

No other President in recent history has faced an attack on American soil, with an enemy dispersed in sleeper cells throughout our populace. Granted, I will concede that Bush has failed to handle the post 9/11 world...but how can you compare Bush to other Presidents, as a rare few have shown the courage or leadership to handle true threats to American security.

I have no love for the Bush Administration, and my frustration grows with each passing blunder of his second term...but to say Clinton>Bush or Bush>Clinton is really a moot point...in the grand scheme of American history, neither Clinton nor Bush rank as great American Presidents.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Nothing Clinton did cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others, along with minor attrocities like starting a full blown war based on intentional lies.

Our deployment to Kosovo was based on lies and faulty intelligence...still waiting for those mass graves to emerge...we did drop bombs on Serbian targets, and killed innocent civilians to include the mistake of bombing a Chinese embassy, as a result.

Or how about Somalia...Clinton's cut and run strategy essentially abandoned the people of Somalia, leaving them to the mercy of the warlords that had torn that nation apart...resulting in thousands of innocent lives lost.

Clinton also failed to respond to the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism...Al Quaida came to power on his watch...Clinton's failure to define America's role in a post Cold War world.

Clinton and other past Presidents have used the FISA laws to obtain warrants to monitor those who may pose threats to national security, but NO President before Bush has simply shredded the Constitution to do it without warrants, and NO past President ever claimed the authority to do so. Nixon came close, but he was forced to resign in the wake of his crimes.

No other President in recent history has faced an attack on American soil, with an enemy dispersed in sleeper cells throughout our populace. Granted, I will concede that Bush has failed to handle the post 9/11 world...but how can you compare Bush to other Presidents, as a rare few have shown the courage or leadership to handle true threats to American security.

I have no love for the Bush Administration, and my frustration grows with each passing blunder of his second term...but to say Clinton>Bush or Bush>Clinton is really a moot point...in the grand scheme of American history, neither Clinton nor Bush rank as great American Presidents.

You know Bush did what anybody in his place would have done prior to his ill advised invasion of Iraq and his ill prepared plan for occupation. The USA and the world in general would have been much better off if he hadn't of screwed the pooch and invaded Iraq.

 

[daniel49]

I would say bush divided us more.
When Clinton was president, most conservatives did not like it, but figured the office of the presidency deserved respect, regardless of the man.

The opposite has not been true during the bush age though....As a total lack of respect towards the presidency has been rampant from the left. Who seem to have respect for nothing but getting elected.
This has especially been true since post 9-11.