This should be interesting... :)

Please note the lack of a joke answer in this poll. ;)

in every single poll you post, you start it with (at least) a dola post. You never even acknowledge it.

Why?

I dunno. I don't think of what to say until after the poll has been posted.

Also, I'm a bad seed who thrives on rebellion against the uniposting standard. :)

With Madeline Albright as Sec of State???? I doubt she could even have found her way out of an airport let alone tried to get internationally support for something she had no clue about. No wonder so many career diplomats either resigned or got fed up with her.

The only thing asinine about the poll is Clinton.

In order to answer this question, I need to know the following:

How many world leaders are (a) female; or (b) have a wife who "enjoys" cigars.

Thank you.

If Clinton handled it the same way Bush did, and if he was attacking for the same reasons, or lack there of, there would be no difference.

But since Clinton probably would of handled it alot different, if he really had to go to war, then I would say that alot more countries would be on-side.

Problem is, Clinton wouldn't have know whether to go to war or not or with whom or why or any other number of questions. His best(read only) work was with Monica or other "so far" un-named interns.

The only thing asinine about the poll is Clinton.

B I N G O !

Clinton would have been able to buy the Chinese vote.

I think there would even be a difference if there was another Republican as President. A lot of people around the world see this as the Bush family trying to resolve some unfinished family business.

Originally posted by John Galt
I think there would even be a difference if there was another Republican as President. A lot of people around the world see this as the Bush family trying to resolve some unfinished family business. John Galt and I agreed on something! Is this a first??? Yup, this poll is probably the first time I ever voted yes on anything involving Clinton, besides "should he be convicted?" ;)

It's interesting to see that the "Yes" option is winning by a good margin, yet the majority of posts have been slams on Clinton. I think Clinton was generally much more liked/respected by other countries than Bush is, and would have been better at pushing for agreement on the invasion without appearing to look down on anyone who happened to disagree with him. I think one of Bush's problems is that he comes off sounding like "I don't care what the rest of you think, I'm doing what I want" on a variety of topics ranging from ousting Saddam to environmental issues. His attitude seems to alienate other leaders. I think other countries would trust Clinton's reasons for going in to Iraq more than they trust Bush's reasons.

Bill Clinton would not have used the kinds of threats, insults, and inflammatory rhetoric that Bush did, and thus would not have pissed off as many other countries. That would have made the difference.

I agree that another Republican would have been more successful, but basically for the reasons above. Most of them would not have taken Bush's approach to coalition building. Arrogance, coercion, bribery and accusation are not reliable motivators.

bribery seems to have worked well in the past

Isn't the "no" choice the logical equivalent of the "It would have made no difference." choice? That might explain the wide gap a bit.

Originally posted by Fritz
bribery seems to have worked well in the past

Sometimes it works. But not reliably, and not with any loyalty attached.

Clinton is a master politician. Period. He can play the PR game like a master and charm the best of them on the international scene just like he can the domestic. We'll never know but I'm willing to bet Clinton would have pulled in more allies. I'd rather have Colin Powell as Secretary of State over Madeline Albright but I'd feel better if Clinton was in the Oval Office.

I think the results just go to show, that Bush severly screwed up his case for a war. Well thats my opinion of it.

People here haven't even pointed out Bush-Cheney's ties to oil and energy interests. That's one big reason that people question Bush. Bush was a Jackass because with all these outstanding issues, he did less than any other president would to convince people to convince his people and the world community.

You guys are leaving out a very big caveat. It would be a bigger coalition because it would have been a UN thing. But not only would nothing happen until the end of the year (thus buying Iraq more time), the end results would just as ineffective as all other UN "operations" You think this is better than being decisive and effective?

oykib, don't kid yourself. Clinton did just as much to secure the free flow of oil from the Middle East. The only difference is that Bush wants to reduce the reliance on Middle East (unlike France and Germany) but there are many here who believe that we should continue to have a huge trade imbalance going to the various OPEC nations.

I don't think Clinton would have gone to war, all he did was cruise-missile attacks from far away. But if he did go in for the same reasons, he probably would have gotten us more allies because the "Old" Europeans don't like reason or the directness Bush uses.

I think there is a lot to be said for the argument that this would have gone better with anybody else as president, whether it was Clinton, Gore, McCain -- you name it. Certainly many people around the world have a certain view of Bush due to his father's experiences.

But frankly I lay most of the blame for this squarely on Bush himself. This president is a foreign policy lightweight who has no one strong in foreign policy in his inner circle. His secretary of state is a former general with no previous diplomatic experience. Powell is a very astute man, but this is not his strength. Then again, it doesn't help that the administration has put the cuffs on him.

I believe that it was in Newsweek that I read Bush has traveled abroad less than any president since Roosevelt -- Teddy Roosevelt. This administration has also had far fewer visits from world leaders than others. The vice president is usually the foreign policy waterboy, but Cheney as left the country only once in the last two years. Since day one, diplomats in Washington have complained that the White House ignores them and wants nothing to do with foreign policy.

That attitude has more to do with other nations opposing action on Iraq than anything else. There is a case to be made, but this president and administration has failed miserably at it.

And the argument that it's not safe for the president to travel since 9/11 doesn't wash -- he didn't travel before 9/11, either.

Remember, Bill Clinton had to work at the end of his term just to travel to ALL 50 STATES during his tenure.

kcchief, it's called delegation instead of being a control freak. Both management styles are very effective in business, depending on personality.

I think Bush mis-handled this from the beginning. I am for the war to disarm Saddam, but he really went about things the wrong way. I think any of the major candidates would have handled this better no matter if they were Repubs or Dems. And yes, Clinton, for all his problems was a master diplomat.

However, I think the influence of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have a lot to do with Bush's cavalier attitude toward foreign policy.

Clinton=Carsalesman

Judging by some of the opinions and thoughts here of Mr. Clinton just shows the amount of shoveling he did while "in office".

Originally posted by FBPro
Judging by some of the opinions and thoughts here of Mr. Clinton just shows the amount of shoveling he did while "in office".
What does this mean, if anything?

I'm positive that Bill Clinton would have gotten the UN together to support the attack, wheter you like him or not.

Speaking of Ms. Lewinsky...



http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/03/20/show.lewinsky.reut/index.html

I'm still interested in why Clinton seems to rankle Republicans so badly... he has been out of office for over 2 years, yet the mere mention of his name brings out fangs and several repetitive Lewinsky jokes. He was far from a great president, but it's interesting to note how many friends the US had in the international community during his presidency. Being a master politician may turn people off, but shouldn't the president be the best politician we have? Reagan was a master politician as well, and had a far more corrupt presidency, IMO.

I think Bush's ineptness at foreign policy was obvious during the 2000 campaign, but it was glossed over. He ran as a "coalition builder"... which is ironic, since he can barely give an entire speech without smirking, which does nothing but help turn off the international community. Gore had the sigh... Bush has the smirk. The smirk is irksome. I shirk his smirk.

I think this is important because Republicans claim that Clinton wasn't a moral man and ruined the office of the President. If anyone ruined our country it was the idiot congress pusuing Clinton because of petty blow jobs while Al Qaeda was busy planning the destuction of the World Trade Towers. How sad and petty are American politics when getting a blow job from a busty intern is the news? Presidents have been nailing their staffers and cheating on their wives since the days of our founding fathers. In this day and age of mass media, we can hear, see and scrutinize any Presidential candidate enough to realize what type of man he is, and in my opinion, Clinton was a good man. The most important thing to have in a president is a genius and a brilliant politician, both of which Clinton was. I'm not slamming Bush because I think he's doing an okay job and I didn't want Gore to win the Presidency either. I felt like we had to subpar candidates last year. I would have preferred Reagan, Bush (the first) or Clinton at this time but I guess we can only work with who we can vote for. I hope that isn't a sign of things to come. This country needs great leaders more than ever.

I think part of the issue with Clinton was how lucky he was and how he was able to escape from major issues without any problems, when others have not, and would not, ever get away with the things he did.

The guy took over a country coming out of a small recession (which was preordained by an economics professor I had, who believes in the "Rule of 60" - every 60 years there will be a recession), so there was little he had to do to aid in the recovery, other than not screw it up. Then, you add in the tech boom which was obviously overblown, and he just happened to be the President when those two things contributed to great economic times. I don't think he had anything to do with it (unless you count Gore's claim that he invented the internet). The guy had great timing, there's no doubt about it.

And, of course, all of his legal issues. I'm not sure he should have been thrown out of the White House, but the fact of the matter is, he didn't just cheat on his wife, he lied under oath. Maybe I'm more sensitive to that as an attorney, but it's a major deal to me. Again, I give credit to his spin doctors for making it sound like he was being persecuted for something all husbands do to their wives, which many people somehow bought.

There's no doubt the guy was a great politician. But all of this amount to frustration on my part (and others, I'm sure) that the guy got credit for things he didn't actually influence, but got the benefit of, as well as the things he got away with that no one else has or likely will ever, get away with. So in return, we get to laugh at him for the rest of our lives.

I think he'd agree that that's a fair deal.

Originally posted by AgPete
I think this is important because Republicans claim that Clinton wasn't a moral man and ruined the office of the President. If anyone ruined our country it was the idiot congress pusuing Clinton because of petty blow jobs while Al Qaeda was busy planning the destuction of the World Trade Towers. How sad and petty are American politics when getting a blow job from a busty intern is the news? Presidents have been nailing their staffers and cheating on their wives since the days of our founding fathers. In this day and age of mass media, we can hear, see and scrutinize any Presidential candidate enough to realize what type of man he is, and in my opinion, Clinton was a good man. The most important thing to have in a president is a genius and a brilliant politician, both of which Clinton was. I'm not slamming Bush because I think he's doing an okay job and I didn't want Gore to win the Presidency either. I felt like we had to subpar candidates last year. I would have preferred Reagan, Bush (the first) or Clinton at this time but I guess we can only work with who we can vote for. I hope that isn't a sign of things to come. This country needs great leaders more than ever.


I think it's incredibly unfair to blame Congress for Al Qaeda. Gee, if the President just happened to have been Republican for the past 10 years, you would have blamed the President for that, while letting a Democratic Congress skate, wouldn't you? Both parties share in the blame, but things were being done, just not enough. There's no way you can pin that on one party. That's putting partisanship ahead of common sense.

And, I see that you're one of those who fell for the whole, "It's just a blow job, not a legal issue" trap. I would have agreed if the guy hadn't lied under oath. When that happened, it didn't matter what the substance of the lie was, it was a lie. I can't tell you how many liberals/Democrats I discussed this with when it was going on, who all had the same reaction - "If I cheated on my wife, I would lie about it too." Assuming I would ever do such a thing, so would I - until it came to the legal process. Then you either settle the case so you don't have to answer it directly, or you tell the truth under oath. He did neither.

As a fellow attorney, I have no sympathy for his position on that issue. As a husband, I have no sympathy for him on that issue.

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I think part of the issue with Clinton was how lucky he was and how he was able to escape from major issues without any problems, when others have not, and would not, ever get away with the things he did.

I don't agree with this, but I appreciate an explanation. It still doesn't explain the sheer hatred though. Jokes, I can see. But they just seem to absolutely drip with venom. I think it's worth pointing out that Reagan and Bush had their scandals that they skated through too... but neither outright lied under oath. (rather choosing to "not recall" certain facts or circumstances)

Won't argue your points, because I learned long ago that arguing politics is like chewing glass. Only more painful. Thanks.

I have typed replies to various posts in this thread, and deleted them before clicking send, at least 5 times now. This is a new record for any one thread. :)

Again, I think it's frustration. He's out of it now, so there's nothing that can be done to him except talk about him. And when anyone who can't stand the guy talks about him, it's bound to bring up all of that anger.

I don't hate the guy, I just have no respect for him.

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I think part of the issue with Clinton was how lucky he was and how he was able to escape from major issues without any problems, when others have not, and would not, ever get away with the things he did.


Actually, he was busted for things that other Presidents did get away with. Reporters weren't having an orgy over JFK's extra-marital affairs were they? FDR had a mistress and he did a pretty damn good job leading our country in WWII. How about Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair? That seems as bad if not worse than Whitewater. Clinton happens to be President when partisan bickering is at an all-time high. Nothing is sacred anymore. He never 'slick willied' himself out of anything. Republicans became the "party that cried wolf" as maybe they did have some legitimate issues but they were so quick to bust him for anything that the American public stopped taking them seriously.

Originally posted by Ksyrup
The guy took over a country coming out of a small recession (which was preordained by an economics professor I had, who believes in the "Rule of 60" - every 60 years there will be a recession), so there was little he had to do to aid in the recovery, other than not screw it up. Then, you add in the tech boom which was obviously overblown, and he just happened to be the President when those two things contributed to great economic times. I don't think he had anything to do with it (unless you count Gore's claim that he invented the internet). The guy had great timing, there's no doubt about it.


I agree that no President should ever be quick to take credit for any boom in the economy nor a temporary failure. The economy and stock market sometimes seem like wild unpredictable beasts more than anything we can control. (Which leads me to my opinion about economics being one of the biggest BS majors on the face of this planet but that's another story. :D )

IMO, cheating on one's wive is just as morally reprehensible as allowing lobbyists to influence your decision making rather than doing what is best for American citizens.

Clinton knew how to lead, he had the charisma and intelligence required for a United States President, far more than Dubya has. That's not partisan. Watch any archive of Presidential debates and its obvious Clinton is a smarter man that Dubya. The international community trusted him more. Hey, the terrorists hate us no matter who is in office. How we deal with them is not important because we have career military and intelligence men to handle that. What is important is how we influence the rest of the world and who we can bring to our cause. Clinton was a better politician. It would have been a much smoother coalition.