Is it fair to compare economic statistics of Clinton & Bush without acknowledging the economic impact of 9-11?

Question

Is it fair to compare economic statistics of Clinton & Bush without acknowledging the economic impact of 9-11?

Answer 1

If Bush would have done things properly and went into Afghanistan, Maybe we would have caught Bin Ladin by now, not have an obnoxious deficit, and be putting that money towards much better things for THIS COUNTRY!

Answer 2

No it's not fair.  And don't forget to include the boost from the Dot-Com boom that erupted during the clintion administration.  

Answer 3

Yes, and why not?

A handful of Saudi's take down a few aircraft, while the prezident sits in a class room in Sarasota Florida.  After being advised by the outgoing administration of potential threats, and then the village idiot invades a country that had nothing to do with the incident.  Causing many deaths and many dollars to disappear, that shows me gross ignorance and incompetence.

Answer 4

According to the pundits on Fox news, the economy was thriving under Bush as no other had (recall that the DOW reached an all time high just this year).

Answer 5

Go ahead and include it.  Bush's policy of trickle-down economics is still a scam that doesn't work for anyone but the top 1%.  Its never worked and it never will.  In order for the economy to grow, you need markets, which requires consumers to have money to spend.

Answer 6

don't forget foreign and economic policies

Answer 7

no...it isn't...

we wouldn't even be in Iraq if Clinton has the balls to take out Bin Laden or fight bad against Islamic terrorists at all...

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

...

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Answer 8

compare the economic statistics of every democrat to republican president of the last 60 years

Answer 9

Yeah.

Clinton had issues that Bush didn't have, just like the next president will have other issues.

So stop whining.

Answer 10

Absolutely not.  9/11 was a quantum change in the way the world viewed the relationship between terrorism and economics.  If anything, Bush should be commended for making the economic fall after 9/11 as soft as it was.  There was a real possibility at that moment of a long-term worldwide recession.  Only quick, decisive action would have stopped that from happening.  

Answer 11

Yeah, because 9/11 happened because Bush and Cheney were either too f'ing stupid to stop it or too f'ing sly and deceitful to want to stop it.

Thanks for asking. :P

Answer 12

No its not. Is it fair that the Bush Administration just let that happen? Is it fair that Bush just wanted to be a war president? Is it fair that we are in mass amounts of debt as a country because of all this and the other unfair things they have done.

Answer 13

Actually no its not, but you would be surprised at the number of Democrats that fail to take the effect of 9-11 into account.

Answer 14

No but it doesn't stop people who could care less about the truth.