Bill Clinton Was a Good President

Rebuttal Towards Your Rebuttals - Lower Budget = Infrequent and Inadequate Inspections Infrequent and Inadequate Inspections = Possibility of Faulty Equipment Possibility of Faulty Equipment = KABOOM Having constant scandals CAN change his way of running the country. If he is willing to break his oath in court and his oath at marriage who knows what other oaths and promises he was willing to break, which leads into my first argument..... Rebuttals - He may have reformed the democrats but that still doesn"t change the fact that he sat in the back seat while Congress drove (*cough* *cough* were republicans *cough*). Congress took over the "driving" part of the country after his failed health care. (Gonna talk about that in next round). Nevertheless, Clinton's claims to a lasting, positive legacy for the Democratic Party have been severely undermined by two realities: the shift in control of Congress to the Republican Party on his watch and the loss by his would-be successor, Vice President Al Gore, in the 2000 presidential election. Thus, Clinton's partisan legacy remains complex and uncertain. He may have been successful over in Europe, but " the failure to act in Rwanda, in particular, seems likely to loom large in future historical evaluations. Clinton's overall management of the immediate post-Cold War environment will certainly endure great scrutiny.", which also leads into my first argument...... Arguments: The Rwanda genocide was a 100-day killing spree by ethnic Hutus against their Tutsi neighbors. It was a mindless slaughter that killed up to 800,000 people. Corpses littered the streets and children were dismembered and raped. Then-President Clinton reacted to this senseless tragedy"arguably the worst of the 20th century"by burying any evidence of it. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the Clinton White House insisted they"d been unaware of the scale of suffering. In 2004, however, classified documents emerged proving that the CIA had informed Clinton, Gore, and 100 top officials that a genocide was underway within 17 days of the first killings. Had they spoken out at the UN or piled pressure on Rwanda, it"s likely that the slaughter could have been stopped before reaching such disturbing proportions. By Clinton"s own estimate, their silence cost upward of 300,000 lives. Imagine China was conducting a military operation in, say, Syria. Now imagine some faulty intelligence led to them bombing the US embassy. There would be international outrage, right? Well, that"s essentially what happened in Kosovo in 1999. After a tip-off from US intelligence, NATO blasted a building to smithereens"only to discover that they"d just destroyed the Chinese Embassy According to a joint investigation by British newspaper The Observer and Denmark"s Politiken, there"s a very real possibility that the US and UK governments deliberately colluded to bomb the embassy. If that"s the case"and there"s some convincing, if inconclusive, evidence that it was"then Clinton not only facilitated an attack on a friendly state, he helped cover up the fact afterwards, just as he did with his knowledge of the Rwanda genocide. To this day, China claims the attack was deliberate provocation, one that has strained international relations between the two superpowers ever since. Those 2 arguments above prove that he was willing to break trust and hide evidence of bad things while pretending to know nothing about it. Clinton failed to deal with the threat of Osama bin Laden, who in 1996 had not yet become the universally despised figure he is today, and terrorist acts escalated and culminated in the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,973 people. Clinton was too distracted by scandals such as the threat of impeachment to take action against Al Qaeda. A former CIA station chief in Pakistan said Clinton ordered the CIA to capture bin Laden alive, which resulted in a missed opportunity to kill him at an al-Qaida training camp in 2000. Although he hadn"t yet graduated to planning large-scale atrocities, the State Department had good reason to believe he was starting to take a more active role in terrorist circles, which could only grow if he moved on to Afghanistan. They asked the Clinton administration whether they should deter the move"and Clinton said no. It wasn"t the first time Clinton turned down the chance to halt Bin Laden"s progress, and it wouldn"t be the last. In the early 2000s, a litany of missed opportunities came to light. One of the most negligent was Clinton"s refusal to take steps as simple as hiring Arabic language translators for the intelligence services, significantly slowing down operations. If the White House had managed to put the brakes on Bin Laden at this time, the worst terrorist atrocity in US history may never have happened. http://millercenter.org... - Rebuttals http://clinton.procon.org... - Arguments http://listverse.com... - Arguments