Why did Clinton do nothing for Africa, compared to the Bush agenda?
459647
You either have to compare agendas or actions. Both had moderately ambitious agendas (though still inadequate), neither did much to implement those agendas.\n\nNeither has done enough to combat AIDS in Africa, and Bush has stopped funds for any agency that provides adequate birth control counselling.  Neither has intervened sufficiently in Sudan / Darfur, and Clinton was inadequate in his response to Rwanda.  He did intervene in Somilia, and did bomb an alleged  Al Queda factory in the Sudan, for which he was viciously attacked by Republicans in the House and Senate.  After the first two years, Clinton's hands were tied by not having the Dems in control of either house.  Bush appointed Powell Sec. of State, and he announced that he would increase focus on Africa, but he was soon shunted to the side by the neo-cons in Defense, the NSA, and in the Vice-President's office.\n\nUnfortunately, it has become common for Presidents to announce they will do more in regards to Africa, and not to follow through.
147562
because Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people
990681
Clinton did not disgrace anyone, but his wife, Monica and himself.  \n\nI am not ashamed of him at all.  I've always said he should have chosen me to f*ck, I am not a blabbermouth and then the country would have been richer and more at peace today because repugs ( the haters of sex) would not have gone out to vote. And I wish he'd still choose me now!\n\n\nYou're right other presidents did the same thing, but their indiscretions were kept off the news. \n\nAnd again you're right we libs will respond that Bush is a Nazi, a moron,  a lover of human blood, a thug, a thief, Hitler re-incarnate, a puppet and a grinning imbecile and all repugs are JUST LIKE HIM!!
519525
They obviously didn't teach you grammar.  \n\nNobody likes war but did you ever think that had Clinton paid more attention to world affairs during his stay in the Oval Office Bush Jr. may not have had an excuse to go to war.  Being selective in which party you criticize and taking such extreme stances while doing so will only contribute to this nations political problems, assuming you even voted last time.
14183
No, but Clinton had a chance to send in special forces operatives to track him down in Afghanistan about 7-8 years ago and he refused because he didn't want to commit ground troops. So instead he bombed an aspirin factory. He had a chance to avoid a lot of pain and suffering.
152717
Of course, Clinton did it before.\n\nhe went into Yugoslavia without going before the U.N. and members of his own Party claim Bush should have had U.N. backing before going to War yet never criticize Clinton.\n\nNot to mention Clinton didn't even try to get U.N. approval to go to War but Bush did try and told them we were going to War with or without U.N. support.
1142058
Bush has nothing to really do with the economy as it is today....try looking at the Media's scare tactics....a bad report from Ted Tunners monkeys and the stock market goes down.\n Clinton is the gulity one..he gave our trade to China,who hates us & has one of our deep water ports under their control and he also gave them the Suez Canal....
823750
They did when they elected Bush.   Clinton, despite the Lewinsky scandal was a great president.  People made a big deal over the scandal, it didnt change the economy, it didnt send people to iraq, people made it such a big deal over nothing.
346240
I'm not a Repug. as you know. They couldn't give ONE coherent page. The best I've seen them come up with is that President Clinton set Bush up to fail! I mean come on, let's get back to planet Earth. Desperate people say and do desperate things. The day of reckoning is fast approaching for he and his Goons.
704943
O.K.  good thing you clarified that!  So, taking in consideration your basis for the question, and although I have never been there, from what I have heard and read, you are probably right - at least about the fact that the parts of Africa under 'white rule' do seem to be quite a bit more progressive than those we see under 'black rule'.\n\nI do not believe, however, that this has anything to do with intellect.  I'm quite sure that it has much more to do with the wealth, which almost always accompanies power and control that surely came into Africa with the white people who now inhabit parts of the region.  \n\nAnd, I barely understand the politics of this country, much less know anything about what REALLY goes on in and around the Whitehouse, that is not told to us by the media. However, I have a hunch that pretty much everything that happens is a result of bribery,  blackmail, extortion, propaganda, and at the bottom of it all, who has the most money/power.  All around the world, the rich and powerful tend to get what they want, and anything that may or may not be left over goes to the rest of us common people - of any color in any land.\n\nAs I say, I don't know this for sure or anything, but are you so sure that Angola and Zimbabwe are really completely run by their own people?  Or maybe it just is made to appear that way.  I'm fairly sure that if there are resources there, and if the leaders of those countries are the true leaders (not "puppets", put in place by wealthy and powerful while people), then they would surely have taken advantage of them. Unless, they are being prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control.\n\nAnd just FYI, I'm not trying to stick up for or stand against any particular race.  I'm white, born in America - for better or worse.  I'm just writing from the perspective with which I see things.\n\nI dont' think that the present Iraqi "government" is really in control of Iraq.  I don't mean that they are having trouble with the civil war there that was not there before the US invasion, but that even if there weren't a civil war, that government is just an extention of George Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.  I only brought up Iraq to try to illustrate a concept that things aren't always the way they appear. And just because it appears that certain African countries are under 'black rule', that in reality, they probably aren't.  They probably answer to outsiders, and probably not by choice either.  Just like the Iraqi's.\n\nJust what I suspect, no proof....just my 2 cents.  Hope it helps?
225007
There's no question about that. Some political historians are already calling Bush THE worst President in U.S. history.Since his Presidency began,the standing of the U.S. has fallen to an all-time low. Other world leaders don't\nrespect him and he's done nothing but antagonize them.\nEven Tony Blair steers clear of him now,since not even he has enough influence with his "ally" to have him re-consider idiotic environmental non-policies.
597819
There are a few good answers here, but in general many are not well-thought at all. Even Dan Rather had said it was inexcusable that the world media was focused on Bill Clinton's fling while 3 million people died in central Africa over a two year period alone. Africa's problems are immense, and perhaps that is the biggest problem: no one knows where to begin that will have any affect at all.\n\nTo be fair, President Bush has taken an initiative to begin helping those African nations that have taken steps to help themselves. This might seem harsh, sending aid to those that need it supposedly least, but in a way it is not. The countries that are in the worst shape are bad primarily because their leadership and their governing institutions are so rotten to the core that any money or aid sent to them will just be wasted or stolen or worse, and while that might make us feel less guilty it will not really help anyone (just like Live Aid, which gave most of the money raised to a genocidal and corrupt Communist government that was mass murdering its enemies under cover of a manufactured famine).\n\nIt is difficult to mobilize public support for Africa for a number of generally embarassing reasons. The continent has very few 'sexy' resources to trade so we Americans are not directly affected in our daily lives by turmoil (except for a few nations in central Africa, there is very little oil to make us pay more at the pump, we as a rule don't eat the food that they grow so we don't miss anything at the dinner table, we only buy diamonds at very rare occasions, all of the minerals are available from other sources, and for the last hundred years the migration from Africa has largely been to Europe so there is no indigenous ethnic lobby in the United States). The entire continent seems to be so mired in catastrophes of such monumental size that it looks absolutely hopeless, and even thinking of beginning any sort of radical help is completely daunting. Every time foreign armies have tried to intervene (France and England, Soviet Union and Cuba, USA in Somalia) the outcome is nothing but horror stories that would make Freddy Krueger throw up all over himself - prisoners hacked to pieces, infants have arms and legs cut off by rebels simply because they think it is fun, soldiers dragged through the streets to the cheers of little children, etc. Every time a major aid project begins, the material elements are immediately stolen and therefor nothing gets done.\n\nIf the United States is going to intervene, it will have to be with massive amounts of force and social reconstruction on every level, and it will look like colonialism. I can tell you that, from the way we are responding to the relatively benign American behavior in Iraq and the relatively weak opposition we are reacting to, WE DO NOT HAVE THE STOMACH FOR THIS!!!!!!!\n\nSometimes doing something poorly can be worse than doing nothing at all.
587074
Well did you now that South Africa had the second strongest economy in the world next to Japan, during 1968-1971? But then America realized that they were going to be a mighty world power, and started sanctions on this beautiful country. Not to save the black people from Apartheid, but they used Apartheid to convince other nation to provoke their cause. But as the Holy Roman Empire came to a fall...so would America. Any country that is based on war and deception shall hit rock hard bottom.
107341
No! Does everyone not seem to notice that terrorism became large scale when Bush came into power? Nothing like this ever happened when Clinton was in power. I won't deny that Clinton had his faults, but when he it came to international relations, the man was on top of his game. Unless, the US elects a more intelligent and a more capable president, I fear that any actions taken by Bush and the US government will only make things a whole lot worse.
952849
George Bush never set foot outside the US until he became President. How could he possibly make a remotely rational decision on foreign policy? Travel as President of the US wouldn't give you any opportunity to assess the situation in any way other than from the view your handlers wanted you to have. Not only is the US foriegn policy isolationist, its the product of an isolated and insular executive.
430428
You're right, President Bush cannot be blamed for everything.  Democrats voted for us to go to war too...and I still don't think they were completely wrong (even though my own husband is leaving in a couple of weeks...).  Gas prices?  Not the President's fault.  They're higher in Europe.  The economy?  President Clinton was handed an excellent economy, which is proven to be trickle-down economics from both Reagan's time in office, as well as Bush Sr.  President Bush was given an economy that was destined to break down, just like Harding.  We're lucky it hasn't led us into the next Great Depression.  Everything that can be done, is being done.\nGood job asking a great question!
95509
Because George W. Bush don't care about America, or any of it's people regardless of race, color and creed. Mostly I think he just hates black people. That's why it took so long to get help for the victims of Hurricane Katrina down South, because they say that the majority of people living down there are black. I hate Bush. Plain and simple and I can't believe that I have to suffer for another 2 years while he's president. 6 years has been long enough. If I was Harry Belafonte I would just say to Bush, "Screw you. I'm not gonna apologize, because it's my right and you can't change that."