It’s a quantity issue, that’s all it is. Reacting to this report by defensively whipping on ol’ Bill yet again makes about as much sense as being outraged by a report that Bush has more daughters than Clinton.

I certainly am not “defensively whipping” on anyone. My points are merely (a)that neither Clinton nor Bush is likely to be rated a success down the road and (b) that every president leaves unfinished business.

The false analogy about more daughters is too foolish to discuss, so I won’t.

But as for Bush and Clinton…. Clinton left AlQaida {which was created during his time in office}alone to grow and gain in numbers and influence.

He left the whole business with Iraq, after bombing that country and making the removal of Saddam Hussein from power our national policy in 1998. He was the president when the oil for food scam was enacted and he allowed that to go on. He did not question the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 when they swore Saddam had weapons.

He definitely left the intel community in this country in a sorry shape.He was too concerned with his problems to be aware of the attack that was being planned on his watch and that would come to fruition after Bush took office.

He did not increase border security when the numbers of people illegally crossing began to increase in the late 90s. But then again, neither did the Republican Congress at that time.

As for our reputation in the world, after the soap opera that was Clinton’s term in office, what reputation was there to save?

the simple fact is: Clinton did not leave two ongoing, thusfar unscuccessful wars to Bush. It’s a quantity issue, that’s all it is.

No, he left one war, and that was one where we weren’t even fighting back. We were losing that one purely by non-participation.

On top of that, you can add the weakened economy. Whoever succeeds Bush will not inherit that problem.

But this is really a pointless exercise. No matter who the president is, you can make a list of what tasks are unfinished when they leave office. None of us can really say whether Bush or Clinton will bequeath more problems.

And that brings us right back to the point of ST’s post, which is that USA Today is cherry-picking “experts” to obtain their usual leftist MSM spin.

The fact it that the United States was attacked every year of the Clintons’ administration, and they did nothing to respond.

Your Johnson analogy is absolutely correct, however. I would wager these same scholars would probably list Johnson as a close second in the “unfinished business” contest.

Well, look: I don’t want to get into duelling lists between Bush and Clinton, especially because I happen to think that neither one will be judged very favorably by historians (but who knows?). So, for now, I’ll just repeat that quote about “journalism is the first draft of history.” Maybe 10 years down the road we’ll know which president left the most for his successor to do.

Anyway, for the article to claim that

The 44th president will move into the Oval Office with an agenda defined in large part by the 43rd president.

Is beyond ridiculous.