We already know what it's like. See: Bill Clinton.

Now there is a true statesman - a man that held the Office when it was actually respected by the international community. Sure, he got his BJ, but compared to the arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence that currently fills the White House, was it really that big of a deal? Now, thanks to Dubya, the United States is a joke worldwide.

We can't bring Clinton back for another turn, but we still have hope in Gore/Feingold for 2008 (and then Obama in 2012).

For now we can take back Congress in November, and let the Bush Impeachment Hearings begin ...

Maf53,

Thanks for the laugh!!

Now there is a foolish thought, bring in the least moral man I can think of as a positive example of government.

I love the way the genito-centric Left always brings the objections to Clinton back to sex. They have to concentrate on pretending that the only problem with Clinton was that he was getting some. Yeah.

No one on the Left really cared, or cares, that he sold out our national security time and time again.
Examples:
Taking huge campaign contributions from China (illegal and indicative of more serious breaches)...
Demanding that an identified Chinese agent not only be given top security clearance but be included in the most sensitive of security briefings (repayment for donations?).....
Rescinding barriers to selling security-sensitive computer equipment to China (ditto on repayment question, plus billions in profits to an Arkansas buddy) giving China the ability to target American cities with missles.....
Refusing to take strong action when this country was repeatedly attacked by terrorists, choosing instead to be appeasing, weak, and indecisive---thereby inviting further attacks......

No one on the Left cared, or cares, about the many abuses of power and the Constitution committed by Clinton and his administration:
Siccing the FBI on political enemies......
Replacing White House travel personnel with cronies and then targeting one who publicly objected, including setting up IRS audits.....
Refusing to cooperate with efforts to find out if the Clintons were the only ones involved in Whitewater who were not guilty of fraud (obstruction of justice).......
Committing tax fraud by not claiming profits made from reselling Whitewater property and keeping the proceeds instead of giving them to the owners of the house in question........
Gross violations of civil rights, ranging from the illegal and inhumane treatment of Wen Ho Lee to the slaughter of those at Waco to the FBI atrocities at Ruby Ridge to the abduction of Elian Gonzales to the illegal DOMESTIC WARRANTLESS surveillance of white supremacist groups after OKC.......
The Clinton violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says "no...ex post facto Law shall be passed" when his tax increase, passed in the summer of 1993, was made retroactive to January 1, into the term of his predescessor.
The Clinton demand that the Supreme Court support the denial of jury trials to those whose charges are determined by the federal government to be "petty offenses" in violation of constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury for all criminal charges.

And it goes on and on.

So the only thing to do was, and is, to steadfastly ignore the many many legal and ethical and moral issues of the Clinton administration and merely claim that all objections to that administration were petty objections to the sexuality of the President. And even that leaves open the fact that sexual addiction and recklessness are legitimate causes for concern that go far beyond prudery. We had the example of how far a president did go to try to hide his sexual escapades, even to the point of lying under oath and soliciting perjury---ample support for the contention that certain types of behavior can put the person indulging into the position of taking drastic action to hide his guilt. A man who would both commit and suborn perjury could easily be a man who would be susceptible to blackmail, a dangerous position for the president of the United States.

And recklessness in the face of danger is a bad characteristic in a leader. The fact that this particular president chose to be reckless in sexual matters is secondary to the fact that he liked the thrill of taking chances.

But cling all you want to the fantasy that the only problems we had with Clinton were based on some resentment of his vast sexual prowess----the futher he gets from the White House, the clearer his true record becomes as history looks at him from a distance, and the uglier and more sordid and the more harmful to the country is his legacy.

One of my big concerns with the Clinton administration was total mess they made with the Branch Davidians in Waco. Admittedly, the Davidians were wackos. But, well - did we need to kill them all?

They had misdemeanor warrants against David Koresh (the wacko leader of the cult) on weapons charges. Rather than arrest him in town (when they had the chance earlier in the day) the ATF launched an attack against the compound. Well, it turned out that the cult had a lot more illegal weapons than anybody knew and it was a bloody mess. After the initial bloodshed, the standoff went on for months.

The final assault - made with tanks operated by the FBI (against U.S. citizens so the military wouldn't do it) resulted in a fire that destroyed the compound and kelled all the Davidians. What really concerned me - after the government had killed more than EIGHTY people including men, women, and children at the compound was when Clinton's AG Janet Reno seemed to justify it by saying that there were rumors of child abuse.
1. Not a Federal crime
2. Not a capital offense
3. And how did burning the children to death along with everyone else help?

Fire trucks (which had a pretty good distance to travel) were not called until the fire was nearly out.

World respect? You're just too young. Please note (again) that I think the Davidians were dangerous wackos. But the assault had a profound effect on many people in the country. Tim McVeigh (another dangerous wacko)launched his attack on the anniversary of the final assault.

So maf - what about it? How was Clinton brilliant when it came to handling INTERNAL dissent?
Waco, Oklahoma City, and the first World Trade Center bombing all happened on HIS watch. Also, his legal staff built a "wall": between the intelligence community and law enforcement that pretty mush assured us that we would not stop a 9/11 type attack.

Maf...you forgot about 50+ indictments, convictions, etc.

You forgot about all of the Arkancide DEATHS of people that crossed the Clintons.

Yeah, boy was he respected....so much so that Muslims tried to blow up the World Trade Center. So much so that they did attack the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the US embassies in Africa. So much so that his party got destroyed because he was such an ass.

So much so that he couldn't get 50%...TWICE. So much so that he was impeached and disbarred.

But yes, he sure was respected by the United Nations...human kind's most corrupt institution ever created. Nice job Bill!!

It does us little good, at this point, to complain about the actions of Bill Clinton. I think it is safe to say that Bush and Clinton have been less than perfect. This to put things mildly. The question is how do we move forward? For example, it seems we have not contributed the resources to Iraq that should have been contributed. It seems we have not contributed enough troops. The equipment used by the troops has often lacked the proper armor. I think we can still get this right. The question becomes are we going to contribute the resources necessary to have a chance at getting this done. This will probably mean sacrifices must be made by the American people, much like in WWII. If we are unwilling to make the sacrifices, then we need to withdraw without delay. If we are willing to make the sacrifices, then it is time to come together and get this done.

The article Mark links to describes uncontolled spending. Both Republicans and Democrats are good at spending taxpayer money. If we are going to win the global war on terror, as well as win on the Iraqi front we will need to make sacrifices. The goal for Iraq should be a stable, democratic country that is allied to the US. I would gladly make these sacrifices. Whatever must be given up, should be given up. The type of sacrifices that will likely need to be made will likely mean a dismantling of the quasi well-fare state we currently have. If Americans are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve victory, we should completely withdraw now.

"We can't bring Clinton back for another turn, but we still have hope in Gore/Feingold for 2008 (and then Obama in 2012)."

Troll.

Why aren't democrats outraged by this? I thought "oh my god bush's deficits oh my god!!!!!" was a standard kept to all politicians. Pathetic... but par for democrats.

i am new to being a conservative though i have had leanings all my life. can you help me learn more? please email me with your thoughts on what it means to be a conservative. i would like to begin a dialogue.

thanks very much.

albert_yng@myway.com

B. Poster,

It is my contention - informed by an extensive knowledge of military history - that the liberation of Iraq has gone off splendidly. Meanwhile, Clinton couldn't even liberate Haiti properly...

B.Poster,

You're right. We shouldn't endlessly rehash history. What's done is done. This also applies to Iraq. We went to war in Iraq. We're there now. We're winning virtually every battle. Al-Qaeda terrorists in their video/audio tapes have declared Iraq to be their central front in their war against the "infidels" of the West. We know where many of the Islamic terrorists are-they're in Iraq. We need to take advantage of this knowledge and relentlessly hunt them down and eliminate them. We have only 2 options in the Iraq War: win or lose. We have the finest military force on the planet. We will WIN!

What's with the obsession with Obama? Somehow, he has become a Presidential campaign frontrunner, without having to accomplish anything to get it.

Obama was and still is, an unremarkable Dem party hack. A member of a Daley-run Chicago party machine. He had no accomplishments in the Illinois Senate that showed any sign of real leadership. He was only another 'yes man', when it came to party politics. He got into office because the Illinois GOP was so incompetent, and the MSM had made it their mission to get Obama into office at any cost.

Even now, Obama is trotted out to mouth the party line, or to support Dems who have credibility problems with the black community. He supported the filibuster against Alito, has been quite visible in campaigning for KKK Byrd, and defended Hillary's 'plantation' remarks.

When the MSM needs a 'well-spoken African American', they put the lights on Obama, who does whatever the party bosses tell him to do. His speech about acknowledging people of faith within the party, wasn't about actual recognition of religious beliefs, but to use these as another tactic during political campaigns. Otherwise, he still follows the leftist line on issues.

Obama has become a 'star' by the MSM, simply because he can mouth the party line and any of his critics can be hit with the 'race card' accusation.

Almiranta,

How do you explain the fact that Ken Starr investigated each one of the allegations you list and cleared Clinton of wrongdoing?

Mark

It does seem the actual removal of Saddam Huessein from power and the removal of the Baathist regime from power went off incredibly well. This was probably one of the most brilliant operations in military history. Unfortunately we did not win decisively, therefore we have had a chronic insurgency that it does not seem we properly planned for. I think changes to the force structure may need to be made to get the inurgency under control.

Freedom1

Thank you for the response to my post. You are right that we have two choices win or lose and that the terrorists have made Iraq a major front in the war on terrorism. It could be argued that Iraq was the wrong place to have made a stand, but what is done is done. Now we need to figure out to win. The US does seem to have the best led and best trained military on earth. The US also seems to have the best equipment, as well. I do think more troops would be helpful.