I don't want an IMPEACHED, adultering,11 hour pardon expert.

Everything you stated was based on emotion.What I stated was based in fact.You can't have a decent conversation with someone who substitutes emotion for fact.Clinton was IMPEACHED because he lied twice to a grand jury.The chief law enforcement officer who breaks the law can't be trusted.Clinton's administration ignored Al-Queda when they tried to blow up the world trade center in '92,when they blew a hole in the USS Cole and when they blew up Kobar Towers.He also gave nuclear technology to North Korea and missle guidance technology to China.He should be tried for treason.Now Bush has been cleaning his mess up for 8 years.I wouldn't trust Clinton with the office of dog-catcher(or his wife).Everything I've said is documented as fact.Sorry about your interest rates:(

I do! There is absolutely no one at this time that will be able to clean up the mess we are in, other than the Clintons. Some people like to remind us that former President Bill Clinton lied -- It was however, over an intensely personal matter, this has no bearing on society in any way -- He lied just like adulterers all over the world lie to protect their marriages . . . George Walker Bush lied so his buddies could make millions over the dead bodies of American soldiers and innocent foreigners -- Bush, arguably, has lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, but he will not be impeached because he and his cronies own the courts. People must suffer from selective memory loss because the Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, during the eight years of his presidency, the economy expanded by fifty percent in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the United States had a gross national product of $10,000 billion - one-quarter of the entire world economic output -- Bush came into office with a $5.6-Trillion surplus, in his first four years he flipped it from surplus to over $5.6-Trillion dollars of debt. Sometimes I wonder what path certain people’s minds have to take to draw the conclusions that allow them to accept the horrible conditions of the Bush era over the enviable conditions of the last Clinton era.

Are you kidding? I guess not. That is funny. My answer would have to be no.

Not me. I want some respect brought to the White House by the next President.

I do, he knew how to run a military , in and out, short and sweet, finger on the button, ya know?

He's the best recent president we've had. People who are against him because of Lewinski should remember the budget surplus in those days.

For the love of God, NO!

Mrs - please take a couple deep breaths and get your heart rate back to normal. Clinton didn't ignore Al-Queda. He bombed training camps and other targets (remember the aspirin factory?). Apparently his intelligence reports were faulty? But it was the Bush people who ignored early warnings that something involving airplanes might be in the works. 9-11 surprised everyone (I hope even W and Pals). And in 7 years of a full deployment of the mighty US military machine, Osama's slipped out again and again. Was going into Iraq a good idea, given that the primary mission was to get him? Was depending on questionable Pakistani soldiers instead of our own a good idea? Was attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with Osama, airplanes, or any other terrorist attacks you talk about a good idea? Clinton was not the Commander in Chief who was The Decider who made these decisions. As for finance, Clinton lowered taxes on everyone except the top 1.2% of the income bracket - on whom he did raise them. Running a surplus can be seen as too high a tax, sure, it could also be seen as making payments on a staggeringly high debt (something I thought Republicans believed in - paying one's debts). And we keep returning to the dress because your original reply to this was, if you recall, "I don't want an IMPEACHED, adultering (sp), 11 hour pardon expert." As indicative of a rabid hatred of Clinton as this original statement of yours is - it itself contains not a single word about 911, terrorists, etc and it was to that that we were commenting.

My my the rabid sure are tenacious. Hat's off to ya, Mrs. No one said you are factually incorrect. You are quite correct. What we (or at least I)have been saying is the in fact we CAN excuse lying about a blow job. He shouldn't have under oath, true enough. But he shouldn't have been questioned under oath about a perfectly legal and very personal act in the first place. Most people in his position would lie about it. And most do lie about sex. What sensible people also think is that lying about a blow job really doesn't come close to this admin's lying about Iraq and sending 1,000's to their deaths. You don't like Clinton and irrationally attempt to paint him as bad as Bush. I don't like Bush for entirely rational reasons. We each have our biases. BTW - when Bush pardons people at the end of his term (as is traditional BTW) - will you call him an 11th hour pardon expert too? Cheers

Why? Did he leave some White House furniture behind?

Not me. I don't give a rat's ass who he had under his desk, but his "quick fixes" played a huge role in mess we are in right now. It seems to me HE was the one who was most concerned with who was under his desk instead of what was actually going on in the world and at home. Sure, there was a budget surplus during his term...but at what cost?

I don't want Clinton back.

Clinton is running? She did a fine job before, she can do it again, LOL.

I wish they would both go away forever, and anyone who thinks like them (Obama) can go away too. We need to get back to values, not what makes folks feel good.