Although it's partially choices made too. Granted 911 was a disaster, one of the worst (probably the worst) attacks to affect us. But Iraq is the wrong country to be in. Are we fighting Al Qaeda & terrorists, or are we helping Iraq recover from the post-Saddam era. Because everytime I hear about the good that's being done it's always about improving Iraqi's way of life, building schools, restoring electricity & water (No offense, but didn't out bombing knock it out in the first place). Not so much about catching terrorist, although admittedly we do catch some, which is a good thing. But there are other (several otehr) countries under poor leadership & dictators. Clinton had Somalia to deal with, and could have chosen to invade & overthrow their government, but chose not to. (Makes me wonder if oil is part of the reason for assisting Iraq, with a Texas president, many ties to the oil industry, Haliburton working in Iraq, hmmmmm. That's a whole nother discussion). Somalia easily could have been a 6+ year war, with insurgents resisting & fighting back at us. Again, it was a fairly quick stay. Maybe it wasn't as serious a need as Iraq, but I don't think so, I think it was the decision made, to choose not to overthrow. A foreign policy.

au contraire, that's a myth. Bill Clinton balanced the budget, George Bush fucked it up. Seriously. As for a free lunch, pull us outta Iraq in 2 years, & spend the enormous amount of money elsewhere. I've found 2 unbiased references (search for about 4 to find a nonbiased, national debt chart) that support this, the Dow Jones stock market history (where alot of middle class invest & have their 401k retirement in) and the national debt chart, check it out until CLintons 90's years, then it skyrockets as soon as Bush takes office. Again, the republican belief is give tax breaks to the rich, in theory they spend more, which creates more jobs (retail, sales marketing). That's the theory, but it really doesn't work. Clinton gave tax breaks directly to the middle class, and assistance with college loans, financial aid, etc. It's 2 different economic philosophies, you choose which one you want to support. But to blatantly say the Dems spend is way off base, and similar to Bush calling Kerry a "Flip-flopper" a stupid name calling tactic that catches on with the public.

Dow Jones - Stagnant under Bush: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my

Nasdaq: which measures more hi-tech funds: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my

National Debt - Increases under Bush (and Reagan, although the sstock market took off under his 2nd term): http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx … roup_Id=32

And this tax rebate/stimulus package will end up being nothing more than a blip on the radar. Same way it did in 2001 or 02. There will not be any benefits 4-5 years down the line from it. . Granted, Bill Clinton had the benefit of the internet boom, but he rode the coattails of it, and didn't interfere with the explosion of it by trying to institute taxes and allowing middle class to invest more in it. No matter what, the 90's will go down as great economic times for the US (Economically, probably better than the 80's).  You can say the dot com bust hurt Bush from the start, but Bush certainly is not leaving his follower in a good position either.

Bill Clinton: Little foreign wartime, balanced budget, good economic times
W. Bush : 6+ year war caused by invading another country, trillions spent, stagnant economy.

Hmmmmmm, I don't see what's hard to get.

I do think the VP's will play an important part in the general election. I don't think there will be a Clinton/Obama, Obama/CLinton ticket. Nor should there be. I think Clintons better off with maybe Joe Biden or possibly Wesley Clark would be a good choice & Obama better off with Biden or Edwards or Dean. Maybe Clark as well. He'd be a great choice as VP, along with Biden IMHO.

I saw on MSNBC this morning talk that Huckabee might run a clean race against McCain, if needed drop out because he could possibly be a VP nominee. I dunno if that'd be a good ticket at all. 2 different extreme's would avoid the middle of the road GOP.

The biggest problem for Hillary vs McCain is if she tries to hard to fight back & play dirty etc.. Obama does an excellent job not getting involved, dismissing it as nothing but a low blow, and moving on. Especially in debates. Clinton not so much but would benefit from it.

I don't think it was an isolated incident either where one day he suddenly took too many pills and *plop* he was dead. I'd guess he was flirting with danger over weeks/months possibly years of being addicted to some of these pills. I would think in past he came close to od'ing, but made it through, cooled down a bit, then started flirting with disater again. Similar to a heroin addict (Cobain, Staley, Brad Nowell).