Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President? If so, why?

This the watergate you mentioned?

Sorry for the late reponse, short answer to your question, Yes. I would love a straight answer on the 'fired' or 'she stopped working with us'. Either way her behavior, documented was unethical. But fired makes a much better sound bite in a 30 sec t.v. ad. Regards, John

Vote for me!

PO3 John Jeter - Sorry about that brother, but we have been living a pretty bad nightmare the last 8 years too. ;-)

I suppose it COULD be worse......The VP could be in charge! I can't remember the last time there was this degree of anger and despair across the land. Even during the worst days of the Viet Nam conflict there was a little optimism and faith in the future. Now we have a Muslim-socialist-edict writing so and so leading us, backed up by an idiot who thinks the best way to summon help is to shoot your shotgun outside the door. We have an AG who belongs more rightly in a supermax facility than an office in DC (at least we wouldn't have to hear his whining about being picked on because of his color), Our Sec of State has gone from bad to worse (at least the pink bicycle would have been Hillary's color). I could go on, but everyone already knows these things. I'm really beginning to like the little blurb I saw on the net the other day....."The only cure for 1984 is 1776".

and you're still in ...with this administration...WHY?

I not in, or overseas. Seems my health went to crap when this administration took over. About 4 more surgeries then I can get up and run away.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Sir.

I am not convinced President Obama is flouting the Constitution and as for President Bush, whether he knew it or not, his premise for going into Iraq was based on lies and deception. His legislation for the Patriot Act did not but foment fear and suspicion in this country and created the semi-police state we now enjoy with paramilitary police forces and internal spying on everyone by the NSA with virtually no oversight. The Federal Court responsible for oversight can only rule on what it knows the NSA and its agencies are doing. This I do consider disregard for the Constitution. However, it is the Congress that approves legislation such as the Patriot Act, going to war in Iraq, and that spends our money, not the President. The President, and his staff, prepare the budgets and spending requests. It is up to Congress to approve or disapprove. It is Congress that is wasting our money with cloak room deals with each other and special interest groups. There is not one spending bill that does not have multiple addendums for spending projects that are well outside the scope of the original bill and are specifically designed to procure the votes of Representatives and Senators who want special favors for their corporate sponsors. This does not absolve Presidents of trying to do right by the country, however, I still feel too much emphasis is placed on the President and not where it should be which is on the Congress. Congress has for too long been hiding in the shadows of the Presidents spotlight. It is time the spotlight was placed directly on them.

SCPO its the Dems who are in charge Brother!! Clean your side of the fence...as your premise is quite ill-informed...as they/WE found the WMD's that Russia, China, USA and various other countries foreign intelligence said were there...

Senior Chief, sorry but what you stated about President Bush is not true. While there were many reasons for going into Iraq, the basic premise was concern of WMDs which WERE there. Many of the WMDs had been moved out which is why coalition forces didn't find massive stockpiles but nevertheless WMDs were found. The irony is there were many of us on the ground who knew about it, the leaking of documents by Bradley Manning confirmed it (although I deplore that Manning did what he did), and there are new articles coming out about the WMDs that were there. The problem is the Democrats weren't satisfied with what was found. They wanted ONLY the "big" stuff. if it wasn't that then there were no WMDs.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wmd-found-iraq-after-all-bush-was-right-pentagon-hid-chemical-weapons

Andres Redondo, you couldn't be more wrong. Those WMD's you speak of were old, degraded chemical weapons that the US actually supplied to Iraq during the Iran / Iraq war. We knew they were there. The premise for Bush's invasion was that Iraq had an active nuclear WMD program that was an imminent threat to US security. No weapons or proof of any weapons program was ever found. I've seen this notion repeatedly that stockpiles of WMD's were "moved out" of Iraq just prior to the invasion, but I haven't seen one credible shred of evidence to support that claim. The idea that the presence of those old, degraded chemical weapons in Iraq somehow vindicated the Bush administration's decision to invade is simply laughable. If any evidence of an active WMD program was found, the Bush administration would have had a very heavy interest in making that information very public very quickly.