[stalin]

It's true that there is very very little difference particularely when it comes to foriegn policy. If it's a democrat the republicans opose his policy if it's a republican the democrats opose his policy but the policy itself is vitually identicle.

If Bush was in office durring Kosovo , Bosnia and trying to kill Bin Laden after the embasy bombings republicans would have suported military action unflinchingly. Because it was Clinton they oposed it. If Clinton were in the white house right now you'ld see many of the Republicans on this site and in Congress that suport military action now whinning "wag the dog" , like when Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden , and far fewer Democrats would be oposing it.

[deport]

Just curious... You don't fly a state flag on your profile page. Are you a U.S. citizen or a citizen of another country? Nothing personal but curious as your spelling indicates maybe someone from outside the U.S. (now watch my spelling be screwed up.. lol

Yep the loyal opposition is part of the structure of government under which this country operates.

[1rudeboy]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that if Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch, and he claimed linkage between Al Q. and Iraq, and he proceeded to rally public opinion for military action against Iraq, that many Republicans would've opposed him.

Your comparison fails because, while you have convinced yourself that the comparison is accurate, in reality it is a figment of your imagination . . . more like an article of faith as opposed to objective thought.