@Albionus

Just because YOUR morals don't coincide with hers does NOT mean she is not a Moralist.

EDIT: ^^^^See below.

*Sigh* The budget surpluses were due to the stock market bubble Clinton ignored and the short sighted "peace dividend" military cuts Clinton got.  The payment came due for both in 2001, luckily for Clinton just after he left office.  By the way, when did the "2001" recession start?  Oh yeah, in 2000 when Clinton was still president.  As for economic growth we've grown almost as fast under Bush as Clinton which is just fine because the 90's was the last big decade of growth in the US labor market (that is our natural growth rate has declined for secular reasons out of the control of a president since to his credit Clinton signed Welfare Reform in 1996).  Great international relations, bleh, I'm already tired of this and I still have one other poster to reply to but suffice it to say they weren't so great and the as before the holiday from history Clinton practised has cost us ever since.

Ok, this is even worse than the Hillary is a moralist/CIA is the fount of all evil guy, just look up the numbers yourself.

Clinton- 92 - 43%, 96 - 49.2%

Bush - 00 - 47.9%, 04 - 50.7%

Which one is two elections without a majority?  You guys need to stop getting all your info about the US from CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.  I can only correct so much.

Do you understand economics? In order for there to be a budget surplus, there has to be more income than spending.

How is the stock market bubble exclusively responsible for a balanced budget? The tax income from capital gains alone launched our countries spending to revinue ratio in to the fractionals?

God you spout typical rightist propaganda. I am suprised you haven't laid the positive economy in the 90s on "Reaganomics"

And way to cop out on the international affairs issue, as I am sure there is no way to comment negatively on it.

ok now put in the other candidates and tell me those numbers again bush lost the popular vote in his first election stop spinning numbers to your liking. oh btw i dont like hillary either.

Americans have a ton of blood on their hands, such is nessesary to garner control over much of the world. Without another super power to match(yet, see: China) and keep them in check they can get away with abusing their power(see: Iraq) to protect American interests.(or Cheney's wallet) For every small little scary tidbit that leaks such as this, there is likely a whole closet full of skeletons that are likely far more severe than this.

The sooner you recognize that the American government will do anything to protect their own interests(not even the average American citizen's interests) the sooner you can move on to turning a blind eye to it and living a happy life, like the majority of Americans already seemily do.

Our US government kills ppl who know too much.

Your comparisons are irrelevant.  In 92 there was a strong 3rd party who got nearly 20% of the vote, and Clinton was running against an incumbant, bush Sr only got 37% of the popular vote.  Again in 96, Perot got 10% of the popular vote.

 Where as in 2000 Bush LOST the popular vote, indicating more of the population didn't wanted someone else to be the president (unlike in 92 or 96)

And in 2004 there was still the wide spread belief that the Iraq war benefitted American Citizens in some way and incumbants nearly always win in war time.

If you get enough Americans to whine about some thing, the US government will investigate that some thing. Not really much else it can do as it stands, anyways.

Hmmm, he got quiet quick