Clinton?

[Darth Wong]

I know this is a Clinton vs Bush thread hijack, but ...

Fair enough, but we're talking about sending in ground troops this time for a full-scale invasion, not just an air war and low-level peacekeeping involvement. The scale of the protests would naturally be larger. I was just pointing out that Clinton DID catch flak about Chelsea.

Fair enough. He did catch some flak, but I try to keep myself pretty well informed, and I hadn't heard of it. The Clinton protests, perhaps partly because they were smaller, just weren't being as widely reported, and I don't recall hearing any of the Hollywood crowd, who miss no opportunity to sound off about Iraq these days. The Hollywood liberals are particularly revolting not just in their hypocrisy, but in their intolerance for opposing points of view. Martin Sheen, for example, on the set of West Wing, won't allow any busts of Republican presidents to be displayed when he's around. At a recent pro-abortion rally, the actor Ed Harris expressed, not just disagreement with the President on matters of policy, he sneered at his manhood. When one of Bush's speechwriters, David Frum, recently encountered Barbra Streisand at an event on the west coast, and she was told who he worked for, she actually said: "eew" like he was something that just crawled out from under a rock. If you disagree with them, you aren't just someone with an opposing point of view; you're a bad person.

The right-wingers did the same to Clinton when he was in power. Rush Limbaugh and all of his drones, the WSJ, etc. I have never heard so much ranting and raving over a simple blowjob in my entire fucking life. And yes, their stance was that if you agreed with Clinton then you must be a hippie, an idiot, a supporter of criminals, and of course, a bad person. The only difference is the type of people doing it; obviously, Hollywood has a left-wing slant, so they are against Bush in a way that they weren't against Clinton. But Rush Limbaugh and his drones were certainly against Clinton in a way that they aren't against Bush! Both sides do it to each other.

They are busy comparing Bush to Hitler, but I don't recall any of them questioning Clinton's adventurism.

Actually, there was a great deal of handwaving over Bosnia, along with international protests, internal protests, the whole nine yards. And Bosnia was a relatively low-level event compared to what we're planning in Iraq.

And a lot of the people out there waving these anti-war signs were consicuously silent when Clinton was deploying troops. Much of this protest is politically partisan.

Everything is politically partisan in the US.

[Mr Bean]

The right-wingers did the same to Clinton when he was in power. Rush Limbaugh and all of his drones, the WSJ, etc. I have never heard so much ranting and raving over a simple blowjob in my entire fucking life.

That would be true if that was the only thing Clinton ever did,
Need I remind you of the number of things Clinton did to make money?
During his Preisdancy he got over $4 Million Dollers in gifts that he never reported by expoliting a loop-hole where he set up a Foundation where he was the primary benfit(Think of it like setting up a Foundation to give out money to the needy but only giving money to yourself)
Nevermind all those 11th Hour Pardons he tossed out and collected nearly 20 Million Dollers in soft money from that one day alone

Lets not forget White Water either, despite how pissed of it went with the public

The problem with Clinton(Besides cutting useful programs and rasing taxes after he succesfuly ran on the fact that Bush Sr rasied taxes and unlike Bush he would not raise taxes... nevermind that)

Nevermind all the complete fuck-ups that Clinton had(NK, Iraq, Ireland, Isreal)

But in the ranters defense Mike, Clinton fucked over America in more ways then one in his quest for money and his appeasement policys

[Perinquus]

The right-wingers did the same to Clinton when he was in power. Rush Limbaugh and all of his drones, the WSJ, etc. I have never heard so much ranting and raving over a simple blowjob in my entire fucking life. And yes, their stance was that if you agreed with Clinton then you must be a hippie, an idiot, a supporter of criminals, and of course, a bad person.

Actually, as I recall, it was not that got a blow job (though certainly they did not approve of that either), it was that he lied about it to a grand jury. That's perjury by the way; it's a felony. Frankly, I can understand people screaming about this; the president is not supposed to be above the law, but he got away with it clean. Clinton was just as much of a criminal as Nixon, he was just a more successful one.

[Colonel Olrik]

Clinton was just as much of a criminal as Nixon, he was just a more successful one.

Lying to protect your fucking private life (and private parts) is very different from adversary harassement and spyonage.

The suprem court has no moral right to know what two consenting adults do in private. Adultery is not a crime. At least, not in the E.U.

[Perinquus]

Clinton was just as much of a criminal as Nixon, he was just a more successful one.

Lying to protect your fucking private life (and private parts) is very different from adversary harassement and spyonage.

The suprem court has no moral right to know what two consenting adults do in private. Adultery is not a crime. At least, not in the E.U.

Sigh... I'll say it again, it was not for adultery; it was for perjury. When you are on the witness stand, it doesn't matter what you are lying about; it only matters that you are lying.

[His Divine Shadow]

I can claim that you haven't even provided a snitch of evidence yet only speculation from an anti-American position that you seem to hold with a fervor. You haven't brought ANY proof of your position to the table, I've brought some counter evidence which is miles beyond what you are doing which is making sweeping generalizations with no support.

I can see that you've decided to be difficult about this, and fight it as a debate rather than discussion. OK, this board has many hundreds of American members. Almost none of them have ever expressed genuine concern over UN opinion. Unless my memory is failing, you yourself have stated that it is not a deciding factor. There are, in fact, numerous entire threads devoted to American contempt for international opinion in general and the UN in particular.

Do you believe this board's American population is such a freakishly anomalous cross-section that its attitudes could be that dissimilar from the mainstream?

From an observational viewpoint, it's the same at SB

[Colonel Olrik]

Sigh... I'll say it again, it was not for adultery; it was for perjury. When you are on the witness stand, it doesn't matter what you are lying about; it only matters that you are lying.

Morally, it does matter, and you can't compare Clinton to Nixon.

The crimes they were accused of were not equal in gravity, for starters. And then, Clinton lied in response to a question he should not have been asked in the first place.

No authority, no matter how supreme, has the right to ask where I stick my penis in, as long as it is in an adult consenting relationship.

I felt bad for the climate of puritanism that appeared in the american related news at that time. The fundie right wing seemed like hungry dogs fighting over a bone.

edit: If a dickhead asked me under oath if I'm fucking the girl at my office, I'd probably kick him in the teeth and go away. No doubt the same thought crossed Clinton's mind.

[Perinquus]

Morally, it does matter, and you can't compare Clinton to Nixon.

Sure I can. Nixon just ordered people to break into a building, Clinton launched a military strike to distract attention from his domestic problems; that could cost human lives. Clinton was entirely willing to flush other human lives down the toilet to cover his ass at home. That, all by itself, propels Clinton to a lower spot on the moral scale.

Then there's Whitewater, from before Clinton's days as president, in which he was apparently involved in financial dealings and crooked business practices as shady as any aspect of Watergate. Let's not forget Paula Jones' allegations of Clinton's sexual harassment while governor of Arkansas (which at least opens up the possibility that Monica Lewinsky's role in the White House blow job scandal wasn't entirely consentual). And let's not forget "Pardongate" either.

Oh no, I think there's plenty of evidence to conclude that Clinton is at least as crooked as old Tricky Dick was.

The crimes they were accused of were not equal in gravity, for starters. And then, Clinton lied in response to a question he should not have been asked in the first place.

No authority, no matter how supreme, has the right to ask where I stick my penis in, as long as it is in an adult consenting relationship.

That is a matter of opinion. the majority of Americans would disagree with you. As it so happens, the leader of the world's most powerful country is supposed to be a man of good character, not a cheap lothario.

[Colonel Olrik]

Sure I can. Nixon just ordered people to break into a building, Clinton launched a military strike to distract attention from his domestic problems; that could cost human lives. Clinton was entirely willing to flush other human lives down the toilet to cover his ass at home. That, all by itself, propels Clinton to a lower spot on the moral scale.

He launched some airstrikes and said it was to destroy invisible WMD factories, while being criticized at home. Prove that was the sole reason behind the attacks. And lock him up and his military staff, for I'm pretty sure it's a grave felony. Bush Jr wants to destroy invisible WMD in Iraq. Some people say it's because of the economy.

Difference: a president who's credibility is under attack is a lot more vulnerable to criticism.

Then there's Whitewater, from before Clinton's days as president, in which he was apparently involved in financial dealings and crooked business practices as shady as any aspect of Watergate. Let's not forget Paula Jones' allegations of Clinton's sexual harassment while governor of Arkansas (which at least opens up the possibility that Monica Lewinsky's role in the White House blow job scandal wasn't entirely consentual). And let's not forget "Pardongate" either.

Then judge him on that, not on where he put his dick. It seemed, for a while, the whole world was dependant of Clinton's dick.

The crimes they were accused of were not equal in gravity, for starters. And then, Clinton lied in response to a question he should not have been asked in the first place.

No authority, no matter how supreme, has the right to ask where I stick my penis in, as long as it is in an adult consenting relationship.

That is a matter of opinion. the majority of Americans would disagree with you. As it so happens, the leader of the world's most powerful country is supposed to be a man of good character, not a cheap lothario.

So, any man who commits adultery has a bad character, and is not presidence material. I'm betting that takes care of a lot of American presidential heros.

And of Mediterrand, and may others.

I prefer a thousand times to have an intelligent man who his unfaithful to his wife as president than a faithful fundie moron. Just my opinion.

edit: last time I checked, the majority of Americans believes in the biblical God and in divine intervention. The majority of Portuguese are not much better. I don't give a damn about the majority opinion, and neither should you. Unless you're in politics. Then you're forced to lie.

[David]

I know this is a Clinton vs Bush thread hijack, but ...
.

You shall be punished!



hmmm did really know what to name this thread, if any of ya'll want to change it be my guest.

[Perinquus]

He launched some airstrikes and said it was to destroy invisible WMD factories, while being criticized at home. Prove that was the sole reason behind the attacks. And lock him up and his military staff, for I'm pretty sure it's a grave felony. Bush Jr wants to destroy invisible WMD in Iraq. Some people say it's because of the economy.

Bush wants to topple Saddam's regime because Iraq has been shooting at coalition aircraft for ten years, in violation of a treaty it signed. Iraq has been lying and obstructing weaopns inspectors, in violation of a treaty it signed. In fact, Iraq is currently in flagrant violation of no less than 16 UN security council resolutions (Amazing how the UN will allow a member state that flouts the UN's own resolutions - many of them dealing with disarmament - to chair a disarmament committee). If you want a list of Iraq's violations go here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/ ... sect2.html

Then judge him on that, not on where he put his dick. It seemed, for a while, the whole world was dependant of Clinton's dick.

Let me ask you something. How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you get it? How many times to I have to repeat the issue was perjury, not infidelity? Why is that I repeatedly state what Clinton's offense is, and you repeatedly keep coming back to another issue? You are approaching troll status with this.

If Clinton had admitted having sex with Monica Lewinsky, that would have been reprehensible, not criminal. It might have cost him some votes at the next election, but a lot of other people would not have cared. If he had just fessed up and said: "yeah, alright I did it," that would have been that. I, and a lot of other Americans wouldn't have exactly approved, but I and a lot of other Americans wouldn't see him as guilty of a crime either. He didn't do that. He lied about it. He didn't just lie publicly to the American people (well, actually, he did that too), he raised his right hand, took a solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then proceeded to lie through his teeth. He knowingly committed a felony.

Does that explan this to you? Do you get it now? Are you finally satisfied what my real gripe with Clinton is? Or am I going to have to read "Clinton's dick" one more time?

So, any man who commits adultery has a bad character, and is not presidence material. I'm betting that takes care of a lot of American presidential heros.

And of Mediterrand, and may others.

I prefer a thousand times to have an intelligent man who his unfaithful to his wife as president than a faithful fundie moron. Just my opinion.

And I prefer a thousand times to have a man who is (despite snobbish denigration of leftists to the contrary) a reasonably intelligent man, who has a good character, and makes up his staff with other intelligent people of good character, to a man who is admittedly clever, but who is also oily, dishonest, and frankly crooked.

[Colonel Olrik]

snip reasons to attack Iraq

I agree with you on that. I wasn't attacking Bush because of the war. I was just asking for proof that the targets raided on Clinton's orders were not fair hunt. If he randomlessly attacked harmless village people because of his home troubles, and you're sure of it, then I'm sure it violates some laws.

Let me ask you something. How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you get it? How many times to I have to repeat the issue was perjury, not infidelity? Why is that I repeatedly state what Clinton's offense is, and you repeatedly keep coming back to another issue? You are approaching troll status with this.

And I repeat (and you did not adress this) lying on your own personal life is morally different that lying on crimes.

Nixon: Commited a crime, lied about it.
Clinton: didn't commit a crime, lied about it.

You said the two are equal because both lied. I say Nixon is worse. I won't discuss it any further.

And I prefer a thousand times to have a man who is (despite snobbish denigration of leftists to the contrary) a reasonably intelligent man, who has a good character, and makes up his staff with other intelligent people of good character, to a man who is admittedly clever, but who is also oily, dishonest, and frankly crooked.

Again, I wasn't refering to Bush. But it really seems that my first assession was correct, to you any man who his unfaithful to his wife is immediatly a bad character. I'll just say that depends a lot of the circumnstances.

[Perinquus]

Again, I wasn't refering to Bush. But it really seems that my first assession was correct, to you any man who his unfaithful to his wife is immediatly a bad character. I'll just say that depends a lot of the circumnstances.

Actually, I kind of agree. It depends what kind of marriage a man has. If he has a good wife who loves him, then absolutely damn right he's a piece of shit for cheating. If it's someone like Hillary Clinton, on the other hand...

But Clinton is not a man trying to find affection that he cannot get in a loveless marriage. He is, as I said, a cheap lothario. He's just a classic case of the guy who can't keep his pants zipped, and I suspect that would be true even if he had a great wife (John F. Kennedy, for all his good points had this problem - and in this he took after his father; he had a great wife, and he couldn't keep it in his pants with other women).

[Darth Wong]

Bush wants to topple Saddam's regime because Iraq has been shooting at coalition aircraft for ten years, in violation of a treaty it signed. Iraq has been lying and obstructing weaopns inspectors, in violation of a treaty it signed. In fact, Iraq is currently in flagrant violation of no less than 16 UN security council resolutions ...

Doesn't it bother you that you can spit utter contempt and disgust for the UN and then turn around and condemn Iraq for violating UN security council resolutions?

Let me ask you something. How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you get it? How many times to I have to repeat the issue was perjury, not infidelity?

If we're debating legality, you would be absolutely correct. The problem here is that Olrik is talking about morality, and you're talking about legality. They are not the same thing. Lying is hardly a major moral crime if you've just been asked a question which no one had any goddamned business asking. This isn't law.net.

Does that explan this to you? Do you get it now? Are you finally satisfied what my real gripe with Clinton is? Or am I going to have to read "Clinton's dick" one more time?

That is the Clinton-basher's rhetorical dodge. By all means, bash him for PardonGate; that was a real crime in my opinion. And bash him for starting a war to distract from problems at home if you like (although you'd be walking on thin ice if you think Bush is immune from similar criticism). But all of this hand-wringing over his bullshitting is ridiculous. Clinton bullshitted about getting a blowjob. Bush Sr. bullshitted about "read my lips: no new taxes". Whose bullshit had an actual effect on the American people?

And I prefer a thousand times to have a man who is (despite snobbish denigration of leftists to the contrary) a reasonably intelligent man, who has a good character, and makes up his staff with other intelligent people of good character, to a man who is admittedly clever, but who is also oily, dishonest, and frankly crooked.

You figure Shrubby is of good character? The man is certainly very good at rewarding the people who got him where he is today, but that's what I call cronyism, not good character.

[Perinquus]

Doesn't it bother you that you can spit utter contempt and disgust for the UN and then turn around and condemn Iraq for violating UN security council resolutions?

I have to admit, I'm of two minds about this. The substance of the resolutions is actually pretty good (not surprising since most of them were drawn up when world opinion was still outraged over Saddam's invasion of Kuwait). And of course, Saddam agreed to abide by them at the end of the Gulf War in '91. What bothers me more about Saddam is that he's blatantly violating his treaty commitments (whether they originated at the UN or not, and that's the casus belli in this case).

But I don't agree that the US should be unduly constrained, or feel unduly emboldened by the actions of an organization that can conduct the kind of shenanigans that the UN has done recently.

That is the Clinton-basher's rhetorical dodge. By all means, bash him for PardonGate; that was a real crime in my opinion. And bash him for starting a war to distract from problems at home if you like (although you'd be walking on thin ice if you think Bush is immune from similar criticism). But all of this hand-wringing over his bullshitting is ridiculous. Clinton bullshitted about getting a blowjob. Bush Sr. bullshitted about "read my lips: no new taxes". Whose bullshit had an actual effect on the American people?

Clinton demonstrated an overall pattern of behavior from even before his time as governor of Arkansas that really does reveal him to be an oily son of bitch. He's slick, he's smart, he's highly charismatic, and he's clever. All this, plus the actions of the democratic party in defending him, ensured that he not only got away with his various offenses, he kept getting reelected as well. There are whole books on this subject, so I don't really have the time or space to go into it all here, but overall, I think the man is just a person of fundamentally bad character. It's very telling that the people who have known him longest, and worked with him the most closely, end up not being able to stand him. Geo. Stephanopolous and Robert Reich, among others, were high ranking officials in the Clinton administration who don't much care for him personally, and who have been rather critical of him in recent years. There are lots more. Leaders of good character inspire loyalty in their subordinates, not dislike.

You figure Shrubby is of good character? The man is certainly very good at rewarding the people who got him where he is today, but that's what I call cronyism, not good character.

Cronyism has been an integral feature of the political landscape in America since Andrew Jackson. Bush has selected people for his cabinet who are smart, capable, and for the most part, able to work well together. I don't see any reason to fault him here.

[Mr Bean]

Nevermind PardonGate(Which was bad in and of itself)

Let me bring this up agian

If Slick Willy gets 4+ Million Dollers in Gifts from Forigen Goverments/Corps and the like WHILE in Office and he accepts all said gifts you would be a little concered would you not?

However if he also HID those Millions in gifts by Setting up a Foundiation that never gave anything away simply acted as a Buffer zone for said gifts so he would neather have to pay taxes on them NOR PUBLICLY REPORT THEM you might be a little outraged would you not?

However if I added his two biggest contriputers where China and North Korea might you be a little alarmed?(Esciplly when he lets Carter GIVE THEM A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and then never bothers to monitor it sufficently to make sure they don't start using it to produce nukes be pretty bad?


To Sum Clinton up, He lied, He switched positions so many times, He pardon folks for Dollers, He rasided lots of Campains money that never went to any Campains, He preformed more magic tricks with his taxes than your avarage Account does, most of them edging the legal mark(Inculding the phony foundation of which he had a few, from the Schoolership one to the Musem(Clinton Musem run by Clinton, got over 2 Million Dollers while he was President, never taxed never reported)
And he never follow through on anything that was acutal important
Oh and Wong, He said he would not tax us just like Bush did, And he ended up taxing us more than Bush ever tried

[Sonnenburg]

And I repeat (and you did not adress this) lying on your own personal life is morally different that lying on crimes.

Nixon: Commited a crime, lied about it.
Clinton: didn't commit a crime, lied about it.

You said the two are equal because both lied. I say Nixon is worse. I won't discuss it any further.

Fine, but I'm not passing this over.

False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)

Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You will note that there is no proviso for motivation. He tried to undermine the law for his personal financial gain (remember, this started as a civil case specifically about his sexual harrassment of Paula Jones), and was willing to violate it in order to do so. That it related to his sex life is of no consequence to morality, because it was immoral of him to deliberately violate the law he swore to uphold, and immoral to try to use his position to avoid facing a woman he allegedly harassed in court (rather than paying her off he filed a motion that he had immunity as the president). If he would have settled earlier rather than later he would have a) saved $150,000 plus the $90,000 contempt fine, b) kept the whole Lewinski thing out of the courts period.

Nixon is no saint, but neither is Clinton.

[CmdrWilkens]

For the record on the Clinton v Nixon subthread. When the House subcommittee prepared its impeachment specifics against Nixon the thrid charge listed was, and I quote, "Lying to the American public."

I find it extremely hippocritical that the same party which was ready to charge the President with lying to the American public, which is not itself a crime, was unwilling to accept that lying to a grand jury under oath was an offense worthy of impeachment. The book 'Sellout' does a nice job of illustrating most of the hypocrisy of the whole proceeding and the author, though one of the House Managers, is a democrat by affiliation and thus a tad less biased in this matter I feel.

[Darth Wong]

For the record on the Clinton v Nixon subthread. When the House subcommittee prepared its impeachment specifics against Nixon the thrid charge listed was, and I quote, "Lying to the American public."

I find it extremely hippocritical that the same party which was ready to charge the President with lying to the American public, which is not itself a crime, was unwilling to accept that lying to a grand jury under oath was an offense worthy of impeachment. The book 'Sellout' does a nice job of illustrating most of the hypocrisy of the whole proceeding and the author, though one of the House Managers, is a democrat by affiliation and thus a tad less biased in this matter I feel.

Actually, I think that Nixon is a greatly underrated president. The man accomplished many great things. He ended the war in Vietnam (not as cleanly as some would have hoped, but he did end it). He opened diplomatic ties with China (some might question the merit of this action, but it's certainly better than war). He signed the first-ever arms reductions treaties with the Soviet Union.

He also had a strong record in terms of civil rights. He brought affirmative action into the public construction trades, created a task force on womens' rights, authored the Clean Air act, and did a lot of other things that are normally NOT expected of a "right-wing" president. But all of that was washed away by Watergate in the public eye, which is not really fair. He may have been a political paranoiac, but he was also a pretty good president IMHO.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually, I think that Nixon is a greatly underrated president. The man accomplished many great things. He ended the war in Vietnam (not as cleanly as some would have hoped, but he did end it). He opened diplomatic ties with China (some might question the merit of this action, but it's certainly better than war). He signed the first-ever arms reductions treaties with the Soviet Union.

He also had a strong record in terms of civil rights. He brought affirmative action into the public construction trades, created a task force on womens' rights, authored the Clean Air act, and did a lot of other things that are normally NOT expected of a "right-wing" president. But all of that was washed away by Watergate in the public eye, which is not really fair. He may have been a political paranoiac, but he was also a pretty good president IMHO.

He was also one hell of a political operator. For a man whose career should have been dead after he lost to Kennedy he cameback and manuevered into the top spot and would almost certianly have been a lock to stay there had Watergate not happened. I mean his "Chester" speech is still one of the models against which modern politicians compare their own work for its simplicity elegance and impact. All that and he had a Vice-President from Maryland so I have to like him

[Nathan F]

Clinton destroyed the US military with his base closings and his budget cuts. He cut NASA's budget. He increased gun control at a rampant rate (beyond reasonable gun control laws, although this is an arguable 'bad thing' about him, but I think it is). And he did all of the previous tax raisings and personal soft money intakes.

That and the little fact of lying under oath...

<EDIT:>
And about someone liking a President because his VP was from their home state, Al Gore was Clintons VP from Tennessee, and I sure as heck never liked either one of them. I really don't know all that much about Nixon, but from what I do know, he wasn't all that bad, so I'm not saying anything against him.

I do know, though, that there were some idiots here in Tenn. voting for Gore simply because he was from Tennessee. That is just dumb. Almost as dumb as voting for someone simply because they are of a certain political party. That just takes away the point of Democracy.
</EDIT>

[0.1]

Say what you want, but Clinton is one hell of a character. Who else on the planet can get a blow job in the oval office, claim credit for the eonomic boom that his predecessor started, do a few minor bombings to keep the military happy, and browbeat congress and the Republicans to the point where the creator of the internet actually won the popular vote. Not to mention give his wife the ability to have a clear shot at the white house with the sympathy vote.

The funny thing is, Clinton would have been one of the greatest president of all time if he had been killed like JFK. But now, he'll only be a moderately successful political operator. Oh well, nothing is perfect.

By the way, out of curiosity, Darth, you said

And Bosnia was a relatively low-level event compared to what we're planning in Iraq.

I didn't know that Canada was actually for what was was going to happen in Iraq, in fact, if I may be so bold, what is Canada planning for Iraq? Let us in on your little secret.

[Nathan F]

Canada planning for Iraq? They have a military? Wow...



Kidding, I can't say anything really about Canada's military, they have been supportive of us. And after Clinton, their military is probably close to the size of ours...