No, people must have a difference of opinion or it wouldn't be a debate.

My point is Clinton-bashing is simply getting old and pointless.

Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs and whored around; Johnson had Vietnam; Nixon had Watergate and abused power in office; Ford pardoned Nixon; Carter hugely inflated the size of government and had a weak liberal foriegn policy; Reagan started a recession and ran up a (then) huge deficit; Bush, Sr. left Saddam in power and didn't contain him enough to prevent the gassing of Kurds, nor did he do anything to turn around the failing economy.

It's all water under the bridge now. Lately, however, it seems that anytime the Bush administration is critiqued or questioned, the first response by a neoconservative is, "Oh yeah? Well, Clinton did....."

And that's relevant how? Quite frankly it sounds like an elementry student sniveling.