Ah.. moral equivalancy.. gotta love these non-starters.

Ok so we have the western powers being accused of corruption and incompetence. We also have the "axis of evil" accused of, well "evil" how do we solve that?
Is it fair that Clinton was impeached for the BJ incident, yet Bush is not impeached for what happened in Iraq?
(in world opinion - not US opinion - it probably underlines how ignorant the americans are and how they are as bad as mad mullah)
How do we face up to the future saddams? (since iraq and regime change really arent working so well)
Do we use strategic strike and impeachment procedings to remind politicians that they are just as personally responsible for f'up's as the troops&terrorists?
Or do we continue to support politicians/leaders who preach from our play book yet have internal issues (torture/terrorism/corruption)?
Point is we cant preach regime change to another culture/country when it is seen that a leader can lie/manipulate/ignore his own people and not be impeached/over-ruled when it is seen that for a BJ clinton was impeached in a blaze of publicity.. also it's harder to demand action over a country under the guise of it being "ethical" when we also support clearly "unethical" regimes.
Opinions here!

"Ok so we have the western powers being accused of corruption and incompetence. We also have the "axis of evil" accused of, well "evil" how do we solve that?"
 
The usual fashion is to neutralize it.  Killing seems to do a fairly good job of conquering evil, which is why we no longer have Hitler and Saddam among the living.

"Is it fair that Clinton was impeached for the BJ incident, yet Bush is not impeached for what happened in Iraq?"
 
Clinton wasn't impeached because Monica polished his brightwork; he was impeached because he lied under oath, i.e. perjury.  Why should Bush be impeached? He hasn't broken the law.  He didn't lie.  At worst, he believed faulty intelligence.  If Bush is to be impeached for "lying" to the American people about Saddam's WMD program, then Kerry, Clinton, Chirac, and many others better be in the dock with him--all of them made similar statements about Saddam's WMD.

"(in world opinion - not US opinion - it probably underlines how ignorant the americans are and how they are as bad as mad mullah)"
 
When we start imprisoning political opponents, threatening to exterminate Jews, and talk about using nuclear weapons on another nation, then we're as bad as the mad mullahs of Iran.  The fact that anyone can believe there is equivalence between the US and Iran only speaks of that person's ignorance about the US.

"How do we face up to the future saddams? (since iraq and regime change really arent working so well)"

Oh, I don't know.  Saddam is dead and the Ba'ath Party no longer exists, so that part of the regime change went rather well!  As to how we face up to future Saddams, we have a good plan for getting out of a situation once we get into it.  It would also help if we quit being so kind and nice.  We missed a golden opportunity to take care of two threats at once when Chavez and Ahwannajihad were both screaming "death to America" this weekend in Caracas.  Finally, it would be nice if the rest of the world actually did something about its problems rather than blaming us for them--Mugabe seems to be rather vulnerable to a South African invasion; the Sudan could benefit from the attention of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians; China could take care of Kim in 24 hours (48 if they sleep late).

"Do we use strategic strike and impeachment procedings to remind politicians that they are just as personally responsible for f'up's as the troops&terrorists?"
 
I find that the electoral process seems to work better and quicker.  Last November was a wakeup call to the GOP.  I don't think much of the Democrats, but the American people chose to support them rather than Bush--cheaper, less messy, and better than impeachment proceedings.

(Though I must ask this: people want Bush impeached for possibly lying to the American people, yet Hastings and Jefferson are allowed to keep their Congressional seats when they are proven to be criminals.  Maybe Bothanhunter has a point in the opposite direction.)

"Or do we continue to support politicians/leaders who preach from our play book yet have internal issues (torture/terrorism/corruption)?"

If you're referring to our support for Syria, Fatah, or Saudi Arabia, I'm inclined to agree with you.

"Point is we cant preach regime change to another culture/country when it is seen that a leader can lie/manipulate/ignore his own people and not be impeached/over-ruled when it is seen that for a BJ clinton was impeached in a blaze of publicity.. also it's harder to demand action over a country under the guise of it being "ethical" when we also support clearly "unethical" regimes."
 
Ah.  Because we're as "bad" as Iran or Ba'athist Iraq, we don't have the right to tell them they're wrong, no matter how many people they torture and kill.  What do the words "Maginot Line" mean to you?

No Bothans were killed gathering this information.