2006-06-12 11:16:18 · 6 answers · asked by Sean C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The same thing Bush did.
The press would have loved it and been lapping it up. All would be the same in Iraq, but the news coming out would only tell of joy and flowers and laughter. We would not hear one word about the deaths.
Under Clinton it was almost a news black out on what was going on and the true numbers killed and the fighting all over the world. Did you know then Clinton was in we did not have 50days in a row we were not fighting in ,around or in the air over Iraq. That was for all 8 years he was in.
2006-06-12 11:33:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
He would probably do what Bill Clinton did. Depleat funding for local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, restricting the number of cops on the street, and Border Patrol officers, further weakening our borders to allow terrorist to walk their bombs into this country instead of going through customs checks, or declare diplomatic immunity for all foreign political and business executives, tieing the hands of Homeland Security from ensuring that all the luggage is safe. Then he would take those funds and redirect them to something totally useless like space exploration, or raises for his political cohorts. How would a democrat handle terrorism? He would deny it was real, put his head up his rear end, and try to ignore it, hoping it will go away.
2006-06-12 18:35:35 · answer #2 · answered by bladewalker187 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on who the democratic president is... that is not a question..that can be answered in generalities.
2006-06-12 18:21:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing. It worked for Bill.
2006-06-12 18:25:36 · answer #4 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stay out of it if it wasn't his buissness.
2006-06-12 19:02:31 · answer #5 · answered by Nina C. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are idiots too.
2006-06-12 18:19:45 · answer #6 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋