if clinton made these blunders and there were no wmds. he would be impeached by now.
2006-07-18 06:13:06 · 9 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"You ******* always side against America"-convinced me! lol
Reactioanries are dumb.That's the answer.
Here's the proof:
http://www.geocities.com/blue_vs_red_2004/
2006-07-18 06:24:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't identify myself as an 'apologist', but I do support the President on several issues, most importantly, national security and Iraq is part of National Security.
Not sure where the 500 Trillion comes from. The current deficit numbers are $318 billion (more that a thousand times less).
Although I agree that spending is 'out of control', it is mostly due to 'pork', not the war effort.
If (former) President Clinton was concerned with National Security I would support him. He didn't, so I did not support him.
I think you will find that 'real' conservatives, rally behind ideas and policy, not the person.
2006-07-18 06:24:39 · answer #2 · answered by opusthepenguin_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
500 trillion? I don't think ALL of the world's economies equal that much money...
Yes, I would support the war because I believe it is a just cause. Saddam Hussein was ruthless and just a bit touched in the head (he thought he was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar). This was a job that should've been done in 1991 but wasn't and it allowed Hussein to terrorize his people and run them through plastic shredders another dozen years. I never was worried about the 'wmds'. We know he had chemical weapons and has tried to build nuclear weapons as far back as the 1980s. Whether or not I like a president personally or his politics in general, I can still acknowledge when he does something I approve of.
2006-07-18 06:27:28 · answer #3 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush inherited a $5 trillion nationwide Debt. It took from 1789 (actual, a lot later than that, yet that became George Washington's first time period) till the 365 days 2000 to get that prime: and Bush doubled it in only below 8 years. because the former putting forward is going (as a lot as date for "those circumstances"): "1000000000000 right here, 1000000000000 there... particularly quickly, you're speaking 'actual money'." And sure, their eyes and ears were closed, yet their fingers were out and their wallets were open. .
2016-12-01 20:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
But Bill didn't. Bill did great for the economy, George didn't. Bill did great for education, George isn't. Bill got investigated for nearly his entire term with only cheating on his wife being discovered as a real allegation, George has been caught lying to congress on national TV.
It's just not fair trying to compare the two! It's like a fight between Bill Goldberg (Clinton) and Tattoo (Bush), as if Bush, the mental midget, has a chance against Rhodes Scholar Bill!
2006-07-18 06:22:35 · answer #5 · answered by vertical732 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
I don't turn against my country no matter who's President, unlike you liberals.
You ******* always side against America.
2006-07-18 06:19:19 · answer #6 · answered by schillinfl2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOUR AN IDIOT, FIRST CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH AND YES I WOULD STILL SUPPORT THE WAR. I WISH SOME OF YOU DEMOCRATIC IDIOTS WOULD GET A LIFE
2006-07-18 06:20:12 · answer #7 · answered by jfields2302 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he already was impeached!!!!
and a better question would be: "if frogs had wings......"
2006-07-18 06:18:20 · answer #8 · answered by zoo2626 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the moon was made of cheese, would you eat it??
2006-07-18 06:18:50 · answer #9 · answered by bogoyatoo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋