A Question for Republicans/Conservaties!?

Question

Suppose for a moment Clinton was president right now (as if we could be so lucky) and We were still in Iraq under the same premises, Would you loyally support him like you do George Bush? And I don’t want to hear Clinton wouldn’t have the balls to fight a war in Iraq because your slightly right, Its not that he dosent have the balls, its that hes actually got some brains and wouldn’t fight a needless war based on lies. (And ya ya ya we know Monica Lewinski, But as the saying goes no one died when Clinton lied) But would you still support the war if it was Clinton waging it? And remember this is just SUPPOSE he was president.

No I wouldnt support him, Because I wont support a war where our brave troops are dieing for a lie.

Answer 1

No, I would not support a war even if we were so lucky as to have a decent person like Bill Clinton as president again. I do believe that president clinton would listen to the REST OF THE WORLD on this issue, which Bush will not. I think Mr. Clinton would also be focused ont he humanitarian crisis in the middle east as well and it seems that only lip service is paid to that right now. Just enough to keep the american people assured that they are on the right side. Oh and if anyone brings up how he lied about the sex thing, Im gonna puke.

Answer 2

Yes, I would support the war in Iraq.

The problems that we've been encountering with Iraq are not due to waging the war in general, the problems lie logistically. I'm a Republican and I consider myself to be pretty much fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Because I am a Republican, however, does not mean that I'm ready to pray to George W. Bush. Has he been the best president we've ever had? Certainly not. Has he been the worst president we've ever had? Certainly not.

Bill Clinton was not a bad president. He also was not a good president. He's what I like to call a "caretaker" president; a president when one really isn't needed. Clinton's "successes" directly stemmed from the economic boom of the 1990's; an economic boom that the Reagan and Bush administration had a direct hand in by encouraging investment. The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) which opened trade barriers between the US, Canada, and Mexico was signed by Clinton, but was prepared and groomed by Reagan and Bush.

It isn't so difficult to be President when times are good, especially when you're one of the smoothest sweet talkers ever to hold office. I will definitely give Clinton credit for that.

I find it amusing, however, when democrats scorn George W. Bush for his policies on the mid-east. Are they optimal? No. However they are significantly better than the hallowed democrat, Jimmy Carter. By refusing to take a belligerent stance during the hostage crisis, his administration has contributed greatly to the problems of today.

To sum this up, as I'm sure people are getting tired of reading this, I think the answer to this question can be boiled down to die-hard partisanship versus logical reasoning. Yes, I would have supported the war if Clinton had launched it. However, my criticisms of the mismanagement would remain the same - those are bipartisan criticisms.

On a final note, your question is somewhat hypocritical. You assert that every republican is eternally loyal to Bush, however you neglect to mention that there are just as many democrats who look for reasons to hate him. I know several that will find out what Bush's stances are and then take the opposite. Remember there are just as many moronic democrats as there are moronic republicans, be centrist and cater your question to people who aren't radicals.

Answer 3

Remember when Clinton launched cruise missiles against Iraq? It was Sept 3, 1996.

The article I referenced says:
Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole issued a statement, praising U.S. troops and pushing for "decisive action" against Saddam.

"America and its allies and friends around the world can no longer tolerate Saddam's repeated attempts to erode the restraints that have been placed on his regime, and to violently reassert his authority," Dole said.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE in republicans and democrats. Republicans care more about America than they do about getting in power. Of course Clinton didn't have the stomach to do the job right.

Yes, we would support Clinton if he did the right thing. The reason we don't support clinton, or the other america-hating demonrats, is because they DON'T do the right thing. They'd rather see us lose the war, get attacked, than see George Bush get the credit for defeating this enemy.

Read the article and weep you whining, gutless coward.

Answer 4

No one lied for anyone to die, either. You tried sooo hard not to be insulting. If Clinton had the same information as Bush and everyone in Congress voted to go into Iraq, except for two, then yes, I would probably support him. After all, Clinton did send troops into Bosnia and promised they'd be home in six months, then before his term ended, then....well....he couldn't say. Didn't hear the hate for him, even from conservatives, that I've heard for Bush.

Answer 5

Sure I would support his decisions. He would be the president, but I hate to tell ya brother. I just heard Hillary on the news today saying that we should not cut and run. She was also recorded on the record as in favor of going into Iraq in the first place. I do agree with her stance on putting more pressure on the new Iraqi government to a stance on protecting it self. We can't stay there for ever. War sucks, but I would rather take care of the problem now then to leave it for my great grand kids to have to clean up. The extremist groups are not going away, every time we back down they seem to get stronger. We have to nip this thing in the bud.

Answer 6

Well, Thanks God Clinton is no longer a President. But the war happened to be under Bush. It just happened that Bush is our President now. Their mentalities are different, and so are their work methods. We don't know if Clinton would have initiated a war. You should agree with Bush on this: it's much better to have terrorists concentrated in one place - Iraq, than to have them spread all over US and Europe.

Answer 7

I'll answer with a question. Did you Support Bill Clinton when he Bombed Iraq ATTEMPTING to destroy YES YOU GUESSED IT """WMD's"""" And one more Question: Why do Libs seem to forget Bill Clinton Believed Saddam had WMD's as well as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry. Its EASY to claim LIES after the Fact. Take a few moments of your life and see what the LIB leaders said about Saddam and WMD's BEFORE the WAR.

Answer 8

Yes, if Clinton had taken us into Iraq, I would defend his decision to go to war. I've defended a few things he did as president, and I've disagreed with a few things Bush has done. It's called intellectual honesty, something that requires the ability to make decisions based on fact, rather than emotion.

Answer 9

Do you not remember back in the 80's when Clinton was in power that the opposed his every move. Even today you have some nit-wits blaming him for the war in Iraq. No they would not support him blindly like the do the moron, coke snorting acoholic, election theif that the look up to.

Answer 10

Republicans politicians always support force being used because it is American weaponry corporations that gain huge profits from this.

Unfortunately, their decision has nothing to do with the ethics of their support. It's about profit.

Btw, if Clinton, knowingly sent us to Iraq that there was no WMDs, just as Bush knew there wasn't, I would not support him either.