English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If president Clinton had still been president now, do you think he would have handled things better/stopped the war from happening? i think president bush is such a d**khead

2006-08-24 03:17:33 · 36 answers · asked by Life In Technicolor 4 in Politics & Government Government

36 answers

OK... Now, Might you have an original thought in your head?? Calling Bush names has been done to death, little silly girl.

2006-08-24 03:24:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I don't approve of what you think or said about Bush, simply because I'm a Christian. But he was trigger happy from the start of the Iraq campaign. It's probable that Clinton would have settled it without going to war. Maybe he would have used the allies better. And been more honest with them.

You have to remember also that Prime Minister Tony Blair was running around all the European Countries trying to find a peaceful settlement, while Bush was playing golf at his mountain or country retreat. Bush wanted to finish what his father started. I think Blair was as surprised as anyone when the first missiles were launched against Iraq. Surprised, but knowing it was going to happen at some time, it just so happened Blair didn't get enough support in time, before Bush set the war off. Bring all the coalition forces home now, i say

There had to be an intervention, but then I can say that about Burma, Zimbabwe, etc. etc. but then they don't have any oil do they.....?

2006-08-24 03:39:51 · answer #2 · answered by patch 2 · 0 1

I'm sure Clinton would not have gone to war - he never had the moral courage to do something that might be politically risky. He would have looked at the poll numbers, decided that people would support a punitive air attack, and like his attack on Serbia, would not go to the UN, but would have bombed Afghanistan and called it a victory.

Under Clinton, the Taliban would still be ruining Afghanistan, and Al Qaida would still have safe haven there to run their attacks against the US. Saddam would still be in power, killing, raping and torturing his own people for fun and profit. Because of Clinton's unwillingness to do the right thing if polls didn't back it, Saddam would probably be rebuilding his WMD programs.

Iran would have nukes and North Korea would still have nukes. Maybe Clinton would give them both more nuclear plants in his continuing reenactment of the Munich Accords.

No, we and the world would have been much worse off if that self-serving egotistical whoremonger Clinton was still in office.

2006-08-24 03:37:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I can't say that there would not have been a 9/11. I can tell you that the recommendation from Gary Harte and his commission on future terror threats would have been listened to. If 9/11 had still happened we would have probably still gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq. The biggest difference would be that the international good will expressed towards the US after 9/11 would not have been squandered the way it was by Bush.

2006-08-24 05:40:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

For the record I am life long Republican!

I do not think we would have gone to war with Iraq. I do think we would still be embroiled in the War on Terror.

Despite all of his faults (personally) Clinton was a good president.

One thing is for sure. I am glad Al Gore was not president when 9/11 happened. I don't think Gore could have handled that.

On a final note though. We must still support all the men and woman over there as best we can. The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen still need our support despite our political views and how we "see" our Nation's and our Presidents current foreign policy.

If it weren't for those men and women and the men and women that preceded them we would not have the freedom to express ourselves in this space.

I think we also need to remember that our Presidents and other politicians are only human.

2006-08-24 03:31:47 · answer #5 · answered by Russ K 1 · 2 1

Im sure if Clinton were president now, there would be no war in Iraq. We were attacked multiple times during his eight years and he did nothing but fondle his intern and work on his own legacy. This is probably the reason Bush is forced to deal with this now. Clinton gave the U.S. a paper tiger reputation.

2006-08-24 03:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I don't think the war in Afghanistan would have been prevented if Clinton was in office. The Clinton Adminstration knew of the threats against the US. It just happened while Bush was in office. The war in Iraq is uncalled for, and I believe we've done some good over there, but it has yet to be seen. We've freed the people from the threat of genocide yes, but we've also blown their country to bits. Bush wanted to finish what his Father started, plain and simple. We only have 2 more years until he's out of office, and maybe the voters will get out in force this time and make a change.

2006-08-24 03:25:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

You should never talk about the president that way, even if you don't like him. If Clinton were in, we would be in a much worse state than we are now. One of his last acts in office (besides an Intern) was to pardon terrorist who were responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing and the attack on the Cole. Yeah, he would be a great man to lead this country. Stop listening to Hollywood and the Media- none of them have any clue about reality.

2006-08-24 04:09:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If Clinton was president, we would have bombed a couple of aspirin factories overseas but none nothing significant about 9/11. Then he would have apologized for everything from the Crusades to the war against the Barbary pirates and asked for talks. That would have shown the terrorists that we do not have the stomach to fight them and within 6 months, they would have struck again on a larger scale. Within a year, a third strike. Within two years, probably a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. At that point, we would probably surrender completely to them like French surrender monkeys.

2006-08-24 03:25:30 · answer #9 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 2 1

I DO think that Clinton would have handled things better than Bush. While Clinton succeeded in beginning the process of digging our country out of debt, Bush managed to put us billions more in the hole over the last several years. I would be willing to bet those billions that he will go down in history as the worst prez ever. And what does that say about everyone in this country who voted him in... a second time!

2006-08-24 03:22:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Clinton was and still is ten times the president that Bush is. I agree with the thought that history will see Bush as the worst president the States has ever had and hopefully ever will have.

2006-08-24 03:24:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers