If a republican doesn't win the presidency, and the next president ends the war?

Question

Will the conservatives take credit? I'm just wondering, because they gave Reagan credit for Clinton's surplus, and they blamed Clinton for 9/11.

LMAO! Hey Melt, what do the cons call that? BECAUSE IT IS GOING ON NOW!!!!LMAO...mindless

wm critter, don't worry about me! They can see you both deny and condone that behavior in the same sentence...you gave reagan credit for clinton's surplus, and you blamed clinton for 9/11. Nice job!

icetender, when did Clinton blame Reagan for his problems? Or Carter blame anybody? That's the way it is with REPUBLICANS

melt, didn't call YOU mindless, called your blind support of this adminstration mindless. Blame it all on the dems

Answer 1

Well, the incoming Presidnt does have to deal with the actions of the outgoing administration, so it seems that every administration would have to give and take some credit for things that happened during their time in office.

Answer 2

First off, govt. blaming the old govt. or taking credit for what they did is just the way things are.

If you believe the US pulling out of Iraq will end the war, you need to do some reading. There will be war there weather the US is there or not. Iraq does not have the military or police infrastructure necessary to keep the radical factions within their borders from using violence to further their goals.

Imagine what would happen if, all of a sudden there where no effective police forces in the united states. Do you remember the Oklahoma city bombing or the Unibomber? There are many factions that believe in violent change and the US would be in the same shape as much of the Middle East.

Fortunately, there are forces in the states to counter these radicals. The old govt. of Iraq may have been 'evil' in many ways but it was all they had. It's gone now and until that is changed the US is stuck. Do you think the Vietnam war ended when the US pulled out?

It didn't. It didn't last much longer but read some history and see what happens in situations like that.

The problem is there is no "right" answer anymore. The choices are only between two wrongs and which one is less wrong.

Answer 3

No president can end the war. They can only end our fighting back, the terrorists will continue to attack us regardless.

Clinton had no surplus. It was PROJECTED to happen over 10 years. Which is crap because there is a new budject every single year, so all future projections are meaningless.

Reagan's tax cuts were an important factor in the economic boom of the 80s and 90s.

Nobody blames Clinton for 9/11. The terrorists are to blame. However, it is unfair to try to blame Bush when Clinton had 3 chances to take out Osama. It is also Clinton's administration (not Clinton himself) that erected the intelligence wall between the FBI and CIA. This wall stopped the agencies from putting the pieces to gether in time to stop 9/11.

Please learn the facts before you speak, there are ignorant people out there that might believe your drivel.

Answer 4

Regan should get some credit for Clinton's surplus.

While the Liberals in the US and Europe were calling for appeasement to the Communists, Regan stood them down.

Clinton reaped the peace dividend when we were able to cut military spending.

Those are the facts, like them or not.

That being said, Clinton does deserve some credit as well for being a more conservative Democrat, and not blowing all the money.

The last two Democratic Candidates have been WAY to left wing, and sad as it is, Bush is still a better choice than Gore or Kerry.

If the next president lets Iraq fall to extreme Islam, I don't think the Republicans will want to take credit for it, because that could lead to the end of us as a Country, and maybe even the world.

We need a 3rd. Party!

Peace!

Answer 5

That's partially correct which surprises me because your usually not. A Republican will win the Presidency, Regan was directly responsible for Clinton's surplus, but we never blamed Clinton for 9/11. If your memory was as sharp as your wit, you would recall that it was you demorats that started the blame game! And now you've taken it even further by allowing your demorat base of ferrets to infer that President Bush planned the attack ! Your party was a national disgrace in the last election, and you've followed that up by 6 1/2 years of acting like whining traitors! I won't be changing my party affiliation anytime soon !

Answer 6

That all depends, Heidi. If it is prematurely done, and it winds up sending the Middle East into TOTAL chaos (rather than a semblance of chaos), I'm sure the Republicans will GLADLY let the Democrats take "credit."
However, if the war ends favorably, with Iraq as an ally, and the stabilization spreads, then the Republicans will take (and deserve) credit.

Answer 7

"The only way this war ends is with the fall of Tehran."

Once again.. the war on terrorism makes us attack a country. The war on terrorism will never be over... the mere fact that we're fighting a war against terrorism increases their numbers. The war in Iraq, however, can be ended.


Will republicans take credit? Probably for stabalizing it enough for the next president... maybe. I don't really know. Maybe they'll get a republican president who ends the war and dennounces Bush. I really can't say. Presidents always end up suprising me (though I'm always disapointed in the end).

Answer 8

A democratic president might abandon Iraq and Afghanistan but it will not end the war. Instead of fighting it over there, it will be fought over here.

In that event, when Americans start dying by the tens of thousands and American cities start disappearing beneath gas and mushroom clouds, then what will your democrat savior do?
Bow down 5 times a day to Mecca, no doubt.

Answer 9

Probably ... the conservatives are very good at revising history. by the way, Ike did put an end to our incursion in Korea, but did so without a Peace Treaty with North Korea which is why we still have issues concerning North Korea.

Answer 10

I doubt they'd take credit when Iraq turns into a lawless terrorist state. That would be foolish. I think the Dems will have to keep it.

If you think that Iraq is a lawless terrorist state now, you lack imagination and an ability to distinguish a couple of cities from a whole country. Still, I don't think you're mindless, but I don't have to resort to name calling.