leading the war effort in Iraq and things were the same over there you would be jumping all over him just like Dems are on Bush.
2006-12-28 05:37:58 · 20 answers · asked by mrlebowski99 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To Josh no I wouldn't support the war if Clinton were in charge. I never voted for Clinton and other than a few things he did which I won't get into wasn't a big fan of his presidency.
2006-12-28 05:50:14 · update #1
Good responses and civil mostly. Thumbs up to all!!!
2006-12-28 05:53:24 · update #2
I am a republican. and my answer is no.
What we would be bitching about is Clinton's ROE. In Somalia we were unable to fire without executive decision which cost us lives. If we would have had Clinton in office for Iraq we would most likely have had double the body count.
Just about every Soldier that has been there and seen what happens and the good that is being done supports this effort. So no, we would still rally to finnish the job.
Republican politicians...another story. I am not too keen on politicians. Dem or Rep, but I believe that when we enter a conflict, we finnish it and we do it the right way. With all this stupid political sway thrown in and the liberal protesters boosting enemy morale, it really makes it hard.
2006-12-28 05:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I'm Conservative and lean more towards the republican side. The only reason I would have a problem is if Clinton lost his balls to finish the job and pulled our troops out because he was becoming unpopular. That's probably where most of his criticism from republicans and conservatives would have came from. But we all know that wouldn't happen is Clinton was in Bush's place. They bombed the world trade center in 1993, he did nothing, they bombed the USS Cole, he did nothing, there was also a US Embassy that got bombed, and he still did nothing. The only thing his administration did, was launch an unseccessful attack against Bin Laden. One try, and nothing else was done about it.
2006-12-28 13:47:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Some Republicans are criticizing Clinton's actions in Serbia. That was a NATO mission and we accomplished our objective in 78 days.
2006-12-29 14:04:11 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Clinton had done the same thing for the same reasons that Bush did. I would respect him as much as I respect President Bush.
2006-12-28 13:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by Mikira 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Criticism is one thing, automatic contradiction of EVERYTHING Bush does for political gain is another.
Besides, I can't think of a circumstance where a Democrat has committed troops and a Republican has criticized it so harshly at any time during the last 30 years.
2006-12-28 13:51:07 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I never liked President Clinton, but I never called him "stupid" or a "chimp" even in his darkest hours. I still respected the office of our president. No, I would NOT be employing the tactics the democrats are using to destroy America.
2006-12-28 13:42:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
I wouldn't be jumping all over him! I would be glad he stood up and did something about Iraq, and even more thankful he took care of the terrorist insurgents there.
2006-12-28 13:43:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Does that mean you'd have to admitt that you would support the war if Clinton was leading it?
2006-12-28 13:42:52 · answer #8 · answered by Josh 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I'm pretty old school when it comes to supporting the US when we are at war, so I wouldn't be too sure, if I were you.
And I have answered on this site many times that I was not in favor of the war, when Kerry and Clinton were, incidentally.
But you cannot just cut n run.
2006-12-28 13:40:01 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 8⤊ 5⤋
Couldn't imagine the hoop-di-do from the Pub's and Con's compared to Monica who? Yep funny how things are considered "terrible" when convenient.
2006-12-28 13:44:32 · answer #10 · answered by edubya 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋