If Clinton led us into the War with Iraq would you have been more supportive?

Question

The media certainly would have found everything right with the war and would have ignored the wrongs...

Answer 1

clinton would just have let the terrorist run over us like the uss cole and the wtc building he did nothing about

Answer 2

The question would be, if Clinton would have read the reports, would he have acted the same way, and since he wouldn't, we would n't have gone into war in Iraq. If you think Clinton got a free ride with the press all those years, you are a new born babe in the woods. His whole life and sex life were plastered all over the place, the only thing the press liked about him was that they never had to look for a story one was always there. To this day few remember that when the Twin Towers were bombed the first time the perpetrators were caught and jailed, and still sit in jail in NY. Very unlike Osama. Remember Bosnia? Remember "Wag the Dog" comparisons? We had a decent economy and peace, for the most part, and a president who only lied about his sex life, instead of his right to destroy the constitution so he can find terrorists. Maybe Bush should ask Clinton how to catch a terrorist. And leave my mail and my library lists alone.

Answer 3

Well, see even though Clinton had rolled up al Qaeda cells in twenty different countries, after the embassy bombings he issued a presidential directive authorizing the his assassination. Then the Uss Cole happened and that really ticked him off, so he got Richard Clarke to make up a comprehensive strategy to completely destroy al Qeada. The only reason he didn't start the campaign was because it was finished only a couple of weeks before Bush took over so he left it for Bush to do (big mistake). But, if Clinton had been in the middle of his reign and started the campaign, then there's a very good chance that al Qeada would not have been in existence or Osama would have been dead, so 9/11 might not have happened and therefore would have no reason to try to war with anyone.

But no I would not be more supportive. Our troops shouldn't be over there, period. And heck, I don't think he would have sent troops over there in the first place. The only reason I know that Bush was so hard up to go over there is because he promised to get back at the man who tried to kill his daddy.

Answer 4

What is wrong and right about this war has gone far beyond what the media feeds to us. If Clinton had gone into Iraq he would have done so for legitimate reasons, not manipulated intelligence. Many Americans would be much more supportive of George's War if they weren't now aware that he hoodwinked everyone into a war he wanted for personal reasons rather than the b.s. he fed the entire world.

Answer 5

Yeah because the media was so behind Clinton all the time. Remember the whole Monica Lewinsky stuff? What a ridiculous statement. If he went in for the same reason Bush did heck no I wouldn't support it.

Answer 6

From about 1994-5 I thought Clinton needed to do something about Iraq. He did nothing, nothing at all. No policy was advanced, no progress was made, he basically kicked the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

I would have supported him if he had called for military action to depose Saddam. After all, if you're willing to conduct a massive bombing campaign against a country, you might as well do something a little more permanent.

But, to my chagrin, Clinton was a moral coward, unable to follow through on doing the right thing if it entailed any political risk or interfered with the adulation from his knee-padded worshippers.

Answer 7

To simply answer your question, Clinton would never have masterminded such a political and diplomatic fiasco as the war in Iraq. Therefore, your original point is moot.

Answer 8

I gotta say bull***t on the media statement. Clinton was villified by the media for getting a bj. Let's be realistic here. if anyone made the huge errors Bush and his cohorts have made, they would be questioned just as vehemently.

Answer 9

CLINTON was president, not a JACKASS like what we are having to deal with right now, I don't believe CLINTON would not have even began to entertain the thought of putting Americans into a war that they could not possibly win, some people learn from their prior mistakes (VIETNAM). The current president just does not listen, so now we are stuck because of his lying and childish ways.

Answer 10

hello anybody home???!!

the media talked his daddy up to, made him a gulf war hero!
guess why that was?? because, at the time SADDAM WAS A THREAT!!
guess what the threat was when "bad seed" Bush decided to attack Iraq??
wasn't Saddam!
It was Osama not even spelled the same way, but at least both do start with vowels!

Answer 11

it is not the persons important. it is the policies of the persons that are to be condemned. instead of bush, Clinton might have been condemned. but i strongly feel Clinton would not do such a misadventure.