Would Democrats be supportive of Bush's war if he were a Democrat?

Question

Is this arguement political or humanist or just a matter of right and wrong?

Answer 1

Yes. Compare the unilateral strike on Iraq by Republican President Bush to the opinions of Democrats concerning unilateral efforts in the Bosnian War to stop the genocide of peoples by the order of a murderous dictator during Democrat Bill Clinton's presidency:

DNC chair Howard Dean in a letter to President Bill Clinton-
"In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened."
"While I completely agree with you that no ground troops should be committed for other than humanitarian purposes in Bosnia," Dean said, one of the four steps he recommended Clinton take was to unilaterally "commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped."

When the exact situation was occuring in Iraq while a Republican President was in the position of Commander-in-Chief (and after this particular dictator had been warned in 17 U.N. resolutions), Dean's opinion, as well as that of so many other members of the Democratic Party, did a 180 degree turn.

This country would be in much better shape if the public would elect those who hold true to their core values and principles (be they liberal or conservative) rather than those who have a certain letter next to their name. If people actually took the time to get to know the potential candidates, we'd know who it was we voted for and why. We wouldn't be dealing with this partisan bull-crap day in and day out like we do now. Unfortunately, too many people (politicians and constituents alike) have their heads stuck up the asses of the party mascots to vote for the truly deserving candidate.

Answer 2

If Bush was a Democrat, you would see the Republicans talking about how this war is illegal and how Bush lied to us, etc. Democrats would be supporting our war in Iraq to support the President. Anyone who doesn't see this, obviously hasn't paid much attention to the rules of politics. You stand by your party and your party's leader, even if they are wrong.

Answer 3

Moot. Democrats would not be in Iraq. Also, they would actually try to find a valid reason to go to war and when to leave. Democratic leaders listen to the populace, Bush does not.

Some republicans have turned on Bush, the ones that have not are on the take, more so than the ones who have.

Answer 4

It's a political argument. Every dem will say no, an illegal war is an illegal war, but fact of the matter is they would be more likely to be supportive of the mission if he were a democrat.

Answer 5

Many Democrats supported the war until they found out that Bush lied about the WMDs and the Bin Laden connection.

Answer 6

<<(sic) commit American air power ... until atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped. When the exact situation was occuring in Iraq while a Republican President was Commander-in-Chief, Democratic Party did a 180 degree turn.>>

Does make you wonder about the Dem/radical muslim relationship as well.

Answer 7

Please, please, please believe me when I tell you that it is all political. Democrats supported Clinton's wars in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, as well as supported him bombing Iraq during operation desert fox, and his using of secret evidence to convict terrorists. Republicans criticized him the whole time, and after his presidency claimed he was weak on things like national security.

I watched an old clip of politically incorrect the other day. Christopher Hitchens was talking about Clinton launching cruise missile into Sudan the day his impeachment trial began, and asserted that it was political, that he was doing it to get the press attention off of him. Every damn democrat scolded him for saying that, and were even defending Clinton for lying, saying that his father was an alcoholic, and he was only lying to keep Americans from being hurt etc. It's all politics.

Answer 8

Of course and that is the problem it is not about their concern for America but to regain power.

As an example I would guarantee that if Bush would have suggested to decrease the amount of troops they would of came out saying that we should increase troops some of the same Senators that want to vote on their vote of no confidence won their elections saying we needed more troops.

Answer 9

No.

It's a matter of right and wrong.

Mass murder and torture are wrong, as is theft, destroying a country, and invading a country for no good reason.

I would have opposed this war whoever proposed it (and despise the Democrats who supported it).

Answer 10

Afghanastan had to be done. Most of us can agree on that. Iraq is totally different and unrelated in every way. And now, where do we stand on both fronts? Screwed! Simple as that. Who's fault? Well I would have to blame "The Decider" himself for that one. He could not stand up to Cheney and the rest of his chicken hawk cronies. So now we have what we have. I guess 54000000 people can be wrong.