If Bill Clinton was President would the democrats support the War?

Answer 1

Clinton's peace talks did nothing but allow time for the terrorists to train and build up for more attacks on America.
In his bio he said he knew all about Ben Laden but was going to leave it for the next President to handle. Which is what he did! This was all in the investigation they did on 911 which Sandy Berger stole and shredded the evidence. Notice the dems are not investigating Sandy? Wonder why not as they were supposed to stop the corruption in Washington.

Answer 2

Most Democrats supported the current war when it was first begun, so yes.

The question is whether the Clinton administration would have pushed as hard for war as Bush did. It's hard to rewrite history like that - the post-9/11 era would have played out differently with a different president in office. But Clinton oversaw his fair share of military action, and continued to support Bush's decision even after others began to question it.

Answer 3

Most likely there wouldn't be a war to support/protest. President Clinton was more diplomatic than President Bush. There were more successful peace talks under Clinton's administration and the Cabinet members seemed to get along a little better than those of the Bush administration. Communication is lacking in our current political system and Clinton would've investigated things before jumping the gun on something that became such a catastrophe.

Answer 4

Absolutely. The ONLY reason they don't support it now is because a Republican is president, and they are still bitter that they lost the last two elections, and their goal from day one was to make life miserable for WHOEVER was in office...it didn't matter if it were Bush or some other Republican, they were going to oppose anything and everything the Republican administration would try to do. They are still under the illusion/delusion that the elections were stolen from them and they are all acting like babies.

Answer 5

Definately. The Democrats would be all about big spending for war. Look at Feinstein. She is just one of several Democrats with her hands in military development contracts.

Answer 6

It's impossible to know, but you could look at the support they gave the adventures in Bosnia and Afghanistan, when Clinton was distracting us from (first) Waco and (then (Monica).

It's all partisan politics, and it's likely that support/protest can be pretty closely correlated to who's doing something, as opposed to what they're doing.

Answer 7

You are assuming that Clinton would have gotten us into this mess. I don't think he would have since he's much smarter than Bush. Bush, not being to smart, allowed Cheney to talk him into this mess based on the fact that Saddam had once threatened Bush's father. Cheney visualized all the money that his company, Halliburton, could make if we were to go to war in Iraq. I do believe that we had the capabilities to have taken Saddam, and his two sons out without jeopardizing untold amounts of Iraqis and coalition forces. Guess we'll never know for sure about Clinton and Iraq but it's all speculation.

Answer 8

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on what the media had to say about it.

But your point is well taken that their position doesn't actually spring from any deeply rooted personal beliefs.

Answer 9

No.

Answer 10

probably not.