If Clinton Attacked Iraq in 1997, would cons have supported him?

Question

Will cons support a democrat president if he attacks Syria or Pakistan in 2009?
Be truthful...

Answer 1

Of course not, they would have "whined about the long term consequences"

Answer 2

Speaking as a southerner and knowing a lot of small minded racists, they don't care who is president if we kill them sand ni99ers... However, this has gone on so long, with no real progress towards victory, only towards chaos, and no democrat would be dumb enough to stick around...
Example, Bush Sr. sent troops to Somalia as a lame duck in late 1992. Clinton was told it was for humanitarian aid. Shortly after taking office, we figured out this was another REPUBLICAN lie and he got out as soon as he could. He knew better than to get involved in the Baltics, but if there ever was a chance to get Yugoslavia "right" it was before he was elected.
If by some chance a democrat was in office and Iraq was going as poorly as it is, you can bet republicans would be screaming IMPEACH by now and be glad they can blame a democrat for a republican blunder...

Answer 3

The congress wimped out on their accountability by giving the president authority. in ordinary terms congress has the authority to declare conflict, and it in no way did. Senator Clinton exchange into between the wimps. the U. S. has an prolonged history of aggression in the process the international whilst needed supplies are at stake. to that end, it fairly is oil. The weapons pronounced because of the fact the only reason at the back of the attack have been in no way stumbled on and did no longer exist as defined. in spite of the actuality that there have been weapons stockpiles (116) that had already been pointed out by weapons inspectors. regrettably, the assorted chemical and organic and organic sites have been left unguarded by the U. S. and have been raided by unfriendly forces. between the organic and organic sites exchange into demolished by US forces spreading a great cloud extending for 1000's of miles over friendly troops. The WMD did no longer look like a concern to the invading troops, they first secured the oil ministry, which led to hypothesis that the U. S. is somewhat involved in strategic monetary supplies.

Answer 4

I think so. A lot of the base of the Republican Party is the military crowd and I like to think they would understand the necessity for such an attack and wouldnt turn it into a partisan battle. I feel like its messed up that the democrats did that with this war because it seems like something you wouldnt screw around with because you want to be elected to office.

Answer 5

They did. He attacked Iraq with missiles and the Republicans cheered.

They would not, nor would I, a democrat, support the attack of a nation that did not attack us or our allies (like Iraq did).

Some of us are Americans first, Democrats second.

Answer 6

He tried to get Osama in 1997 but congress wouldn't let him because Saudi wouldn't let us base the attack from there country and that would have made things very very hard for our troops.

Answer 7

Yes. We are Americans 1st, Republicans 2nd. Dems tend to be Democrats 1st, Americans 2nd.

Answer 8

Yes. Saddam Hussien is evil.

Answer 9

If grandma had balls I would not be answering this.Surely my man you are jesting.Slick willie was offered Osama on a golden platter twice and he refused.The only thing he ever attacked was was Monica's blue dress!

Answer 10

Since he lacked a pair to do it, we can never know.