2007-04-25 03:37:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton would not have done something so stupid. Nevertheless if he had the Republicans would be lambasting him with furious criticism.
The Republicans would be screaming and yelling that Clinton was an incompetent Commander in Chief with no plan and who didn’t know how to properly use the military. They’d be saying that Clinton had no exit strategy, no understanding of the country or the Middle East and no forethought for post-Saddam Iraq. They would also have been trying to impeach Clinton for having lied about the urgency of the war and the intelligence, especially after the highly embarrassing finding of no WMDs.
You can look at the some of the language they used regarding Kosovo to get a mild idea of what the Republicans would be saying now.
2007-04-25 04:04:39 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No, since it was left-over business that should have been carried out under George H.W. Bush when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and he was talked out of doing so. Plus he was convinced on fighting wars through only bombing and missle attacks and not committing troops to ground warfare, until Bosnia came along.
2007-04-25 11:01:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You have no way of knowing that. Clinton did authorize military air strikes over Iran and nobody complained because he was absoltuely right to do so. Republicans know what needs to be done, Clinton never had the backbone like most libs to do what needed to be done.
2007-04-25 10:45:42 · answer #3 · answered by Scott B 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
He bombed Iraq Bucky and I didn't hear one thing coming from the republicans when he did. It was probably one of the most heroic things he did when he was in office even though he didn't kill anyone when he bombed a bunch of empty tents.
Study your history better and you won't look like a fool when you post.
2007-04-25 11:20:10 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Sure, he would have been impeached for getting a blow from the Iraq women and lying about it.
2007-04-25 10:39:52 · answer #5 · answered by auditor4u2007 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, he didn't and anything is just speculation and has no value. Sounds like you are trying to justify the liberal position of bashing the United States. If you want to do that leave and you can be happy. I heard Iran was nice. Do some condemming there. Ought to be fun EH?!
2007-04-25 10:52:51 · answer #6 · answered by ken 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
None because Clinton couldn't take a stand on anything Proof does he know the meaning of the word "is" yet
2007-04-25 10:40:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
They would have supported the invasion, but they would have attacked him for nation building during the past 3 years. Also, they would have wanted to know a plan instead of "hold the course" and other excuses.
2007-04-25 10:42:53 · answer #8 · answered by freeetibet 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
are you forgetting, that clinton bombed iraq, and was in office while our troops were on the border?
Or are you forgetting that the overwhelming majority of congress, democrats and republicans, voted to go into iraq?
2007-04-25 10:41:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
They won't unlike the democrats who are already to raise the white flag to the Muslims terrorists.
You won't see conservative comparing the Bill to hitler nor would see conservatives burning our troops in effigy nor would you see conservatives carrying signs like they like NYC without the WTC.
2007-04-25 10:43:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋