if GW had been caught getting head from an intern, prior to sending them there? They didn't mind Bill sending troops into Bosnia when he got caught with his dingaling in Monica's mouth.
2007-07-11 23:37:55 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The left generally doesn't like supporting war of any kind for any reason. They only go along with wars when they believe it serves their political interests like when they voted for this most recent war.
2007-07-11 23:40:22 · answer #1 · answered by Medic 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Actually, I'm having trouble understanding the right supporting the war in the first place. Nation-building has NEVER been part of the Republican way until this administration came into power.
And comparing Iraq to Bosnia isn't a very valid comparison. The actions in Bosnia were supported directly by both the UN and NATO and were successful. I've been to the region several times since the end of the war and most of the old hatreds have been largely been buried. Croatia in particular has rebounded magnificently and is flourishing now. Best kept secret in Europe today!
2007-07-11 23:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No, we wouldn't have supported spending billions of (whose?) dollars on Iraq, since Sodomy Hussain was not a REAL threat to us any more than Castro is.
Then we'd have more resources to fight a war on terrorists in an intelligent way.
Bosnia was an international effort, too, so that got the job done quickly and we didn't lose much at all.
2007-07-12 01:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by topink 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yea, Clinton was famous for sending us troops in all sorts of theaters with the worst ROE (Rules of Engagement) ever. IF you are going to deploy your military, let them BE your military, not the friggin boyscouts. He cut HUMINT almost completely out of the picture which led to the next administration having to reinvent the wheel to take care of Al Qaeda, who btw were sending death threats to our troops on a weekly basis as early as 1999.
At least Bush said, enough of this Tomahawk missile crap, it only showed the enemy we were weak, and we saw what happened as a result of that, and the timing of those missiles was literally DURING his testimony about Monicagate.
The man has no integrity, Bush doesn't let polls lead him, he leads us, like it or not, he is the leader, I had to put up with Clintoon for eight years, so, na nee na nee boo boo leftist socialist whackos.
2007-07-12 01:49:55 · answer #4 · answered by Wolfgang92 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Frankly I wonder at both right and left, and the fixation on Bill Clinton's sex life. Get over it!
To begin with, it was an obvious setup. A Republican intern catches the man alone and makes him an offer he didn't refuse, then saves the dress unlaundered. What for? The only reason is for the evidence.
Once they had that the zealots went into high gear, and now they get righteous because the man lied to protect his family from an unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives. How can this compare to the serial adulteries of Gingrich and Guiliani, or the abberant behaviour of Tom DeLay? Obviously it does not.
So Bill Clinton lied about sex. George Bush lied about weapons, and intelligence reports. Whose lies actually got people killed?
Moderates like me are so tired of the partisan, antidemocratic behaviour of the Bush League and its crusade for corporate hegemony that we are going to reject whatever the GOP offers us in 2008. We are most likely going to vote for another Clinton, just because she has been amazingly civil to the talking sphincters who have defamed and abused her without mercy for sixteen years. We are not going to do this because of her policies. We are not going to do this because we like her.
We are going to do this because we are sick to death of a movement that has become morally conservative but fiscally spendthrift, we are going to do this to save civility in public life, but mostly we are going to do it because nobody would drive you corporatist lackies as crazy, and we want you to enjoy an eight year excrement burger.
Bon appetit. You deserve it.
2007-07-12 00:04:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bosnia did not result in us getting thousands of our troops killed with no progress in sight, and we were not spending 10 billion a month in Bosnia. Bill did not lie about WMDs, either, those are the real issues, not who is doing what with who.
2007-07-11 23:52:35 · answer #6 · answered by fieryfox59 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
This is something of apples to oranges, Bush's unilateral war and Clinton's hummer are only connected in such that they were both HUGE mistakes by sitting presidents...although the body count for Clinton's ******** was significantly lower...
2007-07-11 23:59:29 · answer #7 · answered by Will 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No and to make it clear, his dingling is not an issue as much as the lies upon lies thrown upon the American people from GWB. Its not so much as what was put in her mouth its more of what come out of dubyas.
2007-07-12 00:02:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
This will very likely get deleted. But anyhow, no I doubt it would make a difference. Additionally, he knows being the president, he can find better looking women than that or Paula Jones.
2007-07-11 23:41:18 · answer #9 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think youre on to something there, Bosnia never threated us our oil supply ! Saddem rattled his saber a litle too often
2007-07-12 00:08:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋