Hilliary Clinton has stated that had she been president when 9/11 happened we would not have gone to war. She states she voted for this war because President Bush lied to her, but her husband was the commander in chief/President for the previous eight years, if anyone was privvy to inforamtion it should have been she.
She voted for the war yet states had she been president at that time... Has she ever mentioned what she would have done differently? If so, what?
Has any of the presential candidates that criticize this war stated what they would have done? If so, what?
2007-09-17 07:42:58 · 8 answers · asked by Traveler 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I haven't heard of many actual solutions other than the old "it would have been differently if I was there"...but they've never said why. It's one of those classic cases...
2007-09-17 07:50:53 · answer #1 · answered by Ratchet 4 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Ron Paul was one of only six House Republicans to vote against the resolution authorizing Bush to use "military force against Iraq" [1]. Prior to the vote, he made a speech on the House floor condemning the resolution [2].
I hope that you'll read the link to Paul's speech. Also, please read this speech made only weeks after the attacks. Near the bottom of the speech, he outlines proposals for dealing with bin Laden.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
2007-09-17 15:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by Joe S 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush used 9/11 to scare Americans into supporting his invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. A Dem president would not have been that clever.
2007-09-17 15:11:02 · answer #3 · answered by Ice Cream Man 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Ron Paul offered legislation to grant letters of marquee and reprisal to a number of government agencies and private bounty hunters.
From my source:
Paul has offered legislation (H.R. 3216) to authorize Bush to issue “letters of marquee and reprisal” to those private citizens or entities that want “to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001,” or future attacks.
Paul offered this proposal back in October 2001, arguing that it would allow “Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the [United States].”
2007-09-17 15:38:07 · answer #4 · answered by mick t 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
There people are anti the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. They are anti the war in Iraq. You have to see the difference.
2007-09-17 14:55:05 · answer #5 · answered by <Carol> 5 · 1⤊ 6⤋
The fact is, nobody would have done anything different, but they can't say that or the mindless public wouldn't vote for them. It would take a complete moron to vote for her. What's done is done and nobody can change that, we can't pull out an d expect everybody else to act like it never happened, we will be attacked again, and again until we put a stop to it.
2007-09-17 14:57:00 · answer #6 · answered by turkey 2 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Negotiate as per Mr. Kucinich.
2007-09-17 14:46:19 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
of course "we would not have gone to war" because she has priority how to keep Monica's mouth away from his trousers
2007-09-21 09:47:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋