Probably not since the so-called "anti-war movement" is a miserable failure
2007-09-26 05:34:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Private Deek 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
You need to check your history. The people who were demonstrating were angry at the party in the white house, namely the democrats. People are upset with the current republican president so demonstrating against the democrats would be pointless.
Hillary's comment is the only responsible one any candidate can make. She is simply saying that she can't promise to pull the troops out a year and a half before the next presidential inauguration. She has no way of knowing what the situation will be like.
2007-09-26 12:43:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question is very interesting! One would wonder why there would be demonstrations at the Democratic Convention and not the Republican, but then again, who knows.
Some liberal factions are upset that the Dem's haven't done more to end the war, but is seems to me that breaking from the party to chastise them would be like cutting off your nose despite your face. Liberals do that on occasion but it still doesn't seem like a smart move to me at this time.
Also, just so you know; Hillary can't call out the troops, she can only make a request.... I'm pretty sure only the president and governors can put troops on the street.
2007-09-26 12:37:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by ggraves1724 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
You mean the ones the Democrats used the police and National Guard to put down?
H. Clinton is a corporate whore/ Republican in a skirt. In her younger college days she was a Young Republican. (Go ahead, check her biography...I'll wait)
She voted for the war, for the illegal invation of Iraq and has NOT raised her voice against the corporate mercenaries / death squads of Blackwater Inc. She has no reason to pull the troops from a war she supports. What does that tell you? How do you spell 'Fascist Police State'?
2007-09-26 12:39:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Galen W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm sure Code Pink and the other far left loons will be out in full force. Of course they won't be seen because the so called main stream media would only show this at the Republican convention...
2007-09-26 12:38:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. In 1968 there was a draft. Every one, except those with connections, was affected by the war.
2007-09-26 12:31:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Not that I give a s**t about her,but back in 1968 there was a draft. So I doubt it.
2007-09-26 12:33:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's always amusing to see the riots at the 1968 convenction call "peace demonstrations".
Why is it that "peace demonstrations" almost always conclude with violence and mayhem?
2007-09-26 12:34:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by thegubmint 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
Nope... Americans today feel that bolgging works just as well as demonstrations. Why I have no clue...
2007-09-26 12:32:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Mrs. Clinton knows she cannot touch that issue because not only will we not pull out, if she becomes President as the Republican party wants her to be... the draft will be instituted. There is absolutely nothing peaceful about that woman!
2007-09-26 12:34:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
when you ask about the 'democrat' convention what exactly are you referring to?
i know that there will be a democratic party convention - but what is this 'democrat' convention that you speak of?
2007-09-26 12:35:02
·
answer #11
·
answered by nostradamus02012 7
·
2⤊
1⤋