Aren't you tired of flip flopping?
2007-12-13 08:06:21 · 20 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think he kind of did, when he passed the Iraq resolutions, that needed enforcement.
2007-12-13 08:09:38 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes.
I supported all of the following Clinton uses of military force:
Operation Restore Hope, a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations.
Operation Deliberate Force, a NATO operation against the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.
Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission that helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end.
Operation Desert Fox, a bombing campaign designed to weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on power over Iraq.
Operation Allied Force, a 1999 NATO bombing campaign against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
There may be more, but these are the main ones. I think some of these operations were slow to get started, many were half-hearted attempts to look involved, and usually ended too quickly when things got tough, but I supported all of these nonetheless.
2007-12-13 16:33:22 · answer #2 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course Bill wouldn't have started the Iraq war, that would require him to go against the international community, a democrats most-favored group
2007-12-13 16:15:56 · answer #3 · answered by Greg 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Probably not, however I think a larger percentage would support it, and they certainly would be a lot more rational in their lack of support. Meaning they wouldn't run around alleging we're a police state being ruled by the next Hitler.
2007-12-13 16:25:45 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To tell you the truth, it would be exactly the same as it is right now, just fliped. The sad part is, politicians are making it this way. If people would just read reports from the troops and ignore the media and politicians, you would see the great things going on over there. We are making progress in leaps and bounds now, just like we would if a dem was president, because the same generals would be in charge.
2007-12-13 16:09:56 · answer #5 · answered by Tommy G 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bill would have been under too much investigation to start something like the Iraq mess. And, no republicans would have hung him out to dry, even if he didn't cherry pick evidence to start it.
2007-12-13 16:12:44 · answer #6 · answered by Waas up 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Probably not, but the Democrats would probably support it to no end like the GOppers are.
I'm tired of the partisanship in politics.
2007-12-13 16:09:25 · answer #7 · answered by Phil M 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. They opposed Clinton in Kosovo, opposed Clinton's strikes in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan etc, remember "No blood for Monica"?
2007-12-13 16:09:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
You do of course recall him bombing Iraq NUMEROUS times and enforcing the no fly zone, correct? Him ( and his wife) agreed fully with the war.
I love how all of a sudden libs have selective amnesia.
Do I need to send you page after page of Clinton quotes on Iraq and how evil sadam was, how he had WMD's, how he was in defiance of the international community? How about Hillarys' vote for the war?
Bill Clinto did start the war in Iraq by his inaction, weak repsonses to terrorism all leading up to 911.
Get an independent thought and stop relying on moveon.org for your brain.
2007-12-13 16:12:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Most likely. Would we support it with undying faith that our leader could do no wrong? Would we stand by blinding ourselves to the horrible truth? I hope not.
2007-12-13 16:11:15 · answer #10 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋