Consider if Gore was pres. for the last 2 terms and he fought the war EXACTLY the same was as Bush has. Would you Republicans and other Bush loyalists still be serving out the same high praise?
*Try and stay on the actual question itself!*
2007-12-22 15:52:19 · 13 answers · asked by johnny a 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Read the question again. I'm not asking for retellings of Clinton's missed oportunities, 9/11, etc. It's a simple, albeit hypothetical, question. Give a yes or no, then expand with something relevant to the actual question.
2007-12-22 17:16:01 · update #1
Right, right, but listen to the question. I know its hypothetical but stay within the parameters. If Gore (or any other Democrat) fought the Iraq invasion EXACTLY the same way Bush has, would (current) Bush supporters/Republicans still be saying "things are going great" "yes, the cost in lives and money is worth it" "you critics of the war are unpatriotic," etc.?
2007-12-23 02:54:02 · update #2
I don't believe Gore would have had the balls to go down that road. Same as Clinton. Let's just say he was and he did... the removal of Saddam was the right thing to do. I could only speculate with hope that Gore wouldn't have made as many mistakes. I have many...many...many problems with the Bush Admin. I will not opine on open world forums as to the specifics, as I believe that would and does give aid and comfort to our enemies. I am an Independent, didn't vote for Bush last round, am looking at Obama for a fresh outlook, as well as Mc Cain. Still a ways to go,mind not made up yet. I do know I will never vote for a Clinton.
2007-12-22 16:02:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
To rephrase your question, "If Al Gore or any other Democrat was President, for the last two terms, would they handle the Iraq War any better, than Bush?"
This is one question that I am not well-read upon. I would guess that all of the Democrats would handle the matter in a similar fashion to Bush. Even going so far as the killing of two million innocent Iraqi lives and 11 years of illegal sanctions.
While the Bush administration and people in high places are at fault, the blame falls on people who made the decisions like Cheney, Bush (father and son) and Rumsfeld as well as others. People behind the scenes, while guilty are harder to catch and harder to prosecute. So, you prosecute those who are prosecutable, people who are by law entitled and legally responsible for an illegal and unnecessary two trillion dollar war.
Condi Rice is, also, not without blood on her blouse!
The senior Bush said, that we are a nation of laws. And he is right, we are a nation of laws and if you violate the law(s), you are going to get caught! Bush's exact words were more along the lines of us following the "rule of law".
Well. we are certainly are!
.
2007-12-23 01:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by peacenegotiator 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off, the democraps had their chance to stop this during Komrad Hillbilly Willie Klinton's term, and he was with OJ Simpson looking for terrorist and murderers at the golf course. Since when have you liberals not embraced America's enemies???? Can you "new communists" name one example of not supporting America's enemies in the last 50 years?
Komrad Gore would have increased foreign aid and tried to pay off the terrorist organizations, which has been the tradition of the cowardly whining democratic party for so long. And, he would have opened the door to immigration for "peaceful and lovable" terrorists looking for a better life, that would now be blowing themselves up with financial aid donated by liberal organizations.
2007-12-23 01:00:23 · answer #3 · answered by G T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love how you can pretend that democrats would be filled with piss and vinegar if Gore had done this.
It should be common knowledge that Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Bill in 1998. This bill called for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of democracy in Iraq. I think he was doing this to set up Gore for his big day at the races, which never occurred.
2007-12-23 00:01:10 · answer #4 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I believe stopping Islamic extremism from spreading is in the best interest of not only the US, but the whole world. I am far from a Bush loyalist btw.
2007-12-22 23:56:07 · answer #5 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Whether it is a liberal or conservative the whole deal might have turn out similarly. So I don't think either party is best for running this country at all. The two classic parties had screw up this country far more than we have realized. So there you have it. Good enough, yes?
2007-12-22 23:58:45 · answer #6 · answered by FILO 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simple fact-----If Gore had been appointed president 911 would never have happened!
HE would have fulfilled his duties as commander-inchief and not have ignored themany warnings America got before the attack!
So your question would have no merit if Gore had been appointed by the supreme court!
Did you know even Mubarak the president of Egpyt tried to warn the US on August 31????
2007-12-23 00:03:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think characterizing it as high praise is an exaggeration. I would, however supprt the man and his decisions and would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would not call him a liar and think that he is an idiot becuase he does not have the benefit of hindsight like the rest of us do.
2007-12-23 00:00:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ever wonder what can we do when it is not in their time to solve the mess out there?
If it is their time.
Then it's theirs for them to clean up the mess.
What can we do that is beyond the control of living human kind?
Luke 9.55-56
What do you think?
2007-12-23 00:03:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
US will be defeated by Iraq if a Democrat was President.
2007-12-23 01:04:56 · answer #10 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋