Tim said: 
I disagree. I think Clinton had the balls to go to war. I also think that the events after
9/11 would have been very similar. I think that secretly Clinton and the Democrats
are bitter that they didn't get to be in power after 9/11. They resent the nonpartisan
support an popularity that the country gave Bush post 9/11.
[>>Charles<<] I can agree with this, I think they do resent the popularity, and more to the point they think that a democrat would have done it better.
 
Clinton stated that Iraq was a threat, so it seems plausible to me that he would have
gone into Iraq as well.
[>>Charles<<] I don't think so.  He got authorization to affect regime change in 1998 but didn't use it except to drop a bomb or two calculated to minimize damage and do little to change the regime.
 
 I think he may have had an easier time with the UN than
Bush did.
[>>Charles<<] Possible, because the "world" didn't hate Clinton.  They admired him, oddly enough many EU countries admired him more for his infidelity than anything else. 
 
  If Clinton had gone into Iraq the Democrats would be all for it saying that
it was a just war and the Saddam was a tyrant and the civil rights violations alone
were enough to justify going in there.
[>>Charles<<] And I think the republicans would agree.  The republicans by and large supported the policy on Iraq.   

[>>Charles<<]   
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net

Reply via email to