It is just speculation... Bush had the support of both sides when the issue
was first brought up... I think it would have been the same for Clinton....
My hidden point was that, "I think that the republicans would have been
kinder to the whole mission than the phony Democrats are being right now."
Even so... when it is an election year... the opposition must find fault.
I only wished to show that it works both ways. I could be all wet.
Maybe all the Republicans are moral and just.
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 07:01 PM, Charles wrote:
Maybe vindicated isn't the right word. He would have felt that he could back off without consequences. War in Iraq doesn't fit the priorities of the dems.<image.tiff>
I really can't see a Clinton, or more to the point a Gore presidency going into Iraq. They would have stalled and hemmed and hawed until the public clamor to go to war was quiet. Bush nearly did the same thing, he sure tried hard enough.
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
Announcer: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a really neat idea.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim HarderTim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:46 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
Vindicated?
My position... Is just my opinion... I could be wrong...
I don't think Clinton would have liked the UN bossing him around anymore
than Bush did.
I think that 9/11 was something that the GOP remembers and the Dems
have forgot *for convenience* while they try to over throw the evil Bush.
I do agree that France and Russia may have still said NO... that doesn't
change much though.
You are still not with the spirit of the question.
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 05:48 PM, Charles wrote:
It was all about Bill....and he could be swayed by polls, but I don't think he would have gone into Iraq. I think he would have "talked tough", but when the UN said no he'd have felt vindicated. The UN wasn't going to say yes because France and Russia were guilty of breaking the resolutions themselves.
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming, terrified, like his passengers.
<image.tiff>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:27 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 02:55 PM,
Tim: I think Clinton would have relished the opportunity to be the "commander in chief" in a time of war. It was all about Bill.
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
