Given that I think we can all agree that the link between Iraq and al queda is tenuous at best would you have supported a war with Iraq under the previous administration?
I’ve been thinking about this and I will be the first to admit my own hypocrisy. With the evidence presented, I believe that there is little doubt that Iraq is doing its damnedest to hide evidence, and thwart inspections. I also believe that not only did he gas the Kurds, but that he has every intention to become a regional despot. Furthermore I also believe that his own people would love to have the Americans come in and liberate them from this regime.
That said I’m having a really hard time supporting a war. A large part of this is because I don’t like Bush or his attitude. His cowboy, black/white, good/evil, with me/against me attitude really bothers me. I think this war is very personal, and I also think its very political. I don’t think that the President gives two hoots about the Iraqi people, or the region as a whole. I think he believes that war is good for his polls, and there is vengeance for the attempted assassination of his father by the Iraqis. I also think he know that this will be a windfall for his buddies in the oil industry.
He claimed that his father didn’t use his “political capital” properly after the Gulf War, and I think Bush is using his own Political capital after 9/11 by going into Iraq.
I don’t know that if Clinton had attempted to invade Iraq during his administration if I would have supported him, but given my political leaning, I’m going to say that I probably would have. However, having seen here recently lots of folks complaining that Clinton did not do enough after the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings. Then again saying that when he did act by bombing Iraq that he was attempting to distract the American people, it makes me wonder how many of those people, most of whom are supporting Bush, would have supported a war with Iraq during the previous administration.
For me, it’s not about the administraation necessarily… it’s about how they present their case.
Before today, the Bush administration has done little to present their case for war in Iraq. They’ve been vague and nonresponsive, and Bush himself seems to preach to the lowest common denominator. That changed for me today, though, with Powell’s presentaation of evidence to the UN. As of today, I think they’ve made a credible case. Though I can’t say I’d be happy about it, I would most likely support a declaration of war against Iraq, as long as it was made with specific goals in mind and not dragged out.
I don’t think that would have changed with Clinton. I would have expected him to present credible evidence as well, and until he did, I would not have supported a war.
I am against war, generally speaking. Which administration is in power has nothing to do with it. If a President wants to advise a course of war, they have to convince me of it before I’ll support it… that simple.
I take a back seat to nobody as an anti-Clintonista. However, contrary Tars Tarkas’s guess, I would have enthusiastically supported a Clinton-led war against Iraq.
Me too. I think you could substitute the names of Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or delete the qualifer “Clinton-led” and he’d give the same answer, don’t you?
december, did you support the actions in Kosovo and Bosnia? Have you ever claimed that our forces were spread too thin, and poorly prepared? Would you have had any qualms about a draft dodger sending troops to Iraq?
I don’t recall taking a stand one way or the other as it started. Of course, after the bombing worked, I was in favor.
No, I never have.
Maybe we shouldn’t have elected a draft dodger, but he was the only President we had. If troops needed to be sent into battle, it was his responsibility to do so.
In 1998, after the inspectors threw up their hands and left - yes. But, I’ll agree with the point that the extreme right (mainly religious conservatives) would have screamed no matter what Clinton did. That is almost a certainty.
I opposed action against Serbia because I feared a Russian response.
I favored action in Haiti, though I presumed it would not work.
I did not favor running away in Somalia, but Clinton would have been reamed had he not pulled the troops out.
I favored action in Rwanda, early on. But, after Somalia, maybe Clinton was concerned of another Blackhawk Down, with machetes.
I favored some kind of strong reaction to the various terror attacks during his administration. But, as numerous GD topics have outlined, it is difficult to fight an enemy that does not wear a uniform, hides, and strikes at civilian targets - mostly.
Clinton was, like most presidents, a mixed bag in foreign policy. I feel for anyone having to make those life and death decisions, Clinton made some good ones.
This is more IMHO then GD, but I feel that Clinton really wouldn’t understand how to go to war, it’s just not in him. If he did actually go to a full scale war and didn’t cut the military, I would support him in this effort.
Oh for heavens sake people, Israel would have gained as much by a US invasion of Iraq under Clinton as it will under Bush. Of course december would have supported it. There’s no hypocrisy in that position at all !
Icerigger a attack is not a war and your cite (even though it admits to being conserative) shows exactly the problem, Clinton doesn’t know what the millitary is for (or if he knows he doesn’t beleive it). For this reason alone I would say that the OP is moot as it would never happen.
k2dave,
I think I must have misunderstood your intent. I thought that you were saying you would have supported Clinton if he had ever served in combat. (Or in other words, I thought you were saying that if Clinton had ever served in a war, I would have supported him waging war as POTUS). I thought I was coming back with a rebuttal that GWB had never served either (in combat). I guess I completely misread your post. Sorry about that.
I wouldnt support a war under Clinton because if he was too stupid to keep an affair a secret how can you expect him to keep any kind of battle plans a secret?
I dont support a war under Bush because he doesnt realy have ano credible reason to go to war.The argument of "Maybe Saddam has chem weapons’ just doesnt float.
WHat happened to the good old days, when if a terrorist said they were going to bomb U.S. targets, the U.S. blew up their house and killed their family?