I think that in order to answer the question one must take into consideration the hypothetical conditions of said war.
Given the same set of circumstances that exist now, I think it matters not a whit who the President is. The answer would remain a resounding NO.
Perhaps a better hypothetical query would be “would Cliton have gone to war in present conditions”? And I’ll venture to say that, based on his prior record, he wouldn’t have.
I don’t care who is president, make the case and I support the action, don’t make the case and I won’t support it. In my opinion, the inspectors need to actually discover a significant weapon of mass destruction to make the case. With our satellite technology, one would think that we could tell the inspectors exactly where to look. If it takes months, so be it.
To the OP:
NO.
I would have supported a war in Iraq if they had attacked us or one of our allies. Today, they haven’t and I don’t.
Yes.
light strand:
So, you would’ve supported a war under Clinton because you like him and his motives, but not Bush, because you don’t like him or his motives - even with the exact same set of circumstances and evidence? This is partisanship taken to its (il)logical extreme. “I don’t like you, therefore I will not support anything you do, whether it has merit or not.” Let me ask you - if you were being threatened by a criminal, would you turn down help from a cop if the cop was only helping you so he could get a commendation from his captain?
Jeff
But some conservatives were criticizing Clinton for not going far enough………
Former Sec. Of State James Baker, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning Clinton’s bombing of Iraq; Sept. 12, 1996
And for the OP…Yes, even more than I supported the war on Yugoslavia.
Jeff, I freely admitted my hypocrisy. Although, I didn’t say I don’t support a war with Iraq, I said I’m having a hard time with it.
Moreover, I’ve noticed that you didn’t give an answer to the question in the OP.
** Diogenes the Cynic ** no I was refering to the Commander-in-Chief. I would assume any bozo can be handed a rifle and told which way to shoot - and I may not like Clinton’s politicts but he ain’t no bozo.
I do think the personality of the President does have some effect on the situation.
It is due in part to President Bush’s black/white, good/evil, us/them approach that I fear what lies ahead. Such unilateralism and inflexibility makes me believe that we will have more terrorists who are more dedicated and better armed facing us after an Iraq invasion.
I think that Clinton would have made more of an effort to build a truly international coalition. He would probably have been reasonably successful, since his international credibility is much higher than Bush’s.
My position is that if we do this as part of a global movement, the risks are probably worth taking. If we do this alone, no good will come of it.
If the Bush administration starts showing some more diplomatic talent, and can form a broad-based coalition, then I would reluctantly sign on.
keeper0, have you not noticed that Bush has built a coalition of something like 30 countries who support the US?
I didn’t know Clinton had all that much international credibility
Although I have my concerns, I am in favor of war with Iraq.
Would I have supported war with Iraq under the Clinton administration?
If the only difference was Clinton was in office; i.e., the 9/11 attacks occurred, and we had the same evidence of chemical (and other) weapons development by Saddam Hussein, then yes, I would still favor war with Iraq.
If on the other hand, the 9/11 attacks (or comparable events) had not occurred, I probably would not favor war with Iraq at this time, no matter who was in office.
It is not necessarily inconsistent to contend that due to the continued development of chemical and other weapons, Saddam Hussein did not present the same threat he did while Clinton was in office. Which would justify taking action now, despite opposing it under Clinton. But I would be strongly suspicious of partisan motives in anyone espousing such a stance.
(snip)
It is not necessarily inconsistent to contend that due to the continued development of chemical and other weapons, Saddam Hussein does not present the same threat he did while Clinton was in office.
(snip)
If Clinton had gone to war with Iraq, I would have supported him 100% on that. It sure would have been nice to see him do something, instead of letting the world know that bombing and destroying our people and assets was OK.
Let come screaming to the aid of my president - George W. Bush (and the “W” stands for whiskey).
He is not a draft dodger! He was bravely protecting Alabama as an off-base (snort), non-flying pilot in the Air National Guard! Viva la Tuscaloosa!
(sniff)…God bless that li’l scamp…