You dodged the question just like Bethany did....
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 02:45 PM, Charles wrote:
I think that after 9/11 a Clinton Administration would have gone through some motions.� I don't believe they would have prosecuted a war on Iraq.� Probably would have done the action in Afghanistan, because the American people would have nothing less.� After a bit of fighting in Afghanistan a Clinton administration would have begun to disengage, and certainly wouldn't consider a "war" on terror, but would opt for using police type tactics instead of military options.<image.tiff>
�
As I recall, even in election cycles, the republicans stood behind Clinton when he threatened to get tough on Iraq.� They only bucked when he wanted to make token gestures.
�
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
�
It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at a time. - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
�
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim HarderTim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:03 AM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
I really don't see Clinton's quotes as haunting *him*... they haunt the Democratic Party.
What if this was the end of *Clinton's* first term and he had handled all of the events
after 9/11 exactly as Bush has. Yes exactly... What would the Republican candidates
be saying in there election speeches about Clinton's foreign policies?
_______________________________________________
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
