On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 02:55 PM, Charles wrote:
�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.
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.
�
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.
Tim: Different time.... different circumstances.
�
�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.�
Tim: Can't argue... (comment shows Charles's main prejudice against Clinton.) <G>
�
� 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.���
Tim: I agree...
Tim Harder
[>>Charles<<]� �
_______________________________________________
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
