It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So what would the Democrats have done differently?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Considering that the Democrats had the same intelligence that the Republicans did regarding WMD in Iraq and the fact that they also voted to attack Iraq, what would the Democrats have done differently? Would they have immediately withdrawn from Iraq? Would they have re-instated Saddam? Would they have apologized for the mistaken invasion? Would they have begged forgiveness?

What would the Democrats done differently?

I am of the mind that they would have fought the war in Iraq much the same as it is being fought now. I suppose that the only real difference is that the Democrats would have been the brunt of Republican criticism.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
well, at this point I must assume that the Democrats would not really have done anything differently from President Bush. After all this thread was started a few days ago and there are no replies. Oh sure, there is always plenty of Bush bashing to go around when that is the topic. What else am I to think?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
You would not got anything different from them. To get a different response you have to get a different Government. The Republicans and Democrats are the same coin just two different faces, noticed I didnt say sides, just faces. They are on the same side, which is lining their pockets and turning us into slaves dependent on them to tell us what to think, say, do, eat, etc.

To get different you have to vote in other parties, Libertarian, Constitutionilists, Greens, Independents, Socialists, Nazis, whatever.

I would suggest the first two as a good or Independents.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I am happy with Bush's reaction to the Iraq WMD problem his dealings with it after the bombings n Baghdad are questionable. Democrat's in my opinion would have sat on their A$$es and tried "talking" with Saddam. I want my president to protect me, and direct threats of nuclear attack by a dictator who was most probably in posession is a serious problem. Democratic presidents don't have the gut for that. War is war and we needed defending.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It is now that we come to realize that it would have been similar, minus, of course, all the deliberate lies, (I think they would have been colored differently), Cheney's shooting rampage, Bush's personna, which leaves much to be desired
, the leaks, criminal involvements, (Of a non-sexual nature)
-

While i agree that both parties are now one, i cant help but think the other party would have handled it with a tad more dignity. Am i dreaming? nah....
I knew first time Bush took over the white house, it was all over.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
It is now that we come to realize that it would have been similar, minus, of course, all the deliberate lies, (I think they would have been colored differently), Cheney's shooting rampage, Bush's personna, which leaves much to be desired
, the leaks, criminal involvements, (Of a non-sexual nature)
-

While i agree that both parties are now one, i cant help but think the other party would have handled it with a tad more dignity. Am i dreaming? nah....
I knew first time Bush took over the white house, it was all over.


I don't know, dgtempe, every time I think of Kerry and his wife, the Ketchup Queen, sitting in the White House, I can't visualize anything really all that different. Trading Bush for Kerry would have meant trading one elitist for another. Both answer to the same master....big business. And, I'm sure business would been "as usual" except (of course), the condiments would have been more plentiful.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This admittedly elective war was a neo-conservative Republican enterprise. See the following www.informationclearinghouse.info...
They are the ones who cherry picked bad intelligence to get Democrats onboard. If the Democrats had been in power, we would not be in Iraq.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
This admittedly elective war was a neo-conservative Republican enterprise. See the following www.informationclearinghouse.info...
They are the ones who cherry picked bad intelligence to get Democrats onboard. If the Democrats had been in power, we would not be in Iraq.


Is this why Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq on the basis of the very same "intelligence" material that the Republicans had? Is this why, Democrats continue to support budget allowances for the continuation of the war in Iraq. Certainly, the budgets would still pass because of the Republican majority in Congress but, nevertheless, the Democrats still vote to pass those budgets.

As fellow ATS member, Intrepid, likes to point out, the Democrats and the Republics are two identical "heads" on each side of the same coin. We like to think of the Republicans as the party of the Rich and that the Democrats represent the "average man" or the poor. Yet the Democrats come from the same elite, go to the same schools and are supported by the same commercial and industrial interests as the Republicans. Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, they are both the same. I sincerely believe that if the Democrats had been in power, we would still have entered Iraq. Clinton, during the height of the Monica Lewinsky story, did his share of bombing Iraq for treaty violations. Kerry and other Democrats certainly voted for U.S. involvement in Iraq. What's really different between these two parties, these two ideological entities other than the rhetoric?







 
0

log in

join