It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Question for Clinton Fans.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:55 PM
I am new to this board and after reading a lot of the posts on the U.S government and the bashing of the bush admin I would like to ask a question to all the bashers.
First off, I will say I voted for bush. Has he done everything he has said he would, probably not. Has he handled every situation the best way?
Possible, probably not.
I no longer associate myself to any political party because I have come to the realization that it does not matter which side you belong to, neither
side represents what the American people really want. So now I am an independent conservative. As the wise man Mike Savage says, I am concerned with our borders,
Language and culture.

Anyways, this is the question I have for the Clinton(Bill) supporters and fans. How do you think Bill would have handled things if 9/11 and the persuing war on terror(islamic fascism) happened on his clock? I know a lot of people will say that bush and his cronies are the ones behind it, but for conversations sake, leave that conspiricy out of it.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:03 PM
Nothing he would of done nothing. Thats what he always did. At least when the ship got blew up he did nothing. Good question you have there.

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:33 AM
really supriseded by no responses to this. Is this not a legit question to ask?

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:24 AM
Don't be surprised RcapTampa the viewings on this board are kind of slow. Personally I think they should never have split it with the war on terror section.

To answer your question I think he would have had to do something about Afghanistan as obviously the whole English speaking, and European world's were pissed immediately after 9/11.
Put it this way he would be very unpopular if he hadn’t.

I also think Clinton would have done Iraq as because Saddam was seen to still be hostile to Israel after 12 years of bloody sanctions. So Clinton too would not have wanted to lift sanctions.
Therefore the same political backers-minds, would still have wanted regime change to liberate Iraq's oil supplies onto the international market.

I doubt very much, that the fact, the leadership that's coming in Iraq will be the worst kind possible for Israel, or the fact Iraq can't produce very much oil (because apart from being in general chaos) the insurgents keep blowing up the oil pipelines would have dawned on them.

If I'm right about Iraq also being invaded (after all the Democrats supported the war too, as they have the same intelligence as the Republicans
Then the only thing that would be different is the propaganda. For Iraq the Clinton administration would have put a lot more emphasis on "doing it for human rights" although they would still need "the WMD self defence argument" as much as the Republicans did.

Of course its theoretically possible that a very left leaning (foreign policy wise at least) Democrat could have been elected; in which case we would not have done Iraq and the world would be a better place (for the Western world at least). However such a guy would need the balls to face down a lot of the guys who buy into America's media networks, and back the western worlds major political parties.

I kind of wonder if we would have seen the assassination of another president by now? (At least if what most people think the major reason for Kennedy’s assassination is anything to go by) (i.e. he wanted to cut defence spending, and reduce commitment to Vietnam; hence jeopardising massive arms industry profits). Because not only would such a president be doing that; but he would also be threatening a perceived oil market liberation plan, or worse lifting U.N sanction to the perceived decrement of Israel.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:54 AM
To quote Bush, Clinton would have fired a few missiles into empty tents and hit camels in the butt.

My opinion is that in hindsight we probably shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but focused more on Afghanistan. We should have more troops there IMHO.

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:26 PM
If 911 had happened on the Clinton "watch", I genuinely believe that, for all intents and purposes, the situation in the world would be exactly the same. The only thing that would have been different is the paradigm. That is, in this scenario, it would be the Republicans calling Clinton a war monger and someone who was fighting a failed war because of Clinton's cronies and their business interests.

Perhaps I have become cynical over the years but, at the same time, it is very difficult not to become disillusioned with, in particular, a two party system. The two party system, with very few exceptions, has solidified their holding on America and have formed a "monopoly" on government in America. As far as any real dicernable difference between the parties, well that depends on the era. During different eras, one can readily see that party philosophy has see-sawed between the two parties.

Republican or Democrat....these parties are really nothing more than two sides of the SAME coin.

I cover my opinion on this in my thread George Bush vs Bill Clinton, Republicans vs Democrats or the hypocrisy of ideological adherence

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:12 PM
benevolent tyrant, i could not agree with you more. The american people are brainwashed into a two party system that gives the people the illusion they are given a choice.
I think the world would be in the same spot as it is now, the only difference is the media would report it a different way and different fingers would be getting pointed.

new topics

top topics


log in