How many believe that any Democratic president would have invaded Iraq?

That includes either Gore or Kerry. Heck I'll even throw in Clinton if he had somehow served a third term.

The reason I'm posting this is because I got into a long debate on this topic here. I'm curious to see how many actually believe this. I don't even think most Republicans who are not Bush would have allowed Wolfowitz and Cheney to run roughshod over foreign policy like this, but that is a topic for another time, and I certainly would never give them the benefit of a doubt to find out, ever again.

We're already at war in Afghanistan!

Nobody is scared of that old man!

Who's gonna pay for it????

We're overextending ourselves! Do you plan to bring back the draft???

Kerry and Dean and Clark if WMDs had actually been found (they all called for letting the inspectors do their jobs before going to war.)

Gore... maybe. Would have wanted Saddam gone. Might have went to covert route.

He is technically a Dem, I think

hopefully, JK in the fall. I.E. people who did/would/will actually occupy the presidency.

There's no doubt that the removal Saddam Hussein would be in the best long-term interests of the United States and the Middle East.

Doing it virtually alone, in the face of worldwide opposition, at a time when addressing the problem of terrorism should have been the number one problem, with nothing but BS rationales to justify it...now that was sheer lunacy.

I can't see any Democrat doing it (even the ones who are now supporting it).

It has now been revealed that Saddam was toothless. He was hardly a threat. I think it is much more threatening that loonies in Pakistan and Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons.

Invading Iraq was Bush's personal obsession

position. I haven't seen one yet at the Presidential level that had an original idea/thought for himself/had the balls of a gerbil (aside from two of our recent Prez candidates).

Most of them would do what they were told to do...sadly.

I think any Dem would have stuck with "containment". Hell, it worked once before(USSR)!

The American Empire has ALWAYS been a bipartisan project.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans represent the interests the Ownership Class.

Therefore it is not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that a Democratic president could have found a seemingly reasonable excuse for taking military action in Iraq. A Democrat would most likely have worked harder to form alliances for the action, but there is little in basic Democratic party philosophy that would have precluded an invasion altogether.

sw

almost out of thin air. Do you all remember when this drumbeat started? It's like, overnight, all of a sudden, WMD this, mushroom cloud that, yellowcake this, Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence in Prague that. OVERNIGHT.

It was clear that shrubco had a major hard-on to start this war. I can't imagine (well I can, but not easily) anyone else's administration, particularly the Dems, wanting this war to manufacture the tapestry of lies like this. Not saying impossible but I'm just not seeing it.

The Clinton "policy for regime change" is cited as a RW talking point to subtly imply that a Clinton/Dem administration would have done this same travesty.

The argument I made on that thread is that these are far from the same thing. Various administrations Dem and Repub have had "regime change" and hostility to the government of Cuba as policy for generations now but this is in no way equivalent to invading. There IS a difference.

I was merely pointing out that having a Democrat in the presidency is no guarantee against foreign military adventures. Dems are perfectly capable of "spin" also.

Please note that I said "possible, but not probable".

sw

I've been on DU for over 3 years. I didn't last this long by taking things personally. :D

sw