If we had a "Liberal" President, what would she do differently than GWB to win the War Against Terrorism?

Well, first let me say that I hate the terms "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism." "Terror" is an emotion and "Terrorism" is a tactic. It's like saying "War on sadness," or "War on air-power."

That said, I think that we still would have invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. That would have been a priority for any president.

However, I don't think that a liberal president would have then invaded Iraq. There was simply not enough evidence to warrant such a huge cost (financially and in terms of lives lost).

I would hope that a liberal president would put this so-called war on the back burner and instead address some of the more pressing problems in our country. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. As a New Yorker, you don't have to tell me this, but Bush fumbled the aftermath to an incredible degree. We still don't have bin Laden, we invaded a sovereign nation (I thought only bad guys did that), the economy is in the toilet. He's doing a terrible job. He uses the "war on terror" as a smokescreen to hide behind. It's his way to distract us from the real problems.

I think that a liberal president would have behaved the same way in Afghanistan, avoided a needless conflict with Iraq, and put those resources to where they are most needed. Here. At home.

Hopefully the next president will find away to get health-care to Americans who need it, support for independent businessmen, and give disaster relief to Americans when they need it most. And that would just be the beginning.

To sum up, "The War on Terror" cannot be won. It is a tactic that we can try to defend against, but the mindset behind it will always remain one step ahead of us. It is the price we pay for living in a free society. We cannot sacrifice freedom for security. We must accept this and focus on problems that have solutions.

I cannot say for sure what a liberal president would have done. Every president is different from any previous one regardless of political affiliation. However, as a general rule, liberals tend to be a lot more forgiving when it comes to foreign transgressions on American interests and Americans, both at home and abroad. If I had to guess, I think a liberal president would have tried to strengthen international efforts against terrorist organisations through interpol and various other police agencies, talked up a storm in the UN about the need to combat terrorists, and would have left it at that. The last liberal president we had, Bill Clinton, did just that every time America was attacked. It was that complacency that enabled terrorists to continue their wars against America unpunished. Many people don't like the conservative approach because they think it makes the rest of the world hate us. Well, the rest of the world already hates us, even our so-called "allies" only like us as long as they can do business with us and as long as we back their plays. Clinton took great pains not to "rock the boat", consulting world opinion for every foreign policy move he made. This approach led to the WTC bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, and several other vicious attacks over his eight-year presidency. Say what you want against Bush, but think, how many terrorist attacks on American soil have there been since 9/11?

We're assuming that if it was a liberal President, it would be a "she"?

Well lets look at what a previous President did to fend off terrorists. Bill Clinton did a lot of nothing. He bombed a few 'factories' in Iraq but generally was just a pacifist when it came to actually doing something about our embassies and ships being blown up.

But it is interesting to note that he DID bomb Iraq. That's something that liberals today would like you to forget.

So really, if we had a liberal President instead of GWB--I think they would still have been forced to retaliate in some half witted way. And whatever way that was, the media would totally let them off the hook even if there were civilians killed as happened in Clinton's case.

Good question though--I've been wanting to know what liberals think should be done. None of them seem to have a solution. They can't think past "Get us out of Iraq!". So we get out of Iraq--what then liberals?? We get attacked again--what then?? None of them like to answer. They only know what they think we shouldn't do--that is, we shouldn't do what GWB is doing. But other than that..."Hum...I don't know..."

What did Bill Clinton do when he was offered Bin Laden three times, he turned Niger down. What did he do after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993-nothing. What did he do after the USS Cole or the US Embassies in Africa were attacked-nothing.

So the answer what they would do different is NOTHING!!

There would be no military actions going on. A liberal president would convene a fact find committee to figure out why we deserved the terrorist attack.