I've been seeing a lot republican's post on here that "if Al Gore was president we would have never went to Afghanistan after 9-11" or "If John Kerry was prez we'd all be wearing turbins on our heads". I'd like to know if any of you actually truly believe this or if you just hate dem's so much that you speak (or type) out of frustration. Just out of curiosity..
I want only serious answers on this one please. I'll ask some others later that you can bash me on..
2006-06-06 14:43:21 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
And I realize the typo on question, I know people will point that out..
2006-06-06 14:44:38 · update #1
Nighthawk: I have seen the swift boat ads, I've also seen the quotes from the same people 30 years earlier and the recommendations for his medal. Those people completely contradicted themselves. That was clearly a political move and I hope they got a lot of money for it... I had to chime in on that one..
2006-06-06 15:09:05 · update #2
I am Rep. and I dont believe it ,nor do I agree with it..Why try to predict something that didnt happen anyway?Political bashing is ridiculous when we should act as one for America,not try to seperate the masses..
2006-06-06 14:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm not a Republican or Democrat, but I see merit in the assertion that Al Gore would not have sent troops into Afghanistan. Consider that the previous Clinton/Gore administration had a policy of treating terrorism as a crime as opposed to a military action requiring a military response. Case in point: 1st attack on the world trade center. Case in point 2: Attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania Case in point 3: USS Cole.
Would the 2nd attack on the World Trade Center been responded to via police or military action? Guess we'll never know for sure, but sometimes past performance is indicative of future performance.
Regarding John Kerry... since he would have been elected after we were already in Iraq, I don't think there would be much difference. The current situation pretty much is driving the response and any drastic change in policy would be too risky to world security as a result of destabilzation of the Mid-East. The man's not an idiot.
2006-06-06 21:58:12 · answer #2 · answered by Keith H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
vbgore: Clinton bombed terrorist camps... that's about the exact same response a Republican leadership had to the bombings in Lebanon if you remember... Khadafi and Osama are still alive...
So my question to you is... what have Republicans did against terror? Is Bush you're only action and 3,000 people had to die on American soil to get him to lift his finger? That's just as pathetic, if not more so, since Bush has left the war on terror to fight in Iraq that has as many links to terror as Canada...
nighthawk_84: hahaha... yeah... one presidential candidate fought in a war, one didn't... Kerry or Bush... who's the peace loving hippie again? And Swiftboat was maybe the most anti-American political move I've ever seen. They basically called a puple heart a "pansy medal," but they would NEVER say that to the face of someone who earned one and get away with it... a lot of talk and no action on that front, just like Bush.
You are an idiot and your answer proves you know nothing about Democrats... pure and simple fact...
Keith H: If you can't tell the difference between 3,000 deaths on U.S. soil and 50... then I'm surprised you can turn the computer on... it's just that simple...
2006-06-06 21:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand your frustration. I think that part of the problem is due to the fact that both parties and the media take incredibly complex issues and boil them down to soundbites. Most people don't have the time or inclination to understand these issues beyond the soundbites,and thus politics becomes more like rooting for your favorite football team than thoughtfully considering that there are many different views of each issue.
I don't think that very many people actually believe their hyperbolic language. It's more like shouting at the ref when the call goes against your team. At least I hope that's the case. If it isn't then we're in trouble.
2006-06-06 21:50:31 · answer #4 · answered by m137pay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the gop is more concerned with trying to bash dems on a personal level than actually trying to bash what they accomplish. I seems like a fear tactic to me. If you keep Mary Midwestern that live in MiddleofNowhere, Missouri scared all of the time it is easy for you to manipulate and control her. And that is why they say that if a dem was prez we would not be safe. So if you buy into that you are either a coward pretending to be brave or someone who wishes to exploit the weak.
2006-06-07 12:29:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Gore was President, he would probably be more concerned about sleeping with interns than with terrorism. Democrats are anti-war (damn peace-loving tree-hugging hippies), so we would not be in Afghanistand. Pure and simple fact. Also, to anyone who says Kerry is a war "hero" needs to watch the ads from the swift boat veterans for truth.
2006-06-06 21:52:04 · answer #6 · answered by nighthawk_842003 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it might be an over simplification to make the comments you spoke of, however, the Dems DO have a track record of doing NOTHING when it comes to terrorism. The basic problem is that they see it as a legal issue and not an act of war...Many example, The bombing of the Cole, etc. Dems did NOTHING. There is a long history of Dem/Liberal weakness on US security. The facts are pretty plain.
2006-06-06 21:48:54 · answer #7 · answered by vbgore 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything at all to slam a democrat, Kerry was a war hero, and a bigger hero for coming back and telling the truth. Gore was vice president and would have made a fine president. He was at least intelligent.
2006-06-06 21:48:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the problem as I see it is, Gore's such a tree hugger that he would destroy business in the united states, and the world if he could and Kerry's only claim to fame is that he served during the Vietnam conflict. I don't see either one of them having the intestinal fortitude to be world leaders
2006-06-06 21:50:42 · answer #9 · answered by Pobept 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, I really believe that Bush did a good job in our times of attack on the US. Given those same choices for president again, I would still have to vote for George.
2006-06-06 21:49:41 · answer #10 · answered by just a mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be honest about it, it was not their political party but their inability to outline what they stood for and their relentless mud slinging that sunk them
We are republicans by choice and Americans by birth I'd like to believe if someone was to run for office on his merits and not trying to look like the lessor of two evils that we would all listen
2006-06-06 23:15:48 · answer #11 · answered by clk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋