Did George Bush have you blinded with all of his talk about stopping the terrorists, when he was planning to go into Iraq? In the name of catching the terrorists, he started war in a country that had nothing immediate to do with 9/11...what ever did happen to the quest for Ossama Bin Laden? He is the bad guy remember.......
2006-07-11 06:27:08 · 11 answers · asked by ndussere 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only one he has blinded is himself........911 was an inside job
Take a look here
http://filmstripinternational.com/index.php
http://filmstripinternational.com/filmstrips.php?filmstrip=despotism
2006-07-11 06:46:20 · answer #1 · answered by creativechild 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm proud to say that I've always been a liberal Democrat, but unfortunately, I have to admit that I actually had a little bit of respect for Dubya after the attacks, because he put on a damned good show of going after the bad guys. Needless to say, that didn't last long, because in no time Bush & Co. were putting the focus on Saddam Hussein and practically ignoring Osama bin Laden. By the way, it's been nearly 5 years since the 9/11 attacks took place. I wonder where the f**k Osama bin Laden is?
2006-07-11 13:35:08 · answer #2 · answered by tangerine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. And I was wondering what the heck was wrong with the rest of you that you couldnt see. I saw him doing the whole patriot bit (and i am a staunch patriot, i definitely wanna be with the winning team! haha). But the lies were obvious. it still amazes me that he has been called out as a liar by every news outlet except fox and congress is still petrified to act against him and request more accountability.
what that tells me is that his operatives and organization behind the scenes is soooo powerful... and indeed it has been spelled out. the first people willing to question the lies were literally run out of town and disgraced.
it took a war mother Cindy sheehan to finally make this a discussable topic. War mother being beyond reproach (at least back then, dont ask Ann coulter now)....... they could not portray her as unamerican having sacrificed a child.... so they had to listen and the peace movement began to tak hold.
I'm not politically active - just have my own opinions. And the short answer is no i was not blinded. I have always been skeptical and learned early on to discern truth and fact from propaganda (whether by government, corporation, media or street hustlers). And without the rose colored glasses, it was obvious we were being scammed.
2006-07-11 13:44:10 · answer #3 · answered by answers999 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
I believe that a M.E. with Saddam in power was a threat to the U.S. If not short-term, then long term. Having an ally in Iraq, right in the heart of the M.E., strategically is in the best interest of the U.S.
Bin Laden should pay for his crimes and will, in death i'm sure. However, the killing of Osama at this point is simply symbollic in nature. The fight will continue when he's gone.
2006-07-11 13:38:57 · answer #4 · answered by schillinfl2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I voted for W the 1st time. Taking the fight to Tora Bora was legitimate. I never supported the Iraq invasion from the git-go and I knew there were larger threats out in the world. I hope we don't get caught w/"our pants down" so to speak.
As a figurehead, Osama does have influence. I don't know what tactical contributions he has made in the recent past.
2006-07-11 13:29:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not me! If anything, I started seeing with more clarity than before.
Bush appeared as he truly is : Uncertain, shaky, weak.
I saw how he froze in that classroom as he was notified of the planes hitting the towers. I heard the quiver in his voice when he addressed the nation. It was fear and uncertainty; he was in over his head and he knew it.
Things have gone pretty much as I thought they would. He has led this nation down a path of ruination, and exposed it to enemies much worse than Osama, while still not catching him.
In short, Bush has made America more enemies and fewer friends, and will go down as the worst president of all times.
2006-07-11 13:40:03 · answer #6 · answered by Truth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
W went into Iraq to calm down a dictator who was showing too much aggression toward his neighbors, including Israel. Plus, he was an easy target, since he didn't have any nukes to launch.
W wanted to show the world that we can be tough if we need to be.
He also attempted to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to thrive in a democracy. They failed to capitalize on that opportunity.
2006-07-11 13:35:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is solid proof at this website that our country lied about 9/11. including a video of the head of FEMA saying on national television, " we arrived late monday night and went to the disaster tuesday morning." the attacks happened on tuesday morning! why would we have disaster relief in place if we didnt know something was going to happen? check out http://infowars.com for this and other proof.
2006-07-11 15:36:09 · answer #8 · answered by sslowbliss 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq was a distraction. 9/11 was not what we've been lead to believe.
Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change
And whether you believe everything in it or not, it raises enough questions.
2006-07-11 14:06:03 · answer #9 · answered by Lisa S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I must have been. Because now everything looks ********.
2006-07-11 13:32:21 · answer #10 · answered by Rocketman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋