Question for anti-Bush supporters?

Question

Many of you (not all) whom protest against President Bush, your reasonings are because of the war in Iraq. Well, here is my question to you...

"WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY HAD YOU BEEN IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S POSITION?"

Would you have just let the terrorists get away with what they did? Do you think another president would have reacted differently!?

I'm not here to bash anyone, but I'd seriously like to hear from those who don't support the president or the war. thanks!

That's funny that I got a thumbs down for my question... I thought it was a decent question to ask seeing as how I was not rude. Oh well i got a thumbs down. Boo-freakin-hoo!

Thanks for your answers my peeps! If you gave a decent answer, I'll consider voting you for Best Answer regardless of my opinion. "Some" of your answers have been very informative! thank you!

Answer 1

I would have fought back against our nations enemies not my own personel enemies.
I would not have spent trillions of borrowed dollars on wars of attrition with peoples who don't value life much.
I would have signed the Kyoto agreement, recognized global warming, chosen for the enviornment, worked hard on the economy, addressed the problems with deregulation of energy, and avoided dropping the prime interest rate so America would borrow itself into recovery.

Answer 2

First off, you sound like you are someone from the midwest lol.

Iraq had no terrorits. Iraq had nothign what so ever to do with Osama Bin Laden, or any of that. Bush just thought it would be a good idea to invade, because "they had WMD." Well, Bush didn't have to invade to stop them! The UN was in Iraq investigating and looking for WMD. If we would have given them just a few more weeks, they could have finished their thorough investigation. But noo, Bush was oh so positive that they had them, and we had to attack now before they attacked. Hah, what a lie.

Since Bush has invaded Iraq, terrorism is on the INCREASE. People are beginning to hate bush, and so now they are blowing theirselves up and such. It's not even about America being there anymore. It's also about the Sunni's and Shia's fighting each other, on the verge of a civil war.

Before Bush was there, yes, sadly people were dying, but were 100 people dying a day? Were American troops also being killed? no. not at all. yet when bush raided the nation, terrorism has spiked, and people are fed up with the new Iraq.. the iraq where sunni's can't go and worship without their mosque being blown up, and same with Shia's. It's an Iraq where water is questionable to drink, because it's not clean because terrorists have blown up water pipes. It's a country where schools are blown up, and a ton of innocent children are killed. It's a nation where security forces are hated, and shot and killed all the time. It's a nation that has the police so focussed on stopping terrorists, that if you rob instead of the police dealing with it, the store clerk will cut of your arm or hand. No, I'm not joking about that either. This is the new Iraq. And that's why I don't like it.

I have never supported the war, and when the war in Iraq started, I was like 12 lol. I have NEVER supported any type of wars, so I was heated up when we invaded. So then I did some research on political parties, and I finally got educated to what each party believed in. Now I am a huge Democrat, and I may be young, but I know my politics.. More then most adults lol. When my parents vote, I tell them what to vote for. even though they are republican, they vote dem lol. so yeah..

bush should be impeached on war crimes. it's as simple as that.

Answer 3

I voted for Bush in 2000 (I am ashamed to say). But I did not support the war in Iraq from before we even entered the country. I went to protests for months before the invasion happened. When it finally did happen, I was permanently converted to liberalism. Ha! Fact is, I always have been pretty liberal except on one or two issues. And when it comes down to it, I can't just vote on one or two issues when there's a president who's throwing our country (and the world) down the crapper!!

About your question, first of all, we HAVEN'T stopped or caught the terrorists who were RESPONSIBLE for 9/11. Iraq and Saddam were NOT connected to 9/11. This has even been stated by top FBI and CIA officials, some of whom resigned after Bush refused to listen to those silly little things called "the facts." Iraq and Saddam are about two things: oil and a personal vendetta from the first gulf war.

What would I have done differently? I wouldn't have invaded Iraq at all, considering that they had nothing to do with it...

P.S. Kyle, even though I agree with what you said, you can screw off with your insults to the asker saying that she "sounds like she's from the midwest." I am from the midwest, and let me tell you one thing: If you democrats (and well, that would include me too) EVER want to have any real political power, then all you ones who lives on coasts better stop talking to people like they're beneath you because of where they live. You sound like an @ss, and you're not helping anyone with your ignorant stereotyping.

Answer 4

All of the troops which are currently serving in Iraq should be in Afghanistan hunting for Osama. Also, those captured would be treated by the Geneva Conventions. If we had limited our action to attacking Al Queda and it's supporters we would have kept the good will of the world that out poured after 9/11. Also, it is our invasion of Iraq and our torturing of Muslims that keep the ranks of Al Queda so full.

He passed up that opportunity to end Islamic fundamentalism to pursue a conquest in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. The links below detail how the hostilities with Iraq were planned before Bush took office and how they escalated during the time that Bush was claiming to want a diplomatic solution.

Answer 5

Just confining it to the war in Iraq? Well we would not have invaded Iraq. We would have let the UN inspectors finish their job and then work with the UN for a proper response, or leave sanctions in place and keep the patrols, just like clinton did, which we now know contributed to the fact that Saddam had NO WMD.


You ask, "would you have let the terrorists get away with what they did?" It's a strange question because, Bin Laden and Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 and they got away with it, THANKS TO BUSH!

To say that Iraq is some sort of response to september 11, would be like saying we should have gone to war with CHINA when Pearl Harbor was bombed by the JAPANESE!!!!

Answer 6

Since Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, opting not to invade Iraq would in no way have let the terrorists "get away" with what they did. The perpetrators of 9/11 were al Qaeda, which were based in Afghanistan, and I supported and still support the operations there.

Other presidents, such as Al Gore, would not have picked their foreign policy cabinet solely from the ranks of neocons who were dead set on action in Iraq mainly because of their grand vision for spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. As a result, these presidents would have been getting less skewed advice and would have given more credence to the weaknesses in the WMD argument. Quite frankly, another president would probably have had more foreign policy experience and would therefore have been less reliant on his advisors.

Answer 7

IT seems like we needed to find out who they were and not go blaming the obvious suspects like we did .
SEEMS we rushed to judgement in this matter before the facts were in and the administration shaped the facts and story around an agenda Bush had .
FIRST off it was a tragedy and we needed to find those responcible and bring them to justice but the hi-jackers all died and only the ones who supported them were left .
WE seem to have uncovered that a majority of them came from Saudi Arabia and this is harder to confirm now on the web then the first reports issued by the FBI originally several years back .
Information seems to disappear or get burried somehow on the web and reports from people are dismissed for lacking the exact report showing 18 of the attackers were Saudi nationals .
SO this being the case i would of sanctioned and blockaded all saudi oil exports to the world until such time as the supporters were turned over and proper evidence supplied to prosecute them .
THIS is a realistic approach and would have avoidded a prolonged war in Iraq .

Answer 8

Interesting that there are people who actually believe that had the US not gone into Iraq that terrorists would leave us alone. The fact that 9-11 attack occured before we went into Iraq should prove that wrong. Not to mention the the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of our embasy, the first WTC attack all occured before the US went into Iraq.

Then there's the 'there was no WMD'. Ok. Who knew that at the time? Italy, Germany, Russia, the UN, Britain, the democrats, the republicans all believed that Iraq had WMD. Most of the world believed it. Iraq couldn't account for its stockpiles. The arguement at the time was not whether or not they had them. The arguement was about how to deal with them.

As far as Iraq not having terrorists. We know the Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 25k a piece. Wouldn't that alone be sponsorship of terrorism?

How much more time should the world have given Hussein. A decade at least had already passed since UN sanctions were put in place. A decade had passed since Hussein stopped cooperation with UN inspectors. The Oil For Food program turned out to be a joke. Iraq violated the no fly zone all the time.

Answer 9

There was no terrorist link to Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9-11. So why did we go there? There were no weapons of mass destruction they just happen to be sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world.

Other countries are killing their citizens (Sudan) and we do nothing. Other countries DO HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (Iran, North Korea) and we do nothing.

So I really don't see why we went into Iraq other than oil. So as president I would not have started a war for oil. It wasn't just oil to help the country out now either. It was oil to help make his oil baron buddies even richer. Look at the price of gas and see who has made the most money from this war. Isn't hard to see what the real agenda was for this war. Help the rich get richer and send the poor off to war.

Answer 10

I would have found more information before going to war. He had a H A R D - O N for Iraq all along. None of the 9-11 terrorists had a connection to Iraq, I would have finished the job with Al-Queda. I also do not support Bush for his stances taken on internal policies; hurricane, stem-cell, etc.

Answer 11

Here are a few things Democrats would likely have done, or not done.

Catch Bin Laden, leave Iraq alone, it was a secular buffer country in the middle east, not a terrorist haven.

No tax cuts for the rich, balance the budget. Keep FEMA the way it was at end of Clinton's administration, it was working well then.

Promote bipartisanship, not petty divisiveness.

New campaign finance laws to reduce some of the corruption. Restrictions on lobbyists for the same reason.