English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is it a coincidence or a matter of fact?

Also why is Bush arresting any suspected Terrorists before they had any evidence of wrong doing?

2006-08-15 06:22:09 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

Bush doesn't arrest anyone... he is not a law enforcement officer.

Bush has been behind in the polls for months, why wait until now? Why not wait until closer to elections, if what you are suggesting happened?

It must be very lonely in your alternate reality.

2006-08-15 06:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

1. How do you know there was no evidence?

2. It's clearly suggested in your question that the presumable subsequent poll rise from these arrests and raised alerts will have lasting benefit all the way to November. Do you have reason to believe this will be the case?

3. Bush has been down in polls for months, I don't know if Republicans have too, but if it's not clearly your intent to claim that these events favor Republicans in the election, than why would they have waited until now if any given time could have been convenient? Was it sneaky timing?

2006-08-15 06:30:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Most likely no coincidence. The East and North sides of things are dug in here. Somehow a war economy benefits them. I don't know if the polls have anything to do with it but I'll bet they read a policy change coming and stoked the fire. A keen eye would find this during the Vietnam war as well. Population polls would have to added to the correlation of policy analysis.

2006-08-15 06:45:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That is two questions, not one.

To answer the first question, for much the same reasons Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to divert attention from his perjury and his slimy conduct with Monica.

I don't believe there is any such evidence. When Bush is doing worst on the polls is when he is under greatest attack by our cut-and-run cowards. That motivates the terrorists who believe the cut-and-run cowards are going to force us to stop resisting terrorism, as Clinton did during his office. so, they come on gangbusters, and we have another terrorist event, such as the plan to bomb airplances last week.

I am coming to the opinion that the only way the anti-Bush folks are going to figure out what is happening in the world today is if the terrorists nuke one of our cities. Even then, the crazy libs will insist Bish did it himself, just as crazies insist Bush made 9/11 happen. What a bunch of losers.

2006-08-15 06:36:13 · answer #4 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 1 2

the situation with this end is that that's carefully unsupported by utilising something different than Tom Ridge's fact. i'm no longer asserting that that's fake, basically only unsupported. with a view to enhance the risk point a consensus from countless council contributors replaced into required. those council contributors blanketed the likes of Sec State, FBI Director, CIA Director, lawyer accepted, Sec Def etc. Now i be conscious of all of those have been Bush appointees, yet with the objective to replaced into Ridge. What I even have seen approximately Ridge is that he does seem to have a political awl to grind. generally complaining that his techniques weren't accompanied on a sort of subjects alongside with nomination of different political appointees. in one occasion he claimed that the risk point replaced into ordered raised on what even he seen credible intelligence, yet he did no longer decide directly to do it. pointing out that it may fee interior of reach municipalities money to enforce the protection methods required. of direction you're unfastened to have faith whomever you opt to have faith, yet for my section Ridge has a private stake in sensationalizing this because of the fact he's now peddling a e book. without some corroborating help for his place I actually have a problematic time classifying that's something greater advantageous than political disagreement and can't legitimately help a declare of conspiracy. Edit: I would desire to additionally element out that I consistently theory the colour coded terror risk point replaced into ineffective besides. For those it did no longer unnecessarily frighten, it desensitized to the aptitude threats which exist.

2016-09-29 07:22:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Cause that's when they start to get scared... and their anxiety becomes so intense they have to raise the poll terror level... when everthing is peachy keen for republicans it's green... the minute they feel themselves losing control of america it's raised... then they cook up some plot... which is a ploy to cause people to be afraid... the british terrorist plot was a hoax....

2006-08-15 07:20:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's a pure publicity stunt plain and simple. He's arresting terrorists based on either talk the so called terrorists had(normally done in jest) or simply because they're Middle Easterners who practice the Islamic faith.

2006-08-15 06:29:26 · answer #7 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 0 2

HISTORICALLY,FEAR HAS ALLWAYS BEEN USED AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY.PEOPLE LIKE TO FEEL SECURE....THAT'S THE MAIN REASON THEY ELECT A GOVERNMENT AND ANY STRATEGY THAT BETTER ASSURES THE ABILITY TO SECURE A NATION WILL WIN ANYTIME......WETHER OR NOT WHAT'S BEING SOLD IS A MYTH.Unless President Bush stops covering up for Saudi Arabia and using terrorists to bolster American policy, the War on Terrorism is a sick joke.

2006-08-15 06:30:48 · answer #8 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 2 2

Perhaps because the terrorists get braver when they think another Dem will be in office soon.

All terror suspects should be taken into custody asap, no proof needed. You won't be on the list unless you fraternize with known terrorists.

2006-08-15 06:27:19 · answer #9 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 0 2

Even Tom Ridge said that the Bush administration controls the alert and not the FBI or CIA

2006-08-15 06:31:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers