Once a year? More like once a month. And we would be 'sitting and talking' with them after every attack.
2006-08-18 14:26:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
What proof do you have that we'd be "getting 9/11's once a year"? That's partisan-based speculation and devoid of any substance.
The public has the right to complain about Bush because he is making the decisions for our nation! He is responsible for the state of the country, and voicing unhappiness with the results of his political stance is not using him as a scapegoat - it's demanding accountability and a change in his actions.
2006-08-18 22:04:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by maguire1202 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I guess it depends on who you ask. In my opinion, there's no such thing as fact in politics, only perception. That's why you can have two people looking at the same picture with the same set of facts and think two completely different things.
I'm probably the very definition of a swing voter--I even live in a purple state (Florida), so I'm still waiting to hear something viable from the Democratic Party on National Security--and for God's sake Pelosi, don't hold the paper upside-down when you say you have a "real" plan for something (LoL). It's embarrassing.
But one thing's for certain, if we had a Democrat in office, the New York Times would have to find something else to write about and Air America would have even LOWER ratings.
Anyways, I actually hope the Democrats win control of congress, so this stupid excuse of "not being the party in power" will be irrelevant, and they too can be held accountable for their incompetence. And God, can politicians stop quoting polls! People shouldn't BELIEVE a poll until they've actually BEEN polled.
And one more thing, I don't believe in the existence of ManBearPig, but if he does exist, it's only because of all the smug.
2006-08-18 21:46:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't think it is very fair to make a hasty assumption, since we don't know what would have happened in the first place. Maybe the democrat in question would have read the briefing that said Osama was intending to attack in the U.S. Or maybe they wouldn't have like bush and we could be where we are today, or we could be worse off than we are now or better. We can't sit here and speculate about something like that just because you don't like it when people complain about our president, isn't he the commander in chief? Last I knew people looked to our Leader for answers, only we get mixed answers and sometimes questions back in return. I know that there is nothing we can do now that what is done is done but I am not going to reflect on it and make things up to make myself feel better about the condition we are in. I definitely know that in the future I am going to research those that I elect for office and make sure that they are on the same wavelength as me, as opposed to their own agenda which includes invading a nation that hadn't attacked us ever in our history. I have spoken with quite a few people that I feel would have a different viewpoint from me, only to find out that they have the same thinking as me when it comes to the state that our government is in. That is a state of secrecy, they seem to not want us to know everything that is going on out there yet they preach about democracy when it comes to foreign relations. Kind of hypocritical if you think about it huh.
2006-08-18 21:37:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by tre_loc_dogg2000 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
George Bush has to be a king ,for only christian kings went to war
in the east and slaughtered people by the thousands.He is not a scape goat, but a reverse robin hood-you know takes from the poor and gives to the rich. A lot of Americans need to open their
dictionarys and look up reality,it might surprise you. P.S.I served two(2) tours of duty in korea and wheredid Georgy & dicky serve.
Thank You, mickey32
2006-08-18 21:47:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hah! You've been conned by the neocons. Get real! George Bush's administration ignored the intelligence warning that Bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There is no way that Al Gore would have been that stupid.
I also think a Democrat administration would have wasted far less money in Iraq, and done a much better job of truly improving Homeland Security.
2006-08-18 21:32:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jim L 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
Right, I remember all the 9/11s from all the previous Democratic administrations...idiot!
2006-08-18 21:36:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by chingus 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, because Bush prevented 9/11 so well.
2006-08-18 21:38:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
No... We would actually be leaving Iraq and then getting yelled at for destroying Iraq and not helping to rebuild what we destroyed. Then we would be attacked for the capture of Saddam Hussein.
Next we would be in another war with someone like Iran. Though North Korea is a crazy nation too.
2006-08-18 21:28:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is that funny word again. IF.
IF: Conjunction - 1. a. in the event that b. granting that c. on the condition that; 2. Although possibly; even though; 3. Whether; 4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish.
Noun - A possibility, condition, or stipulation.
In reading the definition of the word "if", I did not see anything that stipulated FACT. You are basing your opinion of something on an "if"? I'm sorry, but "if" can do a lot of things, and none of it is state a FACT. So your "if" means nothing really. It's "a wish".
Have a nice day :)
2006-08-18 22:08:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
The world would be better if a sack of wet rusty hammers were in office as opposed to bush.
2006-08-20 12:58:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋