Hey crybaby liberals,..?

Question

You are great at telling people how wrong Bush is, but can you tell us what he should do?

What do you suggest we do to prevent terrorism?

After all, you don't want phone calls to afghanastan(and other countries where the enemy during a time of war are), from virtually non traceable prepaid cell phones, to be tapped.

You don't wan't to go after countries and organizations who openly host, support, finance, and house terrorists.

You don't want profiling of airline passengers, becuase apparently a 6 year old asian girl is just as likely to have a bomb as a 22 year old muslim.


Tell me what you would do? Would you stand by and do nothing if terrrorists attack us, such as what clinton did when during the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and the subway bombing?

I suggest you shut your crybaby, whining, azz and thank God someone like Bush is in office. Why can't you realize your hollywood liberals they will twist anything they can find to try to undermine our president? Are you blind?

pogona:

look at the date

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

That is after clinton bombed, and before Bush, so cut the no proof crap. There were numerous training camps for terrorists in Iraq, and saddam not only did nothing to stop them, but he supported them.

As for Katrina support, what do yousuggest they do that is not being done? I'll bet you are one of those that blame Bush for the governer not allowing the national gaurd in.

Charles, you think like the average liberal. you can't comprehend what I am saying. I think Bush is doing a fantastic job. Im asking you, since you don't, what would you suggest we do instead of what Bush is doing?

max, been in the middle of moving.

----------------

boston, surprise, you live in Mass. First, i like your attempt to make Bush look bad by linking him to 200 thousand deaths. Typical liberal crap.

Now, a liberal today, is not the same as a liberal who founded our country. They are not even the same as a liberal 20 years ago. A liberal today is a socialist. So, since you are a socialist by admission, why are you complaining about Bush's deficit. He took a surplus, as you mentioned, from Clinton, who acheived it by cutting social programs. Bush re-funded those social programs, and many more. You conveniently don't mention that. Aren't you happy all those social programs are intact for the "less fortunate" people?

As for Iraq, you are good a second guessing. You say, "I wouldn't have let 9/11 happen", and "i wouldn't have gone into Iraq". I asked what we should do NOW to prevent further attacks.

furthermore, every democrat knew how dangerous Saddam was, EVEN BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE. Don't you remember clinton bombing Iraq? a year AFTER THE BOMBINGS madeline albright said this (shortly before Bush took office)


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

and don't forget this hillary clinton quote about saddam:

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

So don't tell me you wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

all questions, how many asians in the history of aviation have hijacked a plane? Now how many muslims? Are you sure you want to stick with your answer?

How many of those non iraqi's that hijacked the plane trained in an iraqi terrorist camp, which Saddam ignored/ allowed?

Don't be rediculous.

p.s. I havn't seen bill oreily in almost a month. It seems like you don't like him, but you can't argue with him

Answer 1

I ask you how did Republicans come into power? It was because they had a positive agenda and the Democrats had nothing but a bunch of complaints.

While I am disappointed in the Republicans running of the government I consider the alternative to be unacceptable.

Unless and until the Democrats come up with a positive agenda they will continue to be a minority party (altho the Republicans may have diminished power because they have fallen short on their agenda)

Answer 2

This is racist. No, A six year old isn't as likely to have a bomb as a 22 year old, but an Asian is just as likely to have a bomb as a Muslim. No, we don't want our phone calls tapped. If Clinton tapped ouyr phones, who would be the crybabies then? Republicans. I mean, look at ll the fuss you guys raised about Minca Lewinsky, but you don't care about Bus breaking the law. We wouldn't be "crying" as much if he had gotten some da*n warrants.

We say again and again, Iraq wasn't involved wit the terrorism on 9/11. How many Iraqis hijacked a plane? Lets count. 0...um... ok 0.

Yeah, I'll thank God that a slimy man like Bush and his cronies using His name to do all these despicable things is bringin our country down... Stop watching Bill O'Reilly and repeating his crap.

Answer 3

Sounds like the Chicken Hawk has his feelings hurt.

No plan by the NeoCons and some criticism hurts. Grow up!

I've been in the front, it's not pretty. As what to do, try understanding what you've read or should be reading like the CIA briefing. Put a rock in office and wonder why he doesn't perform. Justifies why you voted for him (rocks like to stick together).

Answer 4

The liberals would rather peacefully talk things out while the dotheads blow us to bits. At least MY President had the balls to declare war on them, and people, do you not remember the RAGE we felt after 9-11? I dont think there was a person in this country who wasnt outraged at so mant innocent people getting killed in the name af terrorism. We were ready to kick *** then, but all the sudden we hate Bush and we need to stop fighting.......?????? I think NOT......he told us before this war started it wouldnt be a short battle......but it is a necessary battle to ensure that our country doesnt get pushed around, so-to-speak, and if you disagree with the war, its a slap in the face to the thousands who died at those terrorists's hands.

Answer 5

Well, let's see. Since 9/11, exactly 5 people have died on US soil as a result of possible terrorist activity and we don't know who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. But 200,000 people have died in the US at the hands of DRUNK DRIVERS. And our fearless leader is a DRUNK DRIVER himself!

Sure, I'm all for monitoring possible terrorist activity on the phone systems and internet. That's why the secret courts were set up under FISA to issue warrants. And the law even provides for after-the-fact warrants in cases of national security. And those warrants are NOT limited ot international calls! If the idiot used the law properly, he could monitor the terror cells that are already here. But he's too cocky and dumb to realize that!

No, we do NOT launch pre-emptive strikes against possible enemies. We do warn them of the consequences of acting against us and then rain down death and destruction upon them if they fail to heed that warning. The Eisenhower/Reagan doctrine if you will. Does this mean that Americans will sometimes die at the hands of those who wish us harm? Yes, it does. That's what the red in our flag represents -- the blood shed for our way of life in the past, present, AND future.

The current administration's policies have done more to expose America and our allies to terrorism than anything done by any other administration in history. Our invasion of Iraq is seen as a full-frontal attack on Islam. While that may not be our intent that is most certainly the way that it is publicized in the Arab world and that is clearly the perception on that side of the fence. The heinous acts of some of our troops in Iraq -- murder, rape, prisoner abuse -- only fuel the passions against us. When it comes to politics, perception is everything and Bush is too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

What would I do? Or have done? First off, stay the f*** out of Iraq! That will go down in history as the most significant strategic error the US has EVER made. By not wasting military resources on Iraq, I would have thrown the full might of our forces against bin Laden and al queda. The world was behind us on that score and Bush failed miserably to capitalize on that; he was too busy getting a hard-o* for Hussein.

Even more importantly, I would have reigned in John Ashcroft when he ordered the daily briefings to cut out all mention of bin Laden and al queda. Maybe we could have avoided the events of 9/11 entirely! And I would have made absolutely sure that both the CIA and FBI knew that I expected to see a summary of ANY possible terror plots on their collective radar screens -- another abject failure under the Bush administration.

I'd order the airport security personnel to get training in behavioral analysis and forget about simple racial profiling. The terrorists know all about this and go to great efforts to blend in as much as possible but even the most dedicated jihadist will tip his or her hand by their actions. As long as we keep them guessing on what we are looking for, we have the upper hand but we tip that hand when we fall into the racial profiling trap. Random searches have some value -- and these slime bags are not above planting an explosive device on a child -- but carefully targeted inspections based on behavioral analysis will be much more successful.

I wouldn't have pushed through irresponsible tax cuts when we were facing massive increases in costs. We're $9 trillion in debt even though Bush inherited the first surplus in 4 decades as he took office. Even if the costs fo the war, 9/11 and last year's costal devestation are removed from the mix, it's still $7.5 trillion in debt. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. All of his business ventures prior to taking elective office were failures so we should expect as much as the chief holder of the purse-strings.

And while you're at it tossing around the liberal "label" let me add this:

FYI, liberals FOUNDED America!

You seem to forget that the Founding Fathers were extreme left-wing radicals, not a bunch of neo-con whack jobs.

Think about it, pal! In an era where the Crown wielded absolute power -- literally and legally the power of God -- here was a bunch of crazies declaring a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And with the inalienable right of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness, no less! You just can't get much more left-wing liberal that THAT, my friend!

By today's standards, they make modern main-stream liberalsim look like old-line conservativism.

Thank GOD for liberals and liberalsim! Without both, the US would not exist today! We'd be part of Great Britain still, singing God Save the Queen at sporting events, paying £4.00 per gallon for petrol, and double our current taxes. (OK, we'd have some pretty neat pubs and better public transport, but we would NOT be AMERICANS!)

Yes, thank GOD for liberals and liberalsim!

Oh yeah, one more thing. I'm a liberal. And I also served this great nation for over 21 years on active duty and am a veteran of the First Gulf War. The two are NOT mutually exclusive! I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of the United States just like every President has. The difference is that I upheld that oath while the current occupant of the White House urinated on it.

Answer 6

Look I didnt read your question. But where the hell have you been. I havent seen a post from you in ages.

Answer 7

Just so you know, there is no evidence at all that Iraq was housing or supporting terrorists. And there are a lot of problems in the U.S. that need to be taken care of. Katrina relief, the economy, all the stuff that Bush seems to be ignoring.

Answer 8

Ask us again after Nov 2006.

Oh, and I'm all for profiling passengers.

Answer 9

Wow, and I thought I was a windbag.

Answer 10

I suggest spell check! Can we deport you?