Bush Bashing is not an answer. Answering this question my determine win or lose at the polls. If the radical liberals, who seem in control of the party, answer this they will appease the enemy as they do in Europe. Hillary is playing it smart by moving towards the center. What do you think?
COME ON DANNY, I really want to hear your answer.
2006-09-07 02:47:06 · 26 answers · asked by Search4truth 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I really don't believe that they would handle things any differently than the Clinton administration did pre 9/11. With Reno being to afraid to act and Clintons involvement else where, I believe they would want to sit down at summits, place sanctions, and lift the wire taps. Anyway, it's war time and I don't think during times like this people need to be so afraid about stepping on peoples toes. If you are you might just get hit by a plane.
After reading chapter 4 of the 9/11 commision report, I believe that President Clinton was to personally involved in other matters and unable to pay full attention to the scope of terror that Bin Ladin was about to unleash on America. He did sign some legislation and did state that he wanted "Bin Ladin Dead." No subsequent action was taken, at the end of Chapter 4 an outline was desribed on the way that we should of pursued Bin Laden pre 9/11.
Please take a look and see if it sounds familair. There were a lot of horrible events that lead up to 9/11. I don't think that the blame of this attack can be placed on anyone other than the head of Osama Bin Laden and our failed attempts to kill him when we had the chance.
I know I would of have pretty ticked off if I had been the head of Delta Force. Anyway I digress, read the facts and decide.
2006-09-07 04:17:34 · answer #1 · answered by fire_side_2003 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
That's the rub. Winning at the polls. The war on terrorism is not ever going to be won, but whoever convinces the masses (or the most of the masses) that is can will win the poll battle. The War on Terror will be ongoing as long as there are opposing viewpoints and radicals of ALL kinds. To deny that is to be willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
Radical liberals do not control the Democratic Party. At the moment, no one leads it and no one follows one direction. That's the problem with liberals. We let eachother have our seperate viewpoints and never collaborate.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is playing it smart by being right of left. Condi Rice is the Republican counter. A black female republican will beat a white female democrat at the polls.
I, personally, have no plan on how to win the war on terrorism. I'm also not a Democrat, so maybe I shouldn't have answered.
2006-09-07 10:05:38 · answer #2 · answered by Protagonist 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This is an interesting conundrum. Have we not been attacked because of Bush's effectiveness fighting terror? Or because there is no terrorist threat?
I think with every video released we see that the latter isn't true. Al Qaeda wants us not just out of the Middle East, but for America to convert to Islam or die. Well, I think we know how that's NOT going to go.
I'm no Democrat, but I'd guess they'll try to rely more on diplomacy and negotiation than actual "boots on the ground" to fight fire with fire.
I'm convinced President Gore would've invaded Afghanistan, but there's no question we wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I don't have a problem with major military operations where necessary, but I think we need to get it off the front pages by fighting terrorism with improved intelligence and more special ops based on that intel. Surgical strikes.
And we need to win the propaganda war. Which screeching liberals are not helping.
2006-09-07 10:09:32 · answer #3 · answered by Lawn Jockey 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Even if you were drawn pictures you wouldn't understand, one thing for sure is that a war on terror and staying the course will never work. 5 years since 2001 and we have actually lost ground to the terrorist. Bush has created more terrorist cells and they have become more wide spread with these policy's.
Well here goes nothing, good intelligence is the answer to the terrorist, this intervention in England by Scotland yard is a good example as to what is possible. They watched and when the time was right they broke up their party. Iraq had nothing to do with it, we should have used our resources to make our own borders secure, to deport all undocumented people out of the country and then secure enough borders to keep them there. We need to involve the friendly governments in the world more, we have alienated so many in the last 6 years it isn't funny. Nobody wants or likes terrorism so it would be comparatively easy to stop it in its tracks with the involvement of other country's. As it is now many look the other way instead of helping.
2006-09-07 10:04:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Hopefully, the plan to win the war involves actually continuing to fight. If Howard Dean were to have his way, this would not be an option.
I believe you're correct in your assessment of Hillary. She has moved to the middle on this issue to try to get votes of the undecided for the 08 Presidential election. But once she gets in office, she'll move back to the left and pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mark my words.
2006-09-07 10:04:46 · answer #5 · answered by STEVE 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
RIGHHTTT, well your party has messed it up so much no one may be able to fix it. how is that war on terror anyway Bin Laden- ESCAPED. You got Saddam that seems to be helping Iraq as they are lost without him. Oh wait maybe it's because were still killing them like Saddam did but without chemicals and with shiny new guns. The freedom gained over there if any at all as people are still dying daily. Will effect ours more negativly then any Republican could ever fix. Case in point even if Iraq gains freedom and independence. The terrorists will still hate America and will still want to kill us but probably on a larger scale. So your game plan is if you can't get the job done: "cough Afghanistan" then you switch to a new desert. You f*cktards are always asking questions because your to stupid to know the truth. Rarely do I see a well thought out answer come rom your party. Why because competition,money, and war matters more then OUR freedom and security. Economicly you did nothing. For are well being you did nothing naybe we should move to Great Britan where they get the terrorists before they kill people and provide exposure for a party doomed for hell.
2006-09-07 10:00:17 · answer #6 · answered by Thin King 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Has Bush and his friends in charge even DEFINED what they mean by "war on terror"??
So far, it has only been a vague, fear inspiring slogan, like "war on communism" was back in the 50's. When they can actually define what this war is and what a victory will look like, then we can expect real plans for winning it. But Bush hasnt even put forth a plan for winning yet, just "continue with what we are doing now", and we see how poorly thats working.
2006-09-07 10:05:56 · answer #7 · answered by Kutekymmee 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
This isn't an enemy that is located in one particular region under one particular leader as in Nazi Germany. We have to think outside the confines of fighting a "war". I think it's pretty straightforward actually, it's called "homeland security". We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. That's only breeding more hate and violence. We need to put more of an effort into protecting our nation from within. Our port security is a joke and the billions being spent in Iraq would do a tremendous amount of good on the home front. We can't deploy troops all over the world to seek terrorists out, it's insanity to think that will even work. Security in my mind starts at home and our attention needs to be turned more in that direction.
2006-09-07 09:54:54 · answer #8 · answered by carpediem 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
The democrats DO NOT have a PLAN to WIN the WAR on TERROR....They only have a PLAN to SURRENDER...bring ALL our TROOPS home from around the WORLD... and turn AMERICA into an ISOLATIONIST STATE.....like AMERICA had BEFORE world war 2.....
SHIRAZ....That is because the liberals love to blame others for their mistakes and screw-ups.....they never want too take responsiblity for things...they would reather ***** and whine and put the problems of what is going on ....on some buddy elses shoulders...... thats why they love too say its Bush's fault......
Bush is not perfect but he sure as hell is a lot better then anything the democrats have tried too put into office since Kennedy was killed!
From what I am hearing you democrats are saying you want our troops too come home from iraq and afganistan ...right ? well ok stand behind our president and our troops win the war against those terrorist and then bring them home....bringing them home with out winning will only **** things up more!
2006-09-07 09:54:13 · answer #9 · answered by General Custer 4 · 5⤊ 5⤋
do you mean besides stopping provoking thousands of people to become terrorists by occupying iraq? first off, we get out of iraq, and get nato or the un to lead that force (they have moral high ground), then we stop interfering in other country's affairs, we stop torturing people whom we capture or abduct, we get used to the idea that unless we want a conflict to go nuclear we must accept that Iran will have nuclear technology (because they will start use any nuclear weapon they have if we attack), and we stop marching in lockstep with israel, and actually think about what they are doing before we support them (this does NOT mean simply ending our relationship, simply reconsidering it). The problem is that we are creating terrorists through our actions in iraq much faster than we can kill them, so logically there will be more and more terrorists as time passes. now certainly a number of them will always hate america, but a large chunk, perhaps the majority, hate us becuase of our "crusade" in iraq and our unthinking support of israel. if we can reduce the numbers of the latter, we will be much more capable of dealing with the former .... oh, and we should maybe think about finding bin laden
2006-09-07 10:00:24 · answer #10 · answered by C_Millionaire 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋