That's why they hate Bush! The defense of America is a crime to liberals.
2006-09-11 15:29:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by John Skerry II 2
·
4⤊
13⤋
Why can't the LIBERALS appreciate the fact that President BUSH's policies have kept us safe for 5 yrs?
Because the feel- and rightly so, that Bush's policies have actually made us much less safe in the world. He saw a hornet's nest in the middle east, and in order to keep them from stinging us, he decided to run over there and beat the nest with a stick.
1. They're too partisan to acknowledge the fact?
The partisan divisiveness is caused not by the left wing or the centrist democrats, but by a president who's not acting like the president of the united states- but rather the president of the right wing religious neo-cons.
2. That would go against their nature as their version of being an American?
It's hardly against the american nature to question authority. In fact- that is one of the basic premises and values our country was founded upon.
3. To be a real American would be to oppose the Republicans no matter how well their policies work?
No- to be a real american is to fight for what you believe is right and question what you believe is wrong. Opposing what the current administration is doing IS being a real american.
4. THE REAL THREAT IS President BUSH and his Administration, not terrorism?
Agreed.
5. There is no war on terror (Islamo Fascists); it's all made up?
er... no. there is a war. Bush is just not going about it in an intelligent and skillful way.
6. President BUSH planned all of this before getting into office (even tho he is the dumbest man alive)?
Hardley. The planning was done by the neo-cons. Cheny, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and a few others. Bush just fell into their clutches. Bush isn't stupid- but he isn't as sharp as these other power brokers that play him like an old banjo.
7. Liberals can't appreciate the safety of America unless they're in power?
I'd like to see the POTUS bring our country together, rather than divide it. And bring us together over something other than a misguided war and a horrible terrorist attack.
8. WWWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Huh?
9. IT'S NOT FAIR!
Well, the first Bush election wasn't. Regardless of how you look at it, he didn't get the most votes and it took a very partisan supreme court to make a decision that has been ridiculed by every rational legal mind since, in order to get him in.
10. Everyone know's the Republicans are collaborating with the terrorists to stay in power?
No. I don't think that. But they certainly have made a mess of this whole Iraq war, which we got into under false pretense.
Ok- I've considered each of your statements. Will you be rational enough to consider my answers? You don't have to agree- but at least read them with an open mind. You might at least have a better understanding of how the 'other side' feels.
Oh, BTW, I'm a registered Republican, have been for 20+ years, and am furious over how Bush has run our country (into the ground). How about some fiscal responsibility... for instance. Wasn't that a republican value?
2006-09-11 15:43:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Maybe cause we weren't in any real danger in the first place. No question 9/11 happened all right and devastated us, but what happened afterwards has devastated us, too.
If Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were the ones responsible, then how come we end up letting them go when they're trapped in the mountains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border while we find reason to attack Iraq? That aspect never made any sense to me.
We are in the midst of a Republican president and congress that knows no bounds in fiscal responsibility. In that regards, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican or Democrat.
I'm not as ready as you to buy into that safe for 5 yrs. business as you put it because of Bush. We could've easily been as safe with Gore. Then there are the past two presidential elections that have been hair close, but Bush has run his administration like it owns full support of the American people. Not to mention the allegations coming out that the electronic voting machines were rigged by malicious software (already testified in Congress).
You should get your facts straight and then maybe you'll be agreeing on some of the points that you listed.
2006-09-11 15:46:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by callahan 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
We do appreciate the fact that there have been no successful attacks on our country. What sane person wouldn't?
And you are right on with #6 -- ain't no way George planned any of this...he was too busy trying to get his plane back from the Chinese (anybody remember that crazy stuff with kamikaze Chinese pilot??) And of course he was busy being on vacation.
Safety does not hinge on which political party is in office. Only you guys think that way.
I know Republicans aren't collaborating with terrorists. Terrorism is too good for the defense industry to screw around with it.
I also agree that there is a terrorism problem in the world. It's the same one that has been plaguing Europe and the Middle East since the '70s. We just finally figured out that yes it does involve us. You guys coined the Isamo Fascist stuff.
And sure, I'll admit to #8....I do it every night....WWWAAAAAAAA when will the nightmare end...WWWAAAAAA
See you were right...
2006-09-11 15:38:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by KERMIT M 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why can't people like you realize that if it had not been for Bush declaring war on Iraq there would probably not be as many so-called terrorist to be afraid of. Since the war the safety of Americans has actually decreased around the world. How can you say that you are safe when you can't even bring a bottle of soda on an airplane these days. Like you said, the real threat is president Bush and his administration............
2006-09-11 15:38:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The problem with trusting Bush when is he telling the Truth?
Do i feel safer in 2006 the answer is no. 9-11 took place on during Bush's term office. He had been given information in regards to possible attack but he was on vacation.
Attorney General John Ashcroft was given information on possible attack but he was more concerned about two naked statues in the Justice Department building and porn. So when it came to priorities Bush was off Target.
2006-09-12 04:25:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yet at what cost? Our liberties. i'm no longer a liberal. i think of the liberals are basically as valueless as conservatives, myself. All valueless. it rather is the terrible management of the two those communities by the years that are becoming to be us to the factor we are at now. anyhow, you preserve quivering on your boots whenever you hear the understanding "terrorist". you preserve on being terrified on your life. individually, i do no longer play that game. in case you think of you're secure, you're a fool. you could by no skill be secure from random acts of violence. Myself, i've got faith extra petrified of having hit with the help of a motor vehicle then of being killed with the help of terrorists. "what's it that gents wish? What could they have? Is life so expensive, or peace so candy, as to be offered on the cost of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! i comprehend no longer what direction others might take; yet as for me, provide me liberty or provide me death!" -Patrick Henry "If ye love wealth extra desirable than liberty, the tranquility of servitude extra desirable than the animating contest for freedom, circulate abode and circulate away us in peace. We look for no longer your council, nor your hands. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and can posterity forget approximately that ye have been our countrymen." -Samuel Adams "They that ought to furnish up mandatory liberty for somewhat non everlasting protection deserve neither liberty nor protection." -Benjamin Franklin For some reason I doubt any of those adult men could be extensive Bush followers.
2016-11-07 03:36:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
After the hit that we took 5 years ago, I should hope that the FBI, CIA, and who ever else is responsible for our safety would be doing a better job now than they were 5 years ago, regardless of who's in charge. That said, I don't think the threat of terrorism is any smaller now. In fact, I think that the terrorists are more determined now to attack us - they see us as occupying an islamic country, killing islamic people, and trying to force our way of government on them. All that is Bush's fault (and his cronies, as I don't think he is smart enough to coordinate this war).
2006-09-11 15:36:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by kris 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't believe that it is the president's policies that have kept us safe. Luck and good police work have kept us safe for 5 years. We are always careful, but they slipped through a couple of times and probably will again.
The trouble is, our safeguards are protecting us against what already happened - using airplanes? then screen passengers; shoe bomb? make eeryone remove their shoes; liquid bombs? no carryon toothpaste or shampoo.
What about air cargo? trains? chemical plants? container shipments?
2006-09-11 15:34:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by ash 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's like someone in America saying, "this lawn gnome has scared away all the kangaroos. I dare anyone to challenge this lawn gnome's ability to repel marsupials. We MUST stand behind this lawn gnome, or else the kangaroos will come and eat our begonias".
Man......
"No attacks" doesn't qualify the President's homeland security as effective -- Al Qaeda may simply have not attacked yet. It certainly doesn't justify Bush's crackdown on civil liberties. If anything, he probably prays all night long that no other 9-11s happen on his watch. I bet he loses a lot of sleep doing that.
2006-09-11 15:30:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Hmmmm.... let's see you are delusional
We are more at risk now than 5 years ago. In case, you haven't noticed the world now hates us. When you are hated you are less likely to receive help.
Ditto head talking point "Americanism". Read the Constitution, if you can. Then we can discuss American ideals.
Terrorism is a tactic. Similar to guerrilla warfare. You may want to read up on our Revolutionary war for this one.
Bush lacks the intelligence to plan many things, but he's not above letting events take place if it means making a buck.
Do you really feel the need to cry. I can't help but wonder if you are another one of those Chicken-Hawks.
2006-09-11 15:40:30
·
answer #11
·
answered by Reality 2
·
3⤊
3⤋