If we were to be attacked on U.S. soil again, (god forbid) would any of you still show support for Bush?

Question

Of course, another attack on U.S. soil could be avoided. But now with the "war on terror" creating more terrorist breeding grounds, and the escalating tensions with Iran and Venezuela...you never know.
Would anyone still love Bush if he was unable to protect us against a new attack?

DeuceRide, this is not the question to bring your misguided, immature, and completely untrue comments against liberals.

I am appalled by the ignorance and immaturity of that guy called Interested!

FREAKZILLA, if we were attacked, we would not say Bush did it unless we have evidence against him. The same way we say the neocons did 9/11 (enormous amount of proof)

retiredslashescaped1, you are ignorant if you don't know that thanks to Clinton, the ones responsible for the WTC attack in 93 were caught and arrested. (Ramzi Yousef and his group)

El Bala, i don't respect your misguided, parroted, immature, untrue, idiotic, and completely sickening assertion.

Answer 1

I read the answers that are coming in, and I pity you for trying to ask such a question. The Bushettes will come out of the woodwork and bash you, or the others are going to use it to further their agenda.

To answer your question, I don't know if I would or not. I would like to think that we ALL - as a nation - could come together to overcome the tragedy. But that is what everyone did last time, and Bush used it to further his own agenda. So that is what splits me and my decision.

I don't think that anyone can protect us for certain from another attack. If someone wants to attack, and they are determined enough, then they will attack us. It will not matter how well our borders are secured, and how much security we put into place. The determined always find a way. So I think that the question is rather moot, to be honest with you.

Answer 2

Using terror or threat of terror to get reelected is technique that has been used successfully many times in this and other countries all I can say is thank you Spanish Voters, and hope next election people consider all the issues when voting. Still cannot figure out why Bush's cowardly actions when 9/11 happened where not made a bigger issue.

Answer 3

Given the obstacles and impediments and all of the hoops he has had to jump through, I'd say he's done a pretty good job in protecting the American people.

Personally, I would lay more of the blame on the ACLU, the media, Hollywood wind bags, and all of the other factions and groups who believe that the "rights" of a terrorist is more important than the potential death of thousands on innocent men, women and children.

Regarding human rights, that's a noble enough
policy to try and pursue, but we are dealing with people who who have demonstrated a total lack of any respect or possession of even a speck of human dignity.

If we treated them better, they would probably show their gratitude by packing one less handful of lethal shrapnel into the next bomb that they detonate in a market place crowded with innocent shoppers.

Answer 4

I would not necessarily hold him responsible. I hate Bush with a passion, but each time we are attacked, we can't attack the president anew. Let's take it on a case by case basis.
If a Liberal wins the election and we are attacked 9 months later, do we excoriate him/her? If we find out that this new attack was poorly handled, ok then. But don't just attack b/c we are attacked.

No matter what we do, they will find some way to get us again. Perhaps I would attack Bush on the grounds that he is adding to the hate that fuels this violence, but not really for the attack itself.

Answer 5

If there was an attack on America and there was a Conservative in office, those sheep would blindly follow any lies they said and call anyone who didn't anti-American. But if there was a Liberal in office, the same exact people would be going nuts about what he could've done and how they could do a better job than them. It's about as smart as taking sides during the whole "Clash of the Superpowers" between Hogan and Savage.

Answer 6

I will only protect my soil under my feet, and my family or my home and help my near by nieghbor. it does not matter if is a terrorist from another country or a criminal from the hood. The person trying to cause me harm would have to be thinking some where in thier minds, that they could automatically be shot on site.

Answer 7

Absolutely, its awesome that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. Just imagine if the liberals were in the White House. Can you imagine what the death toll would be at this point. We would be welcoming terrorists with open arms right now. We probably would make it mandatory for all Americans to become muslims just to appease.

Answer 8

Ignorance and immaturity is in the question itself. I realize you lieberals don't grasp reality very well. But during the 8 years Clinton was in office, we had approximately 25 acts of terrorism, large and small, including a major bombing of the World Trade Centers -- and Clinton didn't even visit the site.

Since 9/11 we have had ZERO attacks on the US, and that is a five year period.

This is why you lieberals have lost power and will continue to not have power.

Answer 9

If he was responsible for the next terrorist attack as he was the 911 attack.

Yes ! I would support him.

I would support him, while someone else got the rope.

(Note: It's a joke, since I don't support capital punishment.)

Answer 10

Bush can be successful protecting us 99% of the time. Terrorists only have to be successful once. I'm frankly amazed we haven't had a major attack on our soil already. I think that we haven't speaks volumes to the success of Bush's policies, so far. Having said that, if he doesn't get the borders controlled better pretty darn quick, it is just a matter of time before we get another one.