2006-09-25 11:29:59 · 30 answers · asked by Jeff B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Absolutely. How else is he going to declare a state of emergency which would thereby suspend all elections thereby keeping him Presidictaor for all eternity.
2006-09-25 11:32:00 · answer #1 · answered by Dhara 6 · 18⤊ 1⤋
NO yet I choose he ought to. he will bypass away it to the subsequent pres and then loosen up and criticize each element it really is done in reality like what hillbilly Clinton did. The media made efficient he ought to get no help for bombing Iran and the NIE list grow to be truthfully done through utilizing the State branch full of Clinton appointees so as that killed any momentum for bombing Iran so now it truly is going to be as a lot as Hillary(perchance) to make efficient Iran does no longer construct a nuke it really is undesirable through utilizing the way and can make the middle East a lot extra risky and gasoline will be 8 funds a gallon yet keep piling on Bush he in reality has a million 3 hundred and sixty 5 days to bypass. Uh Somalia and Boznia were lower than Clinton and UN strikes that the U. S. grow to be placed into through utilizing Clinton without permission of Congress so study some historic previous for the guy some human beings above me... Uh John David Q our Nuclear guns on the on the spot are not to any extent further precisely a secret so what's your component there that the global is way a lot less danger-loose as a results of very reality we've them or extra danger-loose if we did no longer have them? Oh I Forgot u . s . a . is evil and so is G Bush my undesirable .
2016-11-23 21:21:39 · answer #2 · answered by hemmingway 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because they want to get rid of Bush and if they attack the U.S. he may do something to gain back popularity. Terrorists favor a government full of liberals who will not have such an unforgiving policy.
2006-09-25 11:34:09 · answer #3 · answered by Paula P 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No we will be attacked before so bush can justify bombing iran back to the stone age. Oil is too cheap right not have change that. You know that we attacked iraq because saddam was pumping too much oil.
2006-09-25 11:41:40 · answer #4 · answered by brooklyn 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The CIA finally admits what we have known all along. The wars are creating more terrorists. So, unfortunately, there is a good chance.
:(
Especially since the President doesn't seem to care about increasing border security.
2006-09-25 11:52:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you had been paying attention to the news or even the internet news you'd know the answer is yes. They have had another declaration from Bin Laden saying he was planning on it and at this point can do it whenever he feels. Didn't you know our government is looking for the people who made it through Mexico with nuclear weapons?
2006-09-25 11:35:59 · answer #6 · answered by Baby girl 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Watch CNN's, The Glen Beck Show, 7:00 p.m. eastern time, for his thoughts.
2006-09-25 11:36:46 · answer #7 · answered by newyorkgal71 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes I do. Actually I clicked on a link that yahoo hosted about a week ago (in the news section) and Bush stated that we may be under attack soon. Iraq wants to attack us. (I believe it was Iraq) I may stand corrected.
2006-09-25 11:32:38 · answer #8 · answered by Keith Perry 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Yes, unfortunately I feel we will be attacked again, but I do not feel it has anything to do with President Bush.
2006-09-25 11:32:23 · answer #9 · answered by paradise_at_the_beach 2 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Yes the Republicans will try and scare the voters.
2006-09-25 11:37:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋