I have heared him make the claim many times however, he never offers any proof or details that his policies have done this. It seems to me that there maybe just alittle BS to his claims.
2006-10-17 13:33:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
There's plenty of BS to his claims, but your question doesn't make sense. Of course some of the policies have stopped attacks- they were several which were foiled. Now were the specific policies which led to this any different from what we'd have put into place following 9/11 with someone else in office? That's the real question.
No matter who the sitting president was, we'd have been going after the Taliban,tightening airport security, investigating terrorist network financing etc. That sort of thing isn't based upon political party. Libertarian, Democrat, Republican- doesn't matter, what needed to be done would get done, to keep the country safe.
Now for more controversial points like warrantless wiretaps and detaining enemy combatants without trials, who knows how much (or if) they've helped? One would imagine there's been at least one case where information obtained was useful- but this is of course speculation, the specifics remain classified.
So much is a double-edged sword- policies which are beneficial in one respect (like speeding up legal proceedings and keeping captured suspects off the streets), create problems in another (like eroding our support among allies, which further harms our intelligence efforts and aids our enemies)
2006-10-17 14:04:50 · answer #1 · answered by C-Man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have we been attacked by terrorists since 9/11? No we haven't. So I guess his policies have worked. Doesn't take too much critical thinking skills to figure that one out. You must be a Democrat.
2006-10-17 13:36:47 · answer #2 · answered by afreeman20035252 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i believe it quite is greater precise to assert ending particular regulations that have been in place in the past 9-11-2001 has decreased the risk of terrorists being waiting to circumvent detection long adequate to degree a considerable attack. a metamorphosis in innovations-set between the worry-unfastened citizen has decreased the probabilities of any given attack succeeding. The 9-11 hijackings have been efficient many times because of the fact no person tried to stop the hijackers. maximum previous hijacking resulted in landing someplace and being held mutually as the hijackers negotiated for something. maximum passengers have been finally released unhurt. Even on 9-11, whilst they knew the hijackers motive, passengers on United ninety one took it on themselves to stop the hijackers, even on the fee of their lives.
2016-11-23 16:44:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
Can you mention some within the USA that he has missed after the mutual administration failure of 9-11?
2006-10-17 13:36:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only proof that you will accept that Bush's policies are necessary to protecting the US is another terrorist attack. Then you will blame Bush for that.
2006-10-17 13:35:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is that what you heared?
Anybody who knows of the all the foiled terrorist plots wouldn't be wasting their time on yahoo answers. Do more research.
2006-10-17 13:37:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I beleive it was the new line of gold colored rims that were introduced then..Who cares..Vote 4 me $$$$$.
2006-10-17 13:34:59 · answer #7 · answered by #2people 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you seen any nutjob muslims flying jets into skyscrapers lately?? They know better now. Grow up, your rhetoric is bullsh_it.
2006-10-17 13:43:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
do you watch the news?
theres been at least 12 cases
2006-10-17 13:34:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The proof is there hasn't been an attack on US soil, r tard.
2006-10-17 13:36:33 · answer #10 · answered by fat bob 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋