How can Bush CLAIM to be STRONG on national security?

Question

Lets analyze the data shall we?

3,000 people died because Bush failed to prevent the largest and most successful terrorist attack on our nation.

3,000 people died because Bush failed to attack the right country responsible for 9.11.

2,000 people died because Bush failed to protect Americans after Katrina had struck the Gulf states and creating a national crisis/tragedy.

Permitting hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to invade America.

Even though Bush has spent billions more then Clinton in Defense, creating the Department of Homeland Security and running in 2000 and 2004 on a stronger defense why has Bush failed time and time again in protecting America? 8,000 Americans are now dead because of Bush!

Ruth - Bush said made national security an issue back in 2004...so what does he have to show for it? Besides thousands of dead Americans?

Alberto - When the terrorists attacked Clinton back in 1992 it was only after he was in office for less then three months and the republicans blamed him. Why are you cons changing you song and tune for George?

Answer 1

That's easy....
1) he's a liar
2) his arrogance and his ego is the only things about him that is substantial.....

Answer 2

3,000 people died because Bush failed to prevent the largest and most successful terrorist attack on our nation.
Wasn't it terrible that Bush failed to accomplish in 8 mos what Clinton neglected for 8 yrs?

3,000 people died because Bush failed to attack the right country responsible for 9.11.
OK, who would you have attacked? Iraq did support terrorists, that is beyond dispute.

2,000 people died because Bush failed to protect Americans after Katrina had struck the Gulf states and creating a national crisis/tragedy.
I never realized that Bush had the power to stop huricanes. WOW am I impressed. I realize you can't critisize the mayor or Gov because they are Dems. The Fed govt is not the 1st responder for natural disasters.

You are ignoring the fact that there hasn't been a successfull terror attack here in over 5 yrs.

Answer 3

You're a deliberate idiot. That's an idiot that yaps out the same bullshit you're yapping even though they know it's all a lie. Idiots like you are what is wrong with America today.

Bush didn't fail to prevent 9/11. That attack was planned & prepared long before he took office. If it could have been prevented then why didn't Clinton zip up his pants long enough to do something about it?

Bush did attack the right country - Afghanistan was home to OBL & his friends, and was the country that gave them safe haven while they planned & trained for their various terrorist attacks. What did you expect him to attack?

Bush wasn't responsible for protecting Americans from Katrina, like all Americans the people in the areas hit by that storm were responsible for protecting themselves and they failed to get out of the way in spite of far more than enough warning. Their state & local government failed them in every conceivable way while standing in the way of federal assistance, both literally and figuratively, even as their people were drowning.

Illegal aliens have been invading since long before Bush took office. Again, why didn't Clinton or any other Democrat do anything? Well, we KNOW why Clinton didn't do anything - he was too busy doing Monica...

Bush has not failed in protecting America, quite the opposite. There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11, no matter how moronic libs like yourself try to shuffle the numbers around to blame him for every single thing that's happened since even before he took office.

Sit down and shut up, fool.

Answer 4

3,000 people died because Bush failed to prevent the largest and most successful terrorist attack on our nation.
So did his predecessor.

3,000 people died because Bush failed to attack the right country responsible for 9.11.
This is a false claim.

2,000 people died because Bush failed to protect Americans after Katrina had struck the Gulf states and creating a national crisis/tragedy.
How do you propose stopping a Hurricane? Until LOCAL authorities request help (which the still have not done under the law) it is illegal to send in Federal resources.

Permitting hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to invade America.
We actually agree on this one.

Answer 5

President Bush can claim anything he wants. He can claim that Hillary Clinton and he had an affair last year or that he killed John Lennon. Whether what he claims is true or not is a different kettle of fish.

As for your claims about Bush being responsible for all those deaths, that is where you are misguided. I will not blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina, but I will blame him for not maintaining the levees.

Also, no country was to blame for 9/11. Bin Laddin and his followers are terrorist who attacked us. They did not have any direct link to any nation, although I am sure that certain governments did not object to Bin Laddin's plans.

My advice to you is to check your own facts for errors before accusing others.

Answer 6

Clinton, had bin laden cornered, and did not get him when he could. Bush is liberating a country that is a breading ground for the same people that commited the 911 attacks. I hung to a tree in Hurricane Katrina and still can't understand how 200,000 people didn't die in that storm. He just passed a bill to build and appropriate funds for a fence along the border.

There is no way that bush can claim to be just strong on national security. your right a more appropriate word would be UNBREAKABLE on national security.

Answer 7

If you could just un-cross your eyes and see the light, you would recognize that these accusations are such fakery. The biggest one of all involves Katrina. That very ignorant New Orleans mayor and LA governor, and the New Orleans citizens themselves are responsible for not planning and evacuating. There is no way a US president can run down and tell a governor and mayor what they had better do, just in case some disaster strikes.

Just one other bit of info for you: President Bush is an honorable and decent man who is fighting nearly the whole world while he - along with our armed forces - are fighting some very bad people who will most certainly try to bring down this country if the Democrats get back control of our government.

May The Good Lord have mercy on your brain!

Answer 8

i would not talk so on the instant on the Mideast---that area is regressing employing fact of corruption in Afghanistan and Iraq (that Afghanistan is landlocked additionally would not help lots). If the elections in Afghanistan have been loose, why are there rampant accusations of fraud there? As for Libya delivering weapons, i'm now no longer precisely particular that it fairly have been given here approximately. Syria has now no longer purely now no longer withdrawn from Lebanon, it in fact oftentimes occurring a puppet government. If Pakistan have been fairly an ultimate chum, why will now no longer be waiting to we use their airspace to launch an attack? i visit gve you the UAE purely. Egypt has been an ultimate chum of the u . s . a . on account that Carter---now no longer something perfect here. As for no terrorist assaults perfect here on account that 9/eleven, that's a minimum of in part coincidental. nationwide protection has now no longer weakened. As for the financial device, a topic count ought to be that credit grew to alter into available too freely below Bush 40 3, perfect to the project at modern-day. In Iraq and Afghanistan, motives why our troop dying toll has long previous up is on the instant correlated to 2 subjects: one million. American troops are seen as enforcing unpopular and corrupt community regimes in the two Iraq and Afghanistan. 2. The equipment used there is overworked. I knew those days might desire to now no longer very final consistently on the financial device, employing fact the financial device consistently is going perfect right into a tailspin each and each 5-7 years without fail; it fairly is a controversy of credit overextension. Our nationwide protection despite the fact that has now no longer been compromised via ability of the Democrats. in case you disagree with what I suggested, prepare me incorrect.

Answer 9

This is amazing. Don't even know where to start. Well, you are probably too young to know, but the illegal Mexicans have been "invading" since I was a kid. I'm 39.

You should be ashamed of blaming these things on Bush. It's a sign of desperation, you know.

It's okay, you can still vote Republican.

Answer 10

You are twisting the Truth and that's no good. Remember the attacked took place 2 or 3 month after he took office. For that incident you have to blame the administration of Mr. Clinton, even though he was too busy with Ms. Louwinki. If you talk about fails, you have to talk about Mr Clinton, because he had the chance to killed Osaben bin Laden and he fail. Before you start pointing your finger on Mr Bush, YOU have to read back into history. and then you could be fair. Good luck and good reading....

Answer 11

BUSH is NOT strong on national security. the republicans try and plant this idea that they are strong on national security, but in fact its just political propaganda. Too bad this "idea" that bush(representing the rep. party) is strong on national security is still being supported today after all the people that have died, and still people fail to realize hes really a failure when it comes to national security