Do you believe that it's better to fight terrorists in Iraq like the GOP or fight terror in the USA like dems?

Question

Just wondering, if this election is about fighting a war there or a fighting a war in the USA>

The only thing democrats can do lately is embolden the enemy. Clinton did a great job - 9/11. We've already seen America underattack, and dems want to go for the sequel.

Answer 1

Look!! If you're going to blame 9/11 on Clinton then you need to blame the WTC attack in 1993 on Daddy Bush.

Answer 2

far better to fight the war in enemy territory. SImply because this way the enemy cannot plan and train in peace.
Trying to win a war against terror by staying only inside the US would be madness itself- especially considering your crazy Political Correctness rules.
If the Dems refuse to even consider ilegal immigration as a problem, then how would they select a few hundred alQuaeda from the couple milion illegals crossing the border?
Oh, sorry. Not allowed to select Arabs from Mexicans- that would be "profiling"...
Then I guess the Dems would put a bunch of tanks to protect every supermarket (except Wal-Marts of course) and every food joint (except McDonalds- serve their trans-fats right!). Except the tanks would not be armed- armed tanks might annoy the Brady Bill Bunch...
Check ID cards? No way. ACLU would go bonkers. Come to think of it, they already are...

Fight terror like the Dems? Sure. And I'll take half dozen flying pigs with the Brooklyn Bridge.

Good luck guys. You'll need it.

Answer 3

I don't believe we went to war with Iraq to fight terrorism. I believe we went there because there was a false claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There was no link to Al Queda and Saddam. He's a dictator and would not embrace another power, of any sort, in his land.

The real reason was to install a friendly government in the country with the 2nd largest oil reserve.

So...I'd rather fight terrorism where it exists. If it exists in the US, lets fight it in the US. If it exists in Afghanistan, let's go and get them! But lets not get distracted by other motivations and take advantage of the events of 9/11.

By the way, Clinton and his administration did more to fight terrorism and try to get Osama did Bush did prior to 9/11. Clinton did not embolden the enemy. He tried to stop Osama. But the Republican controlled congress would not grant him the authority to take out Osama.

Recently, Condoleeza said that Bush did "at least as much as Clinton" in his first 8 months to fight terrorism:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.

The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”

Answer 4

There were no terrorists in Iraq until we went there. And since you don't seem to remember 9/11/2001 was during the shrub presidency, (remember him sitting like a deer in the headlights in the classroom after he was told,) and came after Bush lowered the terror expert to a non-cabinet level, and was too busy planning star wars to be interested in terror.

Answer 5

We wouldn't have had 9/11 if Bush and Rice didn't think the Intelligence reports, which were threats from Al-Qaeda, were "not credible information". You believe Bush is infallible. You will be crying tomorrow when Dems when at least the House. I can't wait.

Answer 6

They didn't care when the WTC was bombed - rich Republicans worked there.

If the Democrats are elected and they pull us out of Iraq - who wants to go to CA with me and paint a bulls-eye on Hollywood?
That should get some liberals attention!

Answer 7

Hey if the come here to the US, folks just like you can get your own licks in rather then sending my son to fight for you. I like that idea.

Answer 8

no no fight in iraq there will be too many of us dying but in case they do fight here damn give me a m-16

Answer 9

Truthfully, I understand what you're saying and I agree but for one thing. I don't think that Dems so much want to see another attack on American soil. I just believe that they think that its preferable to expose ourselves to that rather than having a Republican in office. A few thousand Americans lives lost looks better than a Republican dominated Congress.

Answer 10

neither,, it's about the power of the people,, not being gullible or in fear of doing what is right for their country,, across party lines,, the GOP's self destruction is an act of GOD