Clinton - srupluss - blah blah blah
We were attacked on 911 because of the weakness the Clinton Administration showed in fighting terrorism. President Bush has had to clean up that MESS and it costs MONEY.
I'd RATHER give money to fight the war on terror than pay more Dem taxes to give to non working drug addicts.
2006-11-08 02:41:48 · 15 answers · asked by E LIB o NATOR 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No they beleive we are fighting a war because Bush is evil and that if we merely talk to them they will understand and we can all live in peace together.
And many stated the bad economy for why they voted democrat, they actually have lied so much people beleive the economy was bad, how sad can it be.
2006-11-08 02:44:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush has been spending more on EVERYTHING, not just the War on Terr0r. .
And it's mere spin to blame 9/11 on the weakness of the Clinton Administration when it has already been established by the 9/11 Commission that the Bush Administration did not take Terr0rism as seriously as the Clinton people did.
And perhaps the Clinton Administration could have done even more, if we were not all distracted with the bogus Impeachment nonsense. Blame the partisan Republicans for 9/11!
2006-11-08 02:44:51 · answer #2 · answered by kreevich 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Oh pish. Bush came into office and got the same updates of shite that Clinton was given. How come when all flights were grounded 11 planes left with the Bin-Laden family on them. Who funds daddy bush's oil company? Check your facts for both sides first. And the war is retarded but it does create job and population control. What else has bush done since being in office besides look like an *** all over international tv like at the Kyoto conference when he tried to go out a fake door and when it didn't open he stood there with his hands behind his back looking stupid. It was a riot. I laughed so hard I cried.
2006-11-08 02:45:50 · answer #3 · answered by driftinglust 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First off, you AREN'T giving money to fight the war on terror. We are paying for that war on credit, so your kids and their kids are going to pay for it. The rule of thumb is not to lower taxes during war. During WW2 there were massive rationing going on to help the war effort.
Second, Clinton did try to go after Bin Laden and he admitted he failed at it, but he did try. And I clearly remember all the republicans getting mad at him for bombing terrorist camps because they said he was distracting from the Monica Lewinsky thing. He might have been doing this, but he was also bombing terrorists.
Lastly, the surplus is not a "blah blah blah". Having a surplus is a very rare thing and something we should be fighting for all the time. We might have wars to pay for, but we should still try and work toward a surplus. The politicians should have a surplus being their goal all the time.
2006-11-08 02:51:00 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You need to read more about the actual events and listen less to what is said on TV.
We did not need to go to war in Iraq. The UN investigators told Bush there were no weapons of mass destruction but he ignored them.
We have wasted billions of dollars and a lot of precious live of our military personnel.
2006-11-08 02:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
That's true in a way, we were attacked on September 11 but what does that have to do with Iraq? Who is looking for Bin Laden?? I think that most of us would agree on spending money looking for the terrorists that attacked America that day, but Iraq has nothing to do with it.
2006-11-08 02:44:59 · answer #6 · answered by AleOmar 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your argument makes no sense. Did you read the 911 commission report? Who made the MESS in iraq?
2006-11-08 02:43:34 · answer #7 · answered by E 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Any half-wit can play the blame game. What we need in D.C. are people who can deal effectively, not politically, with our nation's dilemmas.
We need to dedicate our resources to war on domestic needs - not foreign ones.
Extract our troops (from Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan, etc., etc., etc.) and reassign them to secure our own borders. The U.S. can fund these operations with the monies they were expending on foreign operations. Let the foreign nations mow their own lawns...............
2006-11-08 03:37:55 · answer #8 · answered by Huero 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why, Bush hasn't, he handed out tax cuts to his best top buddies while we were fighting this war, and they in turn invested in China (mind you that is COMMUNIST China). I guess they just want a bigger war in the future.
2006-11-08 02:44:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, you hit it right on the money. WE DIDN'T WANT THIS UNNECESSARY WAR TO BEGIN WITH!! Yes it does cost alot of money that could be better spent than on padding the pockets of friends of Bush/Cheney.
2006-11-08 02:45:52 · answer #10 · answered by roobs 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋