!.) Bush cherry picked WMD evidence
2.) wrong about a iraq-911 connection
3.) wrong about a iraq-al-qadea connection
4.) slow in attacking al-qadea before 911
5.) al-qadea is now more powerful before 911
6.) and of course Iraq is a freakin' shitbox
2006-11-28 10:52:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
In my opinion NO. Clinton fooling around with a young intern, then lying about it, didn't cost him his second term either. I don't think there are any lily whites in Washington, they just love using what they hear/know against each other to try and knock the other guy out of power.
I don't know of anyone who thinks Iraq attacked us. I heard Osama's terrorists did it, I also heard Saddam celebrated us being attacked. Did he have anything invested in the attack or was he just another dictator who hates us and was glad we got slammed? Or maybe the WTC got ticked and blew itself up. Since there's no survivors, we'll never know for sure exactly what happened.
2006-11-28 19:21:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by humm 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The election was a death of a thousand cuts, Foley was one of them. The electorate is gradually awakening to "there is something rotten in the State of Denmark." If we all ever really wake up to what is going on, we might see Madame LaFarge knitting again while the Guillotine resumes lopping off heads.
2006-11-28 18:51:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by michaelsan 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both and the fact that America is fed up with a pay or play culture of corruption that had DeLay, Cunningham, Abramoff, and several other Republicans convicted or facing charges.
2006-11-28 19:46:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Or maybe it was the Abramoff scandle. Or the Plame scandle. Or the New Orleans debacle. Or the fact that the percentage of Americans living in poverty has grown every year of Bush's presidency. Or Bush trying to hand our ports over to the Arabs. I could go on all night...
2006-11-28 19:08:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Phil S 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
#1 question: no
#2 question: yes
I think it is sad that Foley probably will be blamed, and he definitely has a problem in that he was exploiting young people, not because he is gay; and the fact that he is gay is being exploited, which is doing no justice to our gay citizens. The bigger issue, I would like to believe, is that finally the majority of citizens woke up enough to question--what are we doing in Iraq.
2006-11-28 19:05:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by catcha22 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I know a lot of Americans that knew Iraq didn't attack N.Y.C.Only daddys little boy, Conda,Rummy and the Shooter. They knew, but saddam tried to kill Big Daddy George
2006-11-28 18:57:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by bettys 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
None of the above.... Mostly it was the Republicans acting like Drunken Democrats on shore leave as far as spending goes, and the Republican Senate acting like liberal vote panders when it comes to the boarder.
2006-11-28 18:53:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by lordkelvin 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
It damn sure didn't help.
Come to think of it, neither did Ken Mehlmam
2006-11-28 18:49:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well man/boy sex doesn't spell family values.
2006-11-28 18:59:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋