2006-12-14 02:03:23 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Liberals are like water, they seek the path of least resistance. And just watch them circle the drain.
2006-12-14 02:10:20 · answer #1 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Don't confuse -Iraq- with Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Neo-cons are heading for the hills and there's very little support for Iraq in the republican or conservative circles.
This talk of creating a beach head for democracy is the most stupid nonsense I've ever heard. How many years did Russia spend in Afghanistan fighting proxy wars? Any clue?
Don't confuse 9/11 with Iraq. Ever. Again. Bush has had more than five years to capture him. Committing less than 30,000 troops to one of the biggest countries in the Middle East isn't serving the memories of those lost in 9/11 justice.
As a person who saw the smoldering ruins with my own two eyes, and the emptiness of the city after 9/11, it's disingenuous to say the liberals want terrorists to win. The conservatives who had the executive, legislative and judicial branches failed. As far as I can tell, conservatives/republicans let the terrorists win - and the voters let those idiots know that that they won't stand for it any longer.
2006-12-14 10:12:15 · answer #2 · answered by Prakash V 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You know, Matt, we supported Bush and the invasion of Afghanistan - that was the appropriate response - that;s where Al Qaeda was and OBL. Iraq was Bush's wet dream. That's where we were led down the garden path by that lying SOB and we, like most Americans, bought into Bush's falsified intel. But of course now we know they knew it was false, they had doctored the evidence and suddenly the hunt for those who attacked us on 9/11 were forgotten and we are now in a damn mess that shows no sign of coming to and end.
You people talk this crap and remember now there are only 30% of you who back this disaster. Bush is a fool and you are playing the fool's game.
2006-12-14 10:11:21 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Actually, we wanted to go after the main person responsible, Osama bin Laden. By the way, where the hell is he? It's been 5 YEARS since the attacks took place, and he STILL hasn't been caught. Instead, we're stuck in an unwinnable war in a country that was in no way connected to the attacks. NEXT!!!
2006-12-14 10:07:07 · answer #4 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. Everyone wanted and hoped that the president would use the military wisely in defense of the country. He failed to do that in Iraq.
2006-12-14 10:37:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Immediatly following the attacks I was catching my breath from all the laughing I had been doing, congratulating whoever might have done it for picking an excellent symbol and feeling exhilirated.
Of course then I realised that it would be used as an excuse to curb civil liberties which put a dampner on my mood.
2006-12-14 10:06:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Since Reagan kicked the bucket funding the terrorist slowed to a stop. Go dig him up and ask him what the hell he was thinking. Probably say something like "I don't recall". So don't waste the governments money for excavation.
2006-12-14 10:08:32 · answer #7 · answered by edubya 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They wanted to declare peace, before they declare war and after that start to flip flop about it.
2006-12-14 10:08:31 · answer #8 · answered by jotaze 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
wow, it's official.. you are a moron! lmao .. um.. no.. most liberals supported and still do support getting bin laden
2006-12-14 10:05:38 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Did you want wholsale slaughter for "revenge"?
2006-12-14 10:07:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋