(from today's press conference)
2006-12-20 02:21:47 · 7 answers · asked by Snowshoe 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Think? Plan? Research? Are you kidding?
2006-12-20 02:23:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It was increasing before we went in, too, if you were paying attention. After each terrorist success against the US during the Clinton administration, without any response from the US, (Somalia, Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Africa, USS Cole) the recruitment for the terrorists increased significantly.
It increased even more after 9/11. Without a response, it would have continued to increase, and our interests across the world would have increasingly been attacked, for generations to come. With renegade governments supporting them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc, how long until they attacked us with WMD? Don't dismiss this - it is a very accurate assessment of what would have happened if we followed the Clinton / Democrat path of cowardice and appeasement.
We're just trying to figure out why: 1) you people never understood this, and 2) why you've been so outspoken against Bush's efforts, thereby assisting the terrorists?
And all for petty partisan politics.
2006-12-20 10:38:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well his predecessor did nothing to combat terrorism and terrorism increased. So which would you rather a president do? Do little or nothing, or at least try to stop it?
What would you do to stop terrorism? You don't like what Bush has tried.
2006-12-20 10:39:46 · answer #3 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and doing nothing in the middle east would accomplish the same thing. People can easily look back and say, "we should have..." The fact is, terrorism was on an incline, now it is on a decline.
2006-12-20 10:24:18 · answer #4 · answered by AT 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am sure I know what your trying to say by the question but ill bite. Even if he had known, (which if he did not know they would not say that) They still needed to go in and get that psycho out of power and give the country back to its people.
2006-12-20 10:42:44 · answer #5 · answered by bunnydlh 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12430800/
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11124
http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/09/nic-assessment-iraq-has-fueled.html
Invading Iraq fueled terrorism.
2006-12-20 10:32:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he has, he is trying to convince the people now that want to leave Iraq what the consequences might be
2006-12-20 10:23:27 · answer #7 · answered by paki 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋