Are you so dense as to believe that NO OTHER US PRESIDENT could have done a better job handling the aftermath of 9/11 and other related issues BETTER than your beloved G.W. Bush, the same man whom you seem to give a no-holds-barred free pass to do anything he wants?
Please tell us again about his upstanding Christian morals, his robust and fearless personal Military record that makes him a born fighter, and how terrible any one else who has, or could have been President would have handled this.
Agree or not?
2007-01-02 04:01:14 · 19 answers · asked by Middy S 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I hear what you are saying.
But...all of this supposition is frivolous and unproductive.
The question is where do we go from here? How do we get our nation back on track?!
I believe the first order of business in the war on terrorism is the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden and his generals we still haven't arrested. They are the one's who have taken responsibility for the attacks on 9/11! Remember the video tapes THEY aired all over the world proclaiming their responsibility!
WHY 5 YEARS after the attacks have they not been arrested and held accountable?????
All of this .... All of it should make Americans realize they really need to take researching the political and personal beliefs of nominees to public office... individually.... not by the party they belong to. Bad people with corrupt agendas exist in EVERY political party!!!
May we do better next time... 2008!
Whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian....or whatever political affiliation. May the person elected to occupy the highest office in our land DESERVE and Honorably respect all that it represents.
God Bless America!!
2007-01-02 04:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely love and admire this post. This is because I feel no need to even offer any "truthiness" here. It speaks loud and clear for itself. Plus I believe that any facts I may produce to counter this argument will meet many brick walls. Many have already presented appropriate responses, so I'll leave it at that. I am a liberal and I do not hate republicans, nor do I hate Bush. My fiance is a soldier who has been on two combat tours in this "freedom spreading war on terrorism." But, I think it is so sad that his presidency has brought this type of empty rhetoric out into the open guised as "patriotism." P.S. All politicians are liars - that's just called being a politician.
2016-05-23 06:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I question the point on this one. It doesn't really matter if someone else could of handled the situation better or not because Bush was the one who had to handle it. Look, considering that nothing like this has ever happened (don't even try to tell me Pearl Harbor was even close), he did about as well as he could. However, this is not saying that the things following the events were handled correctly. However, the direct aftermath of the attack were handled alright.
History can judge Bush and his people all they want but he is the one that handled it, right or wrong, for better or for worse. Who cares how someone else would of handled it? Maybe you should ask, 'what do we do now?' or perhaps, 'how can we get our troops home?' instead of playing, what if? Let's try 'what can we all do to make things better?'
2007-01-02 04:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by rabbi0230 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I like Bush... if we had a democrat as president the world would be worse than it is right now. I've agreed with pretty much everything Bush has done already. There would be war whether Bush was president or not. At least we have someone that is going to fight back. Do you want our country to be run by terrorist? .. I don't lol
2007-01-02 04:09:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
See: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.
By the way, George Bush is one of the most unintentionally funny people I've ever heard speak. Amazes me.
2007-01-02 04:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by JC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very few people would say that NO OTHER president could have handled it better. Because that is truly an unknown.
But with some thought, it should be obvious that Bush certainly handled it better than the loser of the 2000 election could have handled it.
---
As for the rest of your rant - get a grip.
2007-01-02 04:10:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think Bush handled it well... Far better than Ozone Al Gore would have done if he would have been president at the time... He never would have went on the offensive... Clinton would have asked an opinion poll what he should do... in the end he would have bombed a few aspirin factories in Afghanistan and that would have been it... Al queda would still be a force and we would have been attacked again by now... Bush is doing a decent job...
2007-01-02 04:06:59 · answer #7 · answered by goodtimefriend 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Where did you hear that crap?
Many past presidents could have done a better job.
Most presidents could have done as good a job.
Mostly what has been said was no one running against Bush could have done the job. And i still believe that.
2007-01-02 04:05:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Abe Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower, harry Truman, the list could go on an on because GW is a fool who listens only to fools and has driven this country into the trash heap.
2007-01-02 04:07:35 · answer #9 · answered by Reo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
President Bush could have done better, but he did the best that is humanly possible. He defended his country and upheld the ideals that America holds dear. I would love to have seen an imbecile like you do better.
2007-01-02 04:09:34 · answer #10 · answered by nerdandproudofit 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋