They think he is so competent and able to thwart any attacks with our "great homeland security". But then, they contradict themselves and say that if we left Iraq our president can't prevent attacks. That implies that they believe our homeland security is coming entirely from our presence in Iraq. Even though there is much evidence that Iraq is making us less safe...Although they also say that our president has increased security in domestic ways. Those two mindsets are contradicting.
WHICH ONE IS IT???
This also means they are belittling our Intelligence's ability to intercept attacks.
Get your facts straight republicans. You can't have it both ways. Either our president and his cohorts are too incompetent to prevent attacks against the homeland (such as 9/11) if we leave Iraq...OR...he is competent enough to prevent attacks against the homeland if we leave Iraq with our alleged homeland security that he allegedly provided us all with.
WHICH ONE IS IT?? STOP THE CONTRADICTIONS!!!
2007-01-07 05:38:05 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I guess I don't see it as a contradiction - they can both be true and are mutually exclusive. It would be great not to have to increase homeland security to defend against the rise in attacks we would see if terrorists are allowed to roam freely and do what they want. Especially if other governments are funding their activites.
2007-01-07 05:48:47 · answer #1 · answered by Granny Fran 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This one Republican never said either on those things you are ranting about.
Our intelligence agenies are the reason we are in Iraq. In report after report we were told of the weapons build up and Saddam ignoring the UN. It was their brilliant work and research that told everyone Iraq had WMD. Most of the complaints about the Iraq war is the belief the intelligence was wrong.
In some ways I do believe Iraq did have the WMDs but after media debates , time lines and waiting periods for the initial attack I also believe Saddam had the foresight and time to move them.
I do believe that by keeping the insurgents busy in Iraq they aren't over here. Not because the government says so - because my son was in Iraq and that is what he told me. He dreads the terrorists ever coming here as they kill anyone just to get media coverage.
With the current influx of illegal immigrants coming into the country - I don't see terrorists having much difficulty. All they need is to find a "money hunger coyote" like every other illegal. Coyotes don't ask why you want in the US - just that your money is green.
So my beliefs aren't so much contradictions as seeing the whole picture at different angles and trying to decide which is the safest. And at the moment no option looks any better than any other.
2007-01-07 05:58:22 · answer #2 · answered by Akkita 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This has got to be one of the most asinine things I've read on here all day. The action in Iraq has everything to do with Homeland Security,
HOMELAND SECURITY, SOMETHING THAT WAS SADLY LACKING UNDER BILLYBOB CLINTON AND HIS FELLOW LIBTARDS.
That's why that idiot Berger was in the archives, stuffing classified documents in his socks and underwear. WHERE WAS THE LIBTARD INDIGNATION OVER THAT?
There's no contradiction. If we cut and run like the limp-wristed libtards are whining for us to do, the terrorists from Iran and Syria will take over Iraq and be in possession of the world's 6th largest supply of oil. IS THAT WHAT YOU SURRENDER MONKIES DESIRE?
2007-01-07 06:47:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm a con who helps the conflict in Iraq yet not Bush. I do agree the final Congress replaced into incompetent on many stuff yet terrorism isn't certainly one of them. The Iraq conflict has extra implications then maximum folk see. The final Congress replaced into way too p***y and that i'm happy the democrats gained so as that Bush could awaken and notice that his plan in Iraq replaced into not working besides as different plans might desire to artwork.
2016-12-16 04:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by nokes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try and see through your hate and bigotry. He (Bush) has stated that he believes that terrorists will flow to Iraq to do their deeds instead of useing their time and resources to hit us here at home. He knows that there is no way to stop terrorism within a free open society that's why he chose to set up his fight over there. Athough I totaly disagree with the president, I believe he does what he thinks is right
2007-01-07 05:55:58 · answer #5 · answered by C W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stay the course in Iraq! Change course on the republican platform =less government!!!
2007-01-07 05:49:43 · answer #6 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Which is it?
2007-01-07 05:50:07 · answer #7 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋