That people are with us or against us?
And if he was wrong, what about Hillary Clinton who said:
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Since President Bush is such a "Nazi" for saying so, is Hillary Clinton one as well? Or is this another famous Democrat double standard?
2007-01-08 06:26:41 · 10 answers · asked by Nemo 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hillary Clinton was talking about terrorist, Bush was talking about his war profiteering folly in Iraq.
2007-01-08 06:30:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 7⤋
i don't believe of Katrina is the really component that must be considered about Bush's record, yet do not ignore that many of the Katrina issues suffered in New Orleans were as a results of a) unintended engineering blunders made a lengthy time period in the past, b) incompetent community and state administration that did not practice and did not cooperate with federal agencies to attend to the disaster, and c) undesirable administration of the federal disaster reaction by the suitable of FEMA. No president can dodge organic failures, engineering failures, or stress community leaders or perhaps deepest electorate to practice for the failures that you'll assume and assume. Bush does undergo duty for appointing the suitable of FEMA, so area of the blame falls on him. inspite of the indisputable fact that, this is not precise to assert that the federal authorities did not something. The nationwide safeguard did great artwork providing emergency preserve and search for and rescue to those who might want to were evacuated. also, the federal authorities has had a good number of help accessible for human beings bothered by Katrina, and neighboring states, like Texas, have presented a good number of assistance to evacuees. Bush in all likelihood must have chosen somebody else to bypass FEMA, yet Brown had performed wonderful dealing with typhoon relief in Florida the year earlier. Katrina change right into a great organic disaster and our reaction change into inadequate, inspite of the indisputable fact that not deliberately negligent- we are able to and could a thanks to handle the subsequent one extra effective, yet not each of the blame might want to be laid on Bush.
2016-12-02 00:25:03 · answer #2 · answered by england 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton supported the war, but never served.
So no Democrat will vote for her.
(sarcasm)
:)
2007-01-08 06:48:11 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. He was absolutely right. Either you help America and her allies fight against Islamic terror or you are de facto a supporter of terror. Just like in American civil law if you allow a murder to happen without taken preventitive action it is considered being an accomplice to murder.
Too bad the President wasn't serious about that--and neither are almost all people in government. Saudia Arabia is definately against us--with the terrorists--yet we fund that crazy regime. If know that's starting to change but we are too wedded to the Middle Eastern power structure to be able to fight seriously. But fight we must or else the West is in deep trouble.
2007-01-08 06:32:08 · answer #4 · answered by YourMom 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is a double standard. If it was wrong when President Bush said it, then it was wrong when Hillary Clinton said it.
Personally, I agree with the statement regardless.
2007-01-08 06:30:22 · answer #5 · answered by Leah 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, it wasn't wrong.
He was also saying it regarding terrorists, and the countries who harbor them. But people love to misconstrue what President Bush says.
They just won't admit it when they're wrong for calling him a Nazi.
I'd say it's a double standard, but what else is new?
Why does Chucky and Lucky keep posting the same crap over and over again?
2007-01-08 06:32:50 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
If Hillary Clinton becomes President it will be like a 3rd term for Bush Jr. I see no difference other than the opposing parties. She will keep the war machine for the New World Order in operation.
2007-01-08 06:33:22 · answer #7 · answered by Sun Spot 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋
They're both dictators who sound like little children. Harbouring terrorists is one thing but threatening other Nations if you don't do things our way you are going to pay a price. If that attitude doesn't change your nation will pay a price as the Germans and Russians before you found.
2007-01-08 06:34:37 · answer #8 · answered by robert m 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I can not stand Bush or Hillary!
2007-01-08 06:41:47 · answer #9 · answered by rose 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Republican lie bad, democrat lie good.
2007-01-08 06:30:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋