Bush is a strong leader, who else would you recommend during 911, Gore?

Question

lol

strike_ea...
Good answer....wait I'll think of something!

ynotgayle...
Good one :)

Answer 1

NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DONE IT

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Answer 2

For the intellectually gifted Democrats out there that say a chimp could have done better, why did you not elect the chimp (Al Gore) for president,.... oh for god sake the chimp could not even win his own state.

Answer 3

Bush is not a strong leader. Bush is a single man, relying upon the support of his administration to make decisions of national significance.

Too bad the people he has surrounded himself with are so unflinchingly and fervently narrow-minded.

The Bush cabinet is responsible for promoting pre-meditated nuclear strikes, and the castigation of science as amoral at best, and witch-craft at worse.

Bush and his supporters have initiated the widest reaching privileged data gathering project the world has ever seen.

The nation is now monitoring and recording phone calls, book reports, purchases, and internet habits of millions of people.

At best a waste of time, at worst a frightening invasion of privacy.

The Bush government has started a war against a noun that has turned into an occupation of a nation with no end in sight.

100s of Billions of dollars spent on surveillance and military engagements, when hundreds of millions of people around the world live on less than a dollar a day.

And don't tell me that its not the responsibility of the US to remedy all the world's ills. The current administration has no problem dictating instructions to the Middle East, why does their mandate and responsibility end there?

Military Keynesianism at its worst defines the Bush cabinet, but when it comes to social spending on other issues, the Whitehouse is suddenly full of private marketeers. Apparently its the role of the state to fund and put food into the mouths of military contractors, but not to provide care and support for Americans without adequate healthcare, or education.

No child left behind must actually refer to a Army recruiting strategy.

And its not as though the Bush administration is even consistent in its private market philosophy outside of military considerations.

Has any president been as awkwardly protectionist. Bush talks about expanding the role of the World Trade Organization and preaches about the wonders of free trade for emerging economies. At the same time he initiates legislation to protect US steel, agriculture, forestry, and who knows what other industries from foreign competitors.

At least his policy on research and science is straightforward, if backwards. He refuses to fund stem cell research, he backs intelligent design, ignores the growing consensus on global warming, and refers to social sciences research which is outdated and dangerous.

I could go on. Katrina, missile defense, inarticulate policy on Korea, etc.


Who would I have chosen as American head of state during 911 and afterwards.

I would have chosen an individual capable of analyzing a wide spectrum of data and opinions.

I would have chosen someone capable of basing nationally significant decisions upon all of the relevant information available, rather than upon ideological certainty.

I would have chosen a person willing to play the role of diplomat and consensus builder, rather than warmonger and isolationist.

I would have chosen a person with the courage to listen and consider alternative perspectives, even if they might shake his/her worldview.

I would have chosen someone with as more insight into domestic and non-military foreign policy than into schoolyard bullying tactics.

But thats just me

Answer 4

I'm glad Bush won twice

Answer 5

If you recall Bush was no where to been seen after the towers were hit. He was in a southern school reading to some school children and then poof - gone for a while.

It was Guilani (hope I spelled his name correctly) who took control and was certainly a leader. Actually, it made him famous.

I don't think that anyone could have performed better than Guilliani. Certainly not Bush.

Answer 6

In my opinion Colin Powell would have done a better job at dealing with 9/11...

Answer 7

We wouldn't have global warming we would have a Surrender monkey and a prayer rug

Answer 8

Ghenghis Khan. He would have really shown the mussies a thing or two.

Answer 9

and we would have been praying to the east by now several times a day.

Answer 10

I bet you anything McCain would have handled this better.