If the liberals get their way and we quit fighting terrorist, what will happen if we get hit harder than 9-11?

Answer 1

it wont happen remember the proposed department of peace. these libs like the vicci french of 1939 will surrender to the ragheads.

Answer 2

OK, the statement that liberals want us to quit fighting terrorist IS a lie. Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. In fact the dishonest invasion of Iraq turned millions more Muslums against The USA, ergo: Bush has made the terrorist threat far worse. It's not a matter of if, but, when we get hit like 9/11 and it will be mostly the Bush administration's fault. The real enemies are in Pakistan , right now.

Answer 3

Nancy P's priority was putting in place the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report, which included border, port, airline security measures, and others that had not been addressed by the previous republican majority. Democrats' approach is realistic, logical and doesn't bankrupt the US. More effective is the surgical use of intelligence, cooperation with other countries and their intelligence agencies, funding and training FBI/CIA and directing them to police the right population. (not me, I'm not a terrorist) It wasn't funny when "someone" joked about not finding wmd's under his desk. Questions for you. Where do you get the idea that liberals don't want to fight terrorism? Do you understand that terrorism is not a country that you can bomb, but a tactic?

Answer 4

First of all, liberals and yes, good ole lack of morals Nancy P. have done absolutely nothing but complain. They have offered absolutely NO solutions to the terrorist problem other than to leave Iraq. Saddam needed to go. He may have not been directly involved with 9/11 but he was directly involved with terrorism in the middle east by sponsoring suicide bombings in Israel ($75,000 to the family of each bomber).

You CANNOT negotiate with terrorism. That was tried from 1992 to 2000 and it didn't work. I don't know why neo-libs keep blaming Bush and the Repubs for 9/11. It happened less than 1 year from the time the liberal god Clinton left office. I guess that the entire 9/11 scheme was hatched and planted in less than 9 months. Clinton and his 2 administrations did more to damage our ability to gather information of terrorists both here and abroad by nearly destroying the CIA and FBI and literally building "the wall" that was blamed for the FBI and CIA not talking to each other pre-9/11. Don't listen to all the liberal BS. They want to talk nice and play nice in the sandbox with a bully who doesn't want them on the block, much less in the sandbox. The best way to combat terrorism is with counter-terrorism. As long as the wimpy liberal left continues to refuse to get ugly with terrorists and for that matter radical islam in its entirety, there will be continued attacks. Let's just hope that we don't get a liberal president like Madamme Hillary Stalin in office. If we do, then take off your baseball hat and put on a turban guys, and ladies, don't bother with the make up, you can't see it through the burkas.

By the way former president (small letters on purpose) Clinton could have had Osama 3 times and let him go even after knowing that he was behind the bombings on Wall Street. Think of how many American lives that would have saved. Please don't tell me liberalism is good for this country. That my friend is an absolute LIE. Stand strong and vote conservative. A conservative vote is a vote for life, liberty, and the AMERICAN way of life.

Answer 5

We don`t want to stop fighting terrorist, we want to stop fighting insurgents. I would say the Bush loyalist have already quit fighting terrorist by invading a country that had nothing to do with 911. 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Bush pulls the troops out just like Osama Bin Laden wanted in the first place.

Answer 6

When was that ever the issue? We need to effectively fight them. Doing the same thing time and again and expecting different results is considered insanity by some (me, for one). Of course, if you think otherwise . . .

We are not effective in reducing the number of terrorists or the incidents of terrorist activities world-wide. We need a new strategy, not more of the same.

Answer 7

What will you neocons do if we are still fighting the war and get hit harder than 9-11?
Considering that the war isn't protecting mainland USA in any way, and may even be taking resources away from that - I see that as a more likely scenario.

Answer 8

We won't be hit harder because we have homeland security in place with all the checks to prevent it. So we are told.

If we should be hit harder we will deal with it. Scare tactics aren't working on me.

Answer 9

Too many people use "fighting terrorism" as a literal term for killing (Arab) people who hate us. I submit that a much more efficient way to "fight terrorism" would be to stop giving the Arab world so many reasons to want to kill Americans.

Of course, any such ideas are dismissed with nonsensical phrases like "blame-America-first," "soft on defense," and "they hate our freedom". In my opinion, too many options are taken off the table by people who define "terrorism" as a problem that can only be solved by brute force.

Answer 10

First of all your assertion that liberals intend to stop fighting terrorist is incorrect. I haven't heard a single member of this government say that they don't intend to continue to pursue Osama and Al-Qaida. There is a difference in opinion about the strategy to do that. And making false comments don't help the situation.

Answer 11

We aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq.

And if we get hit harder than 9/11, it will happen because we haven't adequately protected ourselves. One major terrorist attack like that should be all it takes to teach us how woefully inadequate our national security is.