when the next attack comes , will they blame.................?

Question

will dems blame Bush or blame the attackers.
the american policy should be , if we are attacked with dirty bombs. someone will pay .
state they action will be up front. nukes not off the table . the price to be paid will be 10 times. you infer iran, n. korea ,syria and france.
we don't care ,if there proof or not . one of them will pay.

france only because they're back-stabbers.

Answer 1

i haven't seen any answer . what should we do the if we are attacked. just blast Bush! no answers.
the France comment was a joke. that right. liberals have no humor, only when they are comedians.
by standing together it makes others think twice on attacking
us.

Answer 2

We blame Bush because he's president and that's his job to protect America. If you have a body guard, and he allows you to get attacked, well who gets the immediate blame? How can you not blame a president if we get attacked when it will be his second time we're attacked that he's in office? Just because someone is against Bush doesn't make them a "liberal". It makes them an intelligent person. I'm sorry to tell you this but Bush isn't the manifestation of a conservative. Funny how the most touted "conservative" presidents have been fiscally irresponsible. Reagnomics anyone? Let's get this straight: we increase military expenditures and cut revenues (taxes). Then there is huge debt and stagnant economy. You think the "conservatives" would have learned their lesson in the early 1900's after they drove us into the biggest decline in American history. But no, Reagan drove us near the brink again. So what does Bush Jr do? THE SAME THING. Supply-side economics is alot like buying a jaguar and quitting your job, then wondering why you're in debt.

Answer 3

Lets see.

Almost six years have passed since the WTC attacks on 9/11.

Americas borders are still wide open, and we've pissed off millions of muslims, and wasted any sympathy we had from the rest of the world.

Arrogance, ignorance, and fear-based politics led to the invasion and subsequent occupation of a country that has repeatedly been shown to have had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Meanwhile we are still stuck fighting in Afghanistan after failing to find Osama Bin Laden. Most of the attackers were Saudis, but due to Dubya's families links to that country, we didn't do anything to them. Israel sits back and laughs, because they hate muslims anyway, and are happy to watch us do their work for them. Iran sits back and laughs too, because we took out one of their #1 enemies.

Every single security agency's reports have shown that this administrations actions have not managed to slow terrorist recruitment and activity, but instead have actually been increasing it.

When the next attack comes, you are damn right I will blame George W. Bush and his bunch of sycophantic cronies. They ignored the warnings leading up to 9/11, and with this invasion/occupation have wasted hundreds billions that could have been spent securing our country, an gauranteeing that nothing like that ever happened again.

They fire anyone who disagrees with their plans, which they had drawn up years ago. Do a little reading about the 'PNAC' and you will see that they had been itching to do this for some time now - and were only lacking a catalyzing event like 'another pearl harbor' (their exact words). They got it on 9/11, and have been wrong about every single thing since.

Answer 4

A quote from someone you obviously agree with and probably admire:

Hermann Goering, second in command of the Third Reich and key founder of the Nazi party, said; “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger”.

Answer 5

I'm not really sure what your question is, but I would sure love to see all the rabid neocons on this site blaming the attackers and doing something about it, rather than linking the Iraqi civil war to 9/11, blaming liberals for Bush's failure and generally passing the buck.

When do you think that might start?

Answer 6

if we had that type of attitude before 9/11 then we wouldn't be in Iraq now. Make those responsible pay? that would be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen.
So are you for or against Bush????

Answer 7

When the next attack comes, you can blame Bush for his failure to invest in securing our borders.

Our harbors are still easy targets for delivering weapons of mass destruction. Our borders are still open and allowing all determined people to cross.

Rather than waste our efforts and resources elsewhere, the president has an obligation to fund real solutions rather than to continue the empty and useless homeland security rhetoric.

Answer 8

To start with, there are no "dirty bombs" out there. There is actually no such thing and, if there was such a device, it would be easily detected by even the most inept security at any of our airports.
A counterattack is defensable, when an attack has been mounted, but words like, "someone will pay", are reactionary, unstrategic and poorly thought out. The truely tough do not need to advertise it. Those that speak of France as "backstabbers" have a very poor knowledge of world history. The notion that France owes the U.S. is based on misinterpretations of recent history too complicated to even try to explain in this forum.

Answer 9

I'll blame crazy right wingers like yourself. Make sure you drink lots of coffee so you don't fall asleep.

Answer 10

lol....everyone blames Bush for everything...