They have made the world a more dangerous place for Americans.
Why don't cons admit that since 9/11 we even had an Anthrax attack on our congress that the conservative administration wants us to forget about because it reminds us of their chickenhawk status??
2007-04-28 02:31:15 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Proof that CONs cant read: the Anthrax attacks were AFTER 9/11
2007-04-28 02:42:56 · update #1
Many attacks in American occupied Iraq picking off our soldiers.
Damn GWB to Hell.
2007-04-28 02:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 6⤊ 7⤋
Things that you overlooked and or ignored:
1. The State dept.? Reliable? I think not...
2. 400%? OK
3. Islamo Fascism has existed for well over 1200 yrs, and they have been on the attack ever since then...
4. Consider the mainstream media's agenda?
5. How did the Clinton administration deal with terrorism hmm? I think that if you researched a bit, you'd learn that they were quite lax, to put it mildly...
6. Granted Bush's leadership and most of his policies are pathetic, but at least he recognizes the enemy...
7. Ask yourself who are responsible for allowing the flood/invasion of illegal aliens into our country, especially the tens of thousands of middle easterners that are and or aiding terrorists... I believe the Dems had the wheel at that time...
8. Isn't it possible that the world has been a much more dangerous place since the Islamo Fascists rose up in mass numbers worldwide, thus attacking, mass murdering, attempting genocide, forcing their ill will upon others, and infiltrating governments while hiding behind their so-called religion, as well as hiding behind women and children, not to mention using women and children as human weapons?
9. Cannot some of this inhuman behavior be directed toward the extremely wealthy and powerful elitists that create more wealth and power via investments and ownership of WMD manufactures, suppliers, and purchasers?
10. Do any of us really know the truth?
2007-04-28 03:13:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The official Democratic line from Senator Reid, (Senate Majority Leader) is that the war in Iraq is lost.
The Dem's have officially said they want to shut-down Gitmo and release the terrorist detained there.
The Democrats have reduced the effectiveness of the NSA to monitor terrorist communications...
27 April 2007 a second global 9-11 was crushed!!! 170 terrorist plotting to blow-up oil production in the Middle East with suicide airplanes was stopped.
Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi!!! al Qaeda's most senior and most experienced operatives was captured and sent to Gitmo
It's been 5 1/2 years since there was an attack in the US, it's only a matter of time before we get attacked again with the Dem's in charge.
Post your garbage all you want, if anything keeps a Democrat out of the White House in 2008 it will be there obvious weakness on national security.
2007-04-28 13:41:01 · answer #3 · answered by Vicki1970 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You missed one important point.
Yes the anthrax scare was after 9/11, but way before we went into Iraq.
So I guess your entire claim has falsehoods.
Where's your links of proof?
Given your rhetoric, I could just as easily say that terrorism was at 800% before Bush took office.
2007-04-28 02:55:59 · answer #4 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Every time I hear something like "no attacks here" I want to puke. It's an attitude that says "we're safe so f uck everyone else". It's an attitude that can make us complacent and virtually guarantee that there will be another attack in the US.
2007-04-28 02:45:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
OK, if we have seen a 400% increase in terrorist attacks, what was the previous % of terrorist attacks? What is your source for the 400%? If you want your question answered correctly, then you must provide a source and not just make a claim!
2007-04-28 02:44:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
You must remember that before 9/11 the U.S. was policing many Nations with terrorist coos and threats, now that it's happened here we are devoted to our war with Iraq and have left many nations to fend for themselves.
2007-04-28 02:38:21 · answer #7 · answered by Mo 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, then they accomplished their goal, you see!
They are in Iraq to fight a "war on terror", so what better way than to destabilize a country, have insurgents from neighboring lands coming in to fight the hated West, while clearing Iraq of all it's good citizens and creating new ones to hate us in the future who will become new terrorists!
It's another great unwinnable war!
2007-04-28 02:45:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
yawn...another liberal an need of a fact checker.
african embassy bombings,,,,clinton no response
first wtc....clinton no repsonse
uss cole...clinton no response....
at least six separate chances to capture or kill bin laden in sudan...clinton...no response.
second wtc
bush immediate response
no known successfull attack on us soil since.
SEE A PATTERN DEVELOPING LIBERAL???
the idea here is al qaeda doesnt want to hold hands with you and sing kumbayah..they want you dead.
and you want to fire who????
the answer is no ...now get off mom and dads computer before you get spanked..theyll get mad.
2007-04-28 03:43:59 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Totally, its like theyre setting the trap for dangerous things to happen and then telling people that if theyre voted off the island that everything will go crazy. Yeah I bet it will and I bet they'll be behind it.
2007-04-28 02:50:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I love liberal logic! next time gang bangers shoot up a neighborhood lets not send the police after them, after all you will just piss them off and make them commit even more violence.(Yeah that's the solution)
2007-04-28 04:07:42 · answer #11 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋