how come his first response was not retaliation? He went on and on about how we need the international community to approve this and that.
How do we trust this fool to be President?
He has no qualifications. He has been a state senator in IL and a national Senator for 1 term.
2007-04-28 06:03:54 · 13 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What that is called in the private sector is "Management by committee". Basically when you are afraid to, or unqualified to make a decision... you take everything to committee to see how the wind is blowing before you make a decision.
That is scary!
2007-04-28 06:25:00 · answer #1 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Are you comfortable quoting O'Reilly????? What does not having recruiters on campuses could desire to do with al qaeda??? answer - no longer something!!!!! awaken. it is the Democrats that are stable on terror. it is the Republicans that are vulnerable on terror via helping a conflict in Iraq that has no longer something to do with the actual conflict on terror, different than that it has taken our components removed from it. you may desire to end listening to FOX and locate the actuality.
2016-10-14 00:21:14 · answer #2 · answered by hagensee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he's the best candidate, though I think he would make a good VP. Both him and Edwards fluffed this question until Hillary took the bull by the horns and answered "prudent retaliation." Then they tried to back peddle. I thought Obama was weak on most answers about Iraq to tell the truth.
2007-04-28 06:18:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course we need the international community on our side. First of all who are you going to attack, the country of Al Qaeda does not exist. This means we have a lot of work on our hands that other countries are going to need to help us with in locating Al Qaeda groups. Retaliation is fighting fire with fire, violence with violence, hatred with hatred, and what does it accomplish?...breeding more hatred for more retaliation.
2007-04-28 06:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by healthyleeroy 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Obama has not shown me that he was a fool, yet. I do not agree with his political views. I do no trust him enough to even consider voting for him.
That said, I do not trust the fool in office right now anymore
2007-04-28 06:16:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
His lack of experience was evident. He is not ready to run for the Presidency.
2007-04-28 06:30:48 · answer #6 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We don't. Because Bush is getting so much flack for standing for what he believes is the best for our country, the dem candidates will always go the other direction. Is this how they truly feel? Probably not. But they will say what will get them the nomination.
2007-04-28 06:08:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
that makes him as qualified as any dem on the list
but the bar is set low for dems
ps
to guitar man--whats your problem with janitorial workers,,are you better than them,
you sorry ,lowlife,scum sucking, liberal, democrat, pile of dog vomit
2007-04-28 06:26:48 · answer #8 · answered by jose 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he has no clue, but then again I have never heard of a liberal that does,
The only democrat that had a clue was forced to become an independent.
2007-04-28 06:12:54 · answer #9 · answered by 007 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
he had NO answer, it was pathetic.
its scary is what it is that this guy and mrs impeachment are the two best candidates the democrats have. sick.
2007-04-28 06:13:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋