that we should determine who is responsible and then retaliate? Is this a typical democratic response? Shouldn't we retaliate first and THEN determine who is responsible?
2007-04-29 05:47:05 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Note: I would hope that everybody would recognize that I am not serious with this question. It is a swiftian question.
2007-04-29 05:55:47 · update #1
Is this a typical Republican response, because it's a bit hard to retaliate when you don't know who is responsible. What would you like to do? Just start bombing people, anyone, and then find out they had nothing to do with it? Oh, yes, reflections of the non-connection between Iraq and 9/11, that IS what Republicans do, right? Make connections from b.s. intel and then act on it anyway.
So tell us, Sears Tower in Chicago and LAX in Los Angeles are blown up by terrorists, for example. Who are you going to attack before you find out who did it? Just whoever's bugging you at the time?
This question has got to be a joke, no one is this idiotic. Please tell me this is some sort of sarcasm that missed the mark.
EDIT: Well, I am relieved this isn't a serious question. But what someone else said is true. There are so many idiotic questions on here about Hillary that's it hard to know which ones are a joke and which ones are serious.
But you know what's even more telling? The people who took you seriously and tried to defend your position. Now THAT'S scary.
2007-04-29 05:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
You need to look up the word retaliate...by definition you can't retaliate first. Of course as a responsible Preident she would use all resources at her disposal to prevent such an attack, but if such a thing still happened, her response is appropriate.
Who should Bush have bombed or attacked before 9/11 that would have prevented it. Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? -- that wouldn't have worked the hijackers were already in this country.
PS the people who did 1993 WTC were captured, tried convicted and are in prison now.
PPS: It's hard to know who is being Swiftian or Ironic here on Y/A as there are plenty of people who would post such a question and be totally serious. But yeah, the irony is apparent when time for reflection is taken.
2007-04-29 12:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A cowboy shoot first ask questions later is not a good policy. Things really get mixed up. Obviously the bad guy is still on the lam while the less guilty are pounded by a sledge hammer when a fly swatter would have done the job.
2007-04-29 13:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like the neocons invaded Iraq when they had nothing to do with 911?
I should hope that Hillary's answer would apply to any and all Americans.
2007-04-29 12:52:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
HMM seems like she took a page out of the ol' Bush playbook. When we discovered that Afghanistan was partially to blame we took out the Taliban, We had intelligence that Iraq was harboring terrorists and making WMD's we took out Saddam. Seems like she would have done just what Bush did, the only difference is that Hillary would retreat where Bush will not.
2007-04-29 12:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by John K 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah and determing who retaliated first in WTC 1, embassy bombings, the USS cole, among countless other did a lot of good. We sat around and determined and then 9/11 happened.
2007-04-29 12:53:14 · answer #6 · answered by Billy 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, I believe that is more of a Republicans way of doing things. Shoot first, ask questions later. It is also a typical male response to act, then question.
2007-04-29 12:52:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
She Left out she would first appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel,
and would seek UN approval, then she put it up on a Website
to allow all Americans to voice their input, after that her Term ,
Would be up and it would be left up to the incoming President
to take the Proper Action. In other Words Pass the Buck.
2007-04-29 12:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Haha, that's the American way.
Someone stole my wallet! I'll just go and punch that creepy looking guy over there. I feel better now.
Oh, my wallet was in my pocket the whole time. Well, that guy had it coming anyway, he was creepy looking after all.
2007-04-29 12:54:24 · answer #9 · answered by Vegan 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's the same thing we did. They might have been off a little bit, but we had "intel" and we went after people with that. Hillary is anti-war, she would call it deplorable and not start a war. She is just saying what people want her to say, she isn't saying anything out of the box. Typical politics.
2007-04-29 12:52:52 · answer #10 · answered by The Angry Elephant 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋