This was no argument to turn voters in 2004. One may not like George Bush but very few would accept that he was in cohoots to attack America.
He was voted in again because his opponent was John Kerry and the majority of America did not like John Kerry (didn't like him even more than they didn't like Bush). The Democrats should have won that election, but they gave us an awful candidate. This is generally the rule with Democrats that Republicans can almost always count on...even when it appears hopeless for the Republicans...simply wait and the Democrats will work hard to give the hope right back (to the Republicans). The Democrats worst enemy is the Democrat.
2007-06-17 01:22:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Calvin 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Bin Laden bombed the WTC only 8 months into his first term. The plan was being formed way before he started his first term started. Couldnt I ask the same question as you regarding Bill Clinton?? After all, the WTC was bombed early in his 1st term, and he was elected to a second. Sorry, I digress.
At the end of Bush's first term, the economy was booming. (Still is by the way). The American ppl were still supporting the war effort, and the best guy the dems could come up with was that lying stiff John Kerry, perhaps if the left had a better candidate than him they could have gained the presidency.
2007-06-17 08:04:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Johnny Conservative 5
·
5⤊
0⤋
What? Bush has done more for the security of this country than the last one in the oval office, who spent more time chasing skirts, and scamming along with raising taxes and assuring us of BIG government. Are you unhappy because he at least has done something for the economy which is stronger now than ever? Why wasn't Bin Laden taken out before when the former president knew of what he was doing, and all the terrorist attacks during that presidency were pushed under the rug? If you believe any of the liberal slander spewed by Michael Moore than I may be wasting my breath. The liberals will do all they can to discredit a conservative president. But the truth is evident to those who wish to find it.
2007-06-17 08:16:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Moody Red 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
You have a short memory. Osama bin Laden was disowned by his family many years before the bombing. OBL was also expelled from his own country, Saudi Arabia, long before the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Bush was not "involved" with the bin Laden family. Mr. Bush was re-elected because he did a good job during his first term and was way more desirable than his opponent, Mr. Kerry...who served in Viet Nam.
2007-06-17 08:01:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
Why do you think he's NOT going after Osama Bin Laden now? The family can make things awfully bad for the Bush's. Instead he made up lies to invade Iraq. He wasn't elected in 2000, and I don't believe he was elected in 2004....the stats prove Kerry was a winner in the exit polls...these polls were NEVER wrong before in our history. Many democrats weren't allowed, by one method or another, to vote...Many democratic votes were eliminated. We've had an unelected "Resident" for over 6 years, time to impeach the crooks involved including the sideshow puppet, Bush.
2007-06-17 10:35:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by little timmie 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
1. Define "involved". You act like they were best friends enjoying dinner every Sunday.
2. Osama was an "estranged" member of the Bin Laden family.
3. So, let's even give you your 1st point. In your fantasy world, they are bosom buddies. So, your best friend's son breaks the law, and you abandon your best friend because of it?
4. Even if I give you all your points, what are you trying to imply? If someone knows someone and they commit a crime, then they are responsible? Guilty by association?
5. The choice was John Kerry. Enough said.
2007-06-17 08:05:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by kitty_cat_claws_99 5
·
6⤊
0⤋
He wasn't, his father was in the 70's and not Osama. Bush Sr and bin ladens father were friends because the elder bin laden was in construction in the middle east and here in the States.
2007-06-17 11:06:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the Bush family was involved in business with the bin Laden family. No idea about now.
I guess Bush was just very popular after the tragic and horiffic events on 9/11. I guess he just went into the wrong direction regarding Iraq.
You can't hide things whenever you are devising any strategy. I think the first answer had a good point. Americans can be gullible.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
2007-06-17 08:02:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Zabanya 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Bush came back at the American people with fear based tactics and stated false information about Saddam having WMD's in Iraq. Saddam didn't have the weapons of mass destruction and the Bush Administration lost several of it's staff from the lie. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying and protecting Dick Cheney over this issue and will go to prison within the next 45 day's. No body in America trust's anything George Bush says, he is a Lame Duck President with a 27% approval rating. Sources: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
2007-06-17 11:49:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by leonard bruce 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
many reasons. after 9/11 he and his administration constantly bombarded the american public with fearful innuendo about pending attacks from iraq (although there never has been a link), including the threat of nuclear attack. the american public, in general, likes to believe the government they electt will be honest about such matters. history teaches us otherwise, but americans are a trusting people. on tthe domestic front, gay marriages were on pushed to the forefront, iin an effort to create panic that our values were being attacked from outside as well as inside. people typically take the path of least resistance. this administration has also been the most secretive of governmentts--most people don't know what is going on. so many more reasons.
2007-06-17 12:29:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by quiet 3
·
0⤊
1⤋