2007-07-07 14:30:37 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
all of them because they know liberals dont believe in fighting back.
2007-07-07 14:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by Abbey loves Jesus 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Of course they can't go wrong with a liberal. We had more attacks under Clinton than any president in history. Since Bush took the fight to the terrorists there have been none. I don't know why libs don't know this, but is likely because a lot of pro-America facts aren't covered by Cobert or Stewart.
I'm guessing bin laden harbors warm feelings for the Clintons given that they never really tried to catch him.
2007-07-07 22:29:39 · answer #2 · answered by T D 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm guessing that Muslim extremists would root for a candidate who most successfully fanned the flames of Islamist hatred by invading an Arab nation, occupying it while its citizens slaughtered each other, and appropriating its oil. Since Al-Qaeda and the like claim this is what America wants to do to the entire Middle East, I guess a president with that approach would best suit their needs by swelling the ranks of recruits and easing the flow of arms and funding from less than friendly Muslim states who were outraged by such acts.
Wait a minute-
2007-07-07 21:37:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i am thinking probably rudy giuliani or hillary clinton. (i don't like obama, but of all of the top democrats, he is the least evil because he tries to be a populist at least (so we know he won't give amnesty to illegals, despite 80% of americans being so pissed that they jammed the phone system in washington.)
2007-07-07 22:06:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The ranks seem to have increased significantly since Bush took office...so probably someone who follows Bush's lead!
2007-07-07 21:46:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Probably Hillary Clinton
2007-07-07 21:45:34 · answer #6 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
They'd probably want to vote Bush in for a 3rd term, I mean being able to kill 3500+ Americans without even leaving their backyard? Why would they want a president that would take that away from them?
On Edwards, you people on the right have been taking this bumper sticker crap way too out of context for far too long.
On Obama, he didn't go to a Muslim school as a child, quit perpetuatring this falsehood
2007-07-07 21:39:47 · answer #7 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Giuliani BY A MILE. He is the terrorists best friend, OBVIOUSLY.
Pathetic fool didn't even know enough to keep his command center out of WTC after the 1993 attack.
He was too busy posing for the media like the phony excrescence he is to get the recovery workers respirators.
Typical wussy phony effette Republican drone, kowtowing to the terrorists.
2007-07-07 21:34:11 · answer #8 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 8⤊ 3⤋
in reality, the president of the united states has very little impact on terrorist organizations. if they want to strike the US bad enough, it will happen. NO MATTER WHAT.
2007-07-07 21:45:32 · answer #9 · answered by Kevy 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think all the Dems are subject to scrutiny.
If extremists are funding any of them, it would be through a maze of foundations, but I do think they are being funded by the extremists and that should scare us all.
Why didn't Carter go after the hostages? Why didn't Clinton go after Osama and the terrorists of the U.S.S. Cole.
2007-07-07 21:36:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Edwards says the war on terrorism is all a bumper sticker but Obama went to a muslim school as a child. If they were wise they would pick Hillerbilly because she would cause the most damage to the country.
2007-07-07 21:36:11 · answer #11 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋