How many of you want another attack to vindicate Bush?

Question

If is nuclear will it be blamed on Iran even though they are about 10 yrs away from developing one?
and if is planes would it be blamed on Al queida?

What ever happen to Bin Laden and 911 attack? Did we ever get the people responsible?

Answer 1

A nuke attack - from Iran - not likely - north korea is the most likly candidate for that to happen

No - if its the Iran problem you want to ignite - it will have to be because of the shitie/sunni issue - they arent ready for nuclear war yet - its just bush's GUT feeling that something bad is gonna happen from them - LOL

Nothing that will ever happen that will vindicate bush - he broke the law and everyone incongress is letting it go - they shoudl have impeached him during the first term

Answer 2

Nope. Bush and Cheney are still free. What makes you think another attack will vindicate him? No one knows who all is involved in planning these things. Isn't it odd that right after Bush's Daddy's group says that a "Pearl Harbor" type event is needed to gain support for Bush's agenda, we have one??? ISn't it odd that after 9-11, the only airplane allowed to fly anywhere in the US was the one that left the country with Bin Laden's family on it? Isn't it odd that the World Trade Center had just had a new insurance policy written on it days before 9-11? Isn't it odd that numerous "un-named" Americans "sold short" American airline stocks (predicting they would plumet) the day before 9-11? Isn't it odd that the WTC, which on any other day would have 50,000 people inside, had only about 10,000 total that particular day? Isn't it odd that the plane just happened to hit a part of the Pentagon where no one happened to be walking or working -- and that there were no passengers bodies found from that plane, and no engines or wings??? And isn't it odd that at least 7 of the 19 terrorists named in the 9-11 attacks, who supposedly died on the planes, were seen alive and well within a month after 9-11, and they were never listed on the passenger lists to begin with - yet the government knew their names immediately after the crashes?

Answer 3

Bush is so stupid, he didn't realize that his "greatest success" -- deposing Saddam -- robbed him of his best chance for vindication, which would have been a Saddam-launched attack on us. It was never going to come in the six years left to his Presidency. So, assuming Saddam lived and stayed in power through 1-20-2009 (he'd have been 71, so it's possible he could have died of natural causes), he'd have had a better chance then than in 2003.

If anything, it was the Clinton people who were vindicated: They warned Bush that al-Qaeda was going to be the bigges threat, and he chose not to pay attention to them. After all, they were the Clinton people and not to be trusted. On this issue, he should have trusted them.

Answer 4

Wow Unconsitutional? that's an extremely unhappy day for usa. Why dont you carry out a splash examine? did you understand the Federal Courts upheld wiretaps on enemy communications with out a warrant distinctive situations? each and every president in historic previous has intercepted communications from the enemy with out a warrant. Lincoln did it as quickly as we've been combating the Civil conflict. Truman did it throughout WWII. Hell all of us's loved BJ Clinton did it! Hell did you understand that each and every thing on the information superhighway is going by using a database which comprise your emails? Whose administration set that up ohhh wait BJ Clinton. became there a great hype? nope! those wiretaps at the instant are not getting used for criminal courtroom, they're getting used against the enemy that's risk-free by making use of u . s . a . v. u . s . a . District courtroom, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Oh and by making use of ways the 4th modification protects us from "unreasonable" seek and seizure, not warrantless seek and seizure. purely ought to throw that throughout there for ya. So i assume that's a great victory on your libs huh? terrorists can now plan different terrorist assaults conveniently.

Answer 5

If Bush had gone after bin Laden right away instead of invading Iraq (and justifying it with lies), we'd have him by now. Instead he went on record as not caring about bin Laden and using 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq.

Answer 6

i wanna murder him brand him with the mark of the beast then melt out his eyes with hot oil as its because of him this whole war thing started which made the UK (us) or should i say our dumb priminister join to help bush and now the blow our city up just only 1 week ago some punks tried it

and now we have received a video tape from binladens

right right right right right right hand man (well every time i see the news he some how has another right hand man)

saying he will send more suicide bombers if we don't get out of there land


bring it on $uCKERS

oh man id love to come across a terrorist down a dark ally lol

Answer 7

You were in a coma when you posed this question right! because it is a dumb question another attack to vindicate Bush,are you for real or not too bright which one is it.
that is all I have to say when it comes to stupid questions like this that you look for us to answer next time trying asking something that has a little intelligence to it.

Answer 8

Why would anyone want another attack. Ahh, the theoretical attacks on the president have started. This should be entertaining.

Answer 9

How bout that! Jose knows more about Iran's nuclear program that the rest of the world intelligence agency's combined! Way to go Jose!

Answer 10

Personally I don't wish another attack on anyone, anywhere at any time to try and vindicate anyone.