Just weeks ago, Arkansas Republican chairman Dennis Milligan, who describes himself as “150 percent” behind Bush and his Iraq war, said in an on-the-record interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: “At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”
2007-07-12 15:29:09 · 29 answers · asked by naysayer 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The West needs more terror attacks on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7 in order to save a failing foreign policy, according to Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.
2007-07-12 15:36:42 · update #1
9/11 helped Mr Cheney change the country into what he wanted it to be. It put enough un-reasonable fear in people of both parties that they would go to war, change the consitution, and decrease the rights of citizens of all countries. When will people realize that the "terrorists" are reacting to our terrorism?
2007-07-13 05:27:35 · answer #1 · answered by ustoev 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For as long as the war lasts, Yes. GB, his oil-connected family, and oil-related corporations will continue to benefit BIG-time through all the oil used and purchased through our tax money for the purposes of war. This includes warships, airships, tanks, humvees..you name it. War is not cheap. Besides the cost of american lives, money spent to fuel the war will recycle back into the pockets of those who benefit from 9-11. Don't expect GB to ever pull out of Iraq or give up on (any) war - that would be a tragedy for him and his buddies.
Money and wealth is the key driver here. Some people put in government positions or individuals looking to make a profit could care less about 3000 americans. If you haven't noticed, times are getting rough and while there are millions in our population, losing a fraction of that for the potential profit of millions of dollars may not be so bad. Just as long as there is a solid plan to make sure you don't have a clue and could never believe or imagine such a thought.
With the collaboration of GB's connection to those in charge of Twin Tower security, Airplane Security, and his own power to command many entities within the government including the military and technology, 9-11 could not have been as successful. With the exception of a few loose ends which simply require FBI and other secret agencies to recover and confiscate. Little shreds of evidence can be put away quickly and cleanly without a trail.
2007-07-13 12:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton caused 9-11
2016-05-21 02:39:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush had nothing to do with 9-11. When the planes hit, everyone found out at the same time. My sympathies go out the families of all the victims. And I hope nothing like that ever happens again anywhere. I think the President did what had to be done to protect his country on that day.
2007-07-12 15:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by lotus1s 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Judging from all the Bush bashing lately, he probably would be better off if we were in a quiet, peaceful mode, without any 9/11. I remember when the whole country, republicans and democrats, were demanding we take action after 9/11. Bush did - now look at the thanks he gets.
If he had done nothing, he would have been branded even worse, though. History will sort this out, and he'll get ranked a little higher than what people think. I remember Reagan, looked how history treats him now.
2007-07-12 15:39:09 · answer #5 · answered by Action 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I bet that Prez. Bush would say you're an idiot for even thinking a thought like that.
Regardless of what Milligan says, 9/11 was good for no one, not Prez. Bush, not our country and not even the terrorists who have had a boot up their butts ever since.
2007-07-12 15:34:00 · answer #6 · answered by Rebecca 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ever noticed that as soon as a new poll comes out showing that Bush's support has dropped further through the floor, there's a new government warning of the coming terror?
"All in all, it's been a good year for Laura and me."
George W. Bush, in an interview of December 12, 2001.
2007-07-12 15:33:28 · answer #7 · answered by Austin W 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There was nothing good about 9/11 and you are taking this statement out context. What this really means is that some people who want us to just give up in Iraq won't wake up until terrorist attacks are common place here just as they are in the middle east. That day is coming.
2007-07-12 15:49:06 · answer #8 · answered by jim h 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i make take more 9-11 attacks to get people to realize the threat of Islamic radicalism, and that's a sad sad fact.
9-11 was the worst thing to happen to bush. George has done well on the economy, national defense, and taxes.
he has some gray areas but Iraq (well the media reporting on Iraq) ruined his rep.
2007-07-12 15:51:41 · answer #9 · answered by vituperative facetious wiseass 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The events that lead up to 9-11 are very odd if you do your research. I am not a total conspiracy theorist just yet. But I strongly believe that there are plenty of things we don't know. For one thing, I know we are simply over there to police Iraq.
If it was terrorists who attacked us, Bush took advantage of the situation. Remember, they attacked us because we were over there in the first place. So I doubt we are over there to protect our freedom. (Look at the Patriot Act)
2007-07-12 15:35:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋