The nation will remember that for seven years and counting there has not been a major terrorist attack on the nation since 9/11.
Bush kept us safe, far safer than any predicted. Committees can go on writing reports of this failure of this or that department, but they cannot hide the fact that Bush and his government has been competent enough to keep us safe.
The next President, like the next Congress, will continue the fight that Bush has begun, just as in all our great wars, the United States will win.
Democrats will fracture between the insanity of those who wish our defeat and the responsible wing of the party which also will do as Bush is doing but with greater modifications.
2007-07-17 06:19:11 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Can you prove there would have been attacks without any action? Didn't think so.
2007-07-17 06:22:12 · answer #1 · answered by marie 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
You've have really bought into the fear-mongerers propoganda...hook...line and sinker...haven't you??
United we stand...divided we fall. The security and safety of our Nation is NOT a Dems vs Reps issue...no matter how much either side would have you believe.
Your decision to define "keeping us safe" in such narrow terms...means that ultimately you think Jimmy Carter did an even better job of keeping us all "safe" than the current administration...right? Since there was only one attack on "American Soil" during his Presidency (AKA The US Embassy in Tehran, Iran)...and comparatively few people were hurt or killed as a result??!!
And...REALLY...what your saying is that since more Americans died on US soil during the 9/11 attacks than at any other time in US history (save for the Revolutionary and Civil War eras)...you must feel that nearly EVERY President in the history of the country has done a better job "keeping us safe" than our current leader...Republican or Democrat...right??
Lie to yourself about how "safe" we are if you must...but revising history won't make it so.
2007-07-17 13:55:01 · answer #2 · answered by widewillie 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
Bush has committed this nation to a mistake that he refuses to admit, and will soon be the Democrats responsibility to clean up after.
The nation remembers that Dubya sat in a classroom reading 'My Pet Goat' as planes crashed into the WTC.
Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden, invaded and currently occupies Iraq at a massive cost in human life and your grandchildrens grandchildrens tax money.
This is not a great war.
It was one Bush CHOSE to fight, and due to arrogance, ignorance, and cronyism, he has failed.
Miserably.
And now we get to pay the consequences.
2007-07-17 13:26:48 · answer #3 · answered by Joe M 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If Dubya was doing such a good job he would of prevented the 9/11 attacks. Do you remember the 9/11 commission?
2007-07-17 13:32:52 · answer #4 · answered by tender loving dyke 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Have you realized that if Bush had listend to the CIA more carefully, rather then spending more time out golfing with his daddy, America might not have even been attacked on 9-11???? It's not a coincidence that we were attacked-under a president who got less popular votes than his opponent.
2007-07-17 13:28:37 · answer #5 · answered by MrEntrepreneur 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
are you sure? the people don't remember the long years Clinton kept us safe after the bombing in his term... I think you are being overly optimistic on that.
We will probably have SOME level of troop activity in Iraq for years to come.. the question that the next election will answer is how many.
None in my party want defeat. They just don't agree with your definition of victory at all cost.
2007-07-17 13:24:48 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Some 72% of the people seem unwilling to face it - even if that includes every democrat and every independent, it'd have to include some Republicans, too.
2007-07-17 13:23:15 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"The nation will remember that for seven years and counting there has not been a major terrorist attack on the nation since 9/11. "
how do we know that this wouldn't have been the case with just about any other president in office
2007-07-17 13:22:50 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
We had no major attacks on US soil while Clinton was in office, so he must have been even better than Bush....keep telling yourself that Republicans have a chance in '08...America's not buying the scare tactics anymore.
2007-07-17 13:24:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thanks for this.
My opinion is that if the dems get into the White House, the president will sing a different tune when he gets access to the intelligence that fuels the decision making in DC.
2007-07-17 13:25:34 · answer #10 · answered by Free To Be Me 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I doubt if a dem gets into office they'll stop international phone call monitoring.
2007-07-17 13:21:44 · answer #11 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋