Since most of todays terrorists claim to be Muslim and Muslims don’t seem to respect women especially as leaders of countries could this be a problem?
2007-07-18 11:15:11 · 14 answers · asked by Frankie 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No...Bush is the one they hate.
2007-07-18 11:41:51 · answer #1 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now that is a stretch, even by the weak standards of the new McCarthyites. I can see old Joe now, waving his papers and hollering, "I have a list of known Liberals!"
Since Mrs. Clinton is smarter than Bush and/or Cheney, I imagine we would be safer. Since she would get our people out of a place they are no longer welcome, and are actually impeding the reestablishment of civil order, they will be safer.
Frankly, the use of what terrorists might think about any of our leaders as an excuse to vote one way or another is more appeasing than any of the proposals I have heard from the left. It shames you. Would you use the same shameful excuses if it were Ms. Rice? What on Earth was Bush thinking, sending her to meet with the Arabs?
2007-07-18 18:51:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope! No one in the world respects stupidity. They use it period. This current president is dumb as mud and all his administration use it. Hillary at least has a brain and a spine. I have normally been (R), all my adult life and voting age. I live in Texas. And at this point I just want a responsive government that does not give the rich any favors. Time they shouldered their share of the load in both blood and money. At this point, with me it is not just so much George W. Bush, as Condi Rice trying to equal Colin Powell, at least he quit in formal disgust. And it is especially Dick Cheney with his smirk, half smile, slouch, and all his body language that says he much too good for any of us ordinary Americans. If I have to vote (D) next election, fine. I want them all out and someone who will listen to us!
2007-07-18 18:49:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Her policies will be much more important than her gender. Islamists already have enough amunition to attack America on moral/relgious issues, "they're led by a woman" would be a drop in the bucket.
So, no, not for that reason.
2007-07-18 18:23:00 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
It would be like any other president who takes the title of Commander In Cheif.
2007-07-18 18:21:20 · answer #5 · answered by want1_jc101 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hillary would drag this nation to it's knees, one because she a appeaser and two because she's a women, your right Arab countrys won't conduct business much less political meetings directly with a women.
2007-07-18 18:21:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
no single elected person is going to put us more at risk ... or party for that matter
this argument is so silly
2007-07-18 18:37:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. She's part of the CFR. That's all I need to say.
2007-07-19 09:45:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they had better respect those enormous calves. think of the damage she could cause....omg.
2007-07-18 18:25:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yup!
2007-07-18 18:26:49 · answer #10 · answered by @#$%^ 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋