And please don't make this a question about Edwards.
Do you agree with the statement and do you think this would be good/bad for the country?
2007-10-26 09:39:48 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yup, I agree completely. Rudy's a little weasel who has to play tough like Bush. He'll start a war with Iran for sure. It would be terrible for the country, we're already broke.
2007-10-26 09:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
This statement doesn't concern me in the least - I am more concerned the Edwards finds this statement apparently detrimental to Giuliani and beneficial to him.
We need to either fight this war or get out and eventually accept the terrorists' demands or start all over again with another war later on against this ideology. I really think it is naive to think that the terrorists are going to just disappear into the sun set if we scurry off with our tails between our legs. Our previous inaction and no effective response to terror attacks only resulted in more terror attacks - and arguable culminated in the events of 9/11.
2007-10-26 10:32:01 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
exceptionally lots. each time he's justifying some relatively incorrect act, he starts babbling "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, conflict on terror, 9/11". it relatively is indubitable. sure, i might desire to confirm all of the Bushies stand trial for Crimes against Humanity. that could in basic terms be appropriate. Dem sweep? do no longer count quantity your chickens earlier they are hatched. Republicans stole 2 presidential elections in a row; and Bush needless to say has no admire fo rthe shape. the only reason i do no longer think of he will in basic terms stay in place of work is he's in basic terms too prepared to flow back to Crawford and drink himself to dying.
2016-10-14 03:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by leckie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes but, not so much a military man.
Giuliani can make your world come apart without firing a shot.
Ask John Gotti and Sammy the Bull.
The banks, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA? Trust me. You think they're out of control now, he'll take the muzzles off.
Osama really will be a missing person.
2007-10-26 09:46:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that it would be great, if Guiliani wins, and carries on with Bush's agenda...I like tax cuts, and I like the idea that the country's security is being guarded....
I don't trust any of the libturd candidates. They would sell us out in a heart-beat.
2007-10-26 09:58:24 · answer #5 · answered by george s 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Guiliani IS an out of control steroid. He has his own little following which will make little difference because he will never be president.
and yes Edwards is correct. There are several other issues .bout Guiliani that have yet to surfacen
2007-10-26 10:01:52 · answer #6 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know about that. Rudy is a little paunchy. I'm sure if GWB started taking steroids he'd be in much better shape than Rudy.
2007-10-26 10:12:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean a steroid induced babbling moron would be good for anti-terror? I really don't thing you are being fair.. to put Bush and Giuliani in the same sentence. :)
2007-10-26 09:47:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
lol, that's a great way to put it, i completely agree with your statement. It seemed like he was able to take care of his city after 9/11 and that's great. But......that's the extent of his terrorist experience. He's supposed to be the candidate with the best knowledge and experience dealing with terrorists, when he just happened to be in a certain geographic location with a certain civil position when the attacks happened. He might better convince me and others of his knowledge if say, perhaps he actually VISITED Iraq for instance.
2007-10-26 10:08:05 · answer #9 · answered by blackjack_cherry 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Honestly. Who is John Edwards?
2007-10-26 09:45:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋