can we say the Republicans are doing a good job on the war on terror?
We have invested MILLIONS in Pakistan and yet they've never helped us capture/kill Bib laden. Now they are pulling major moves in Pakistan.
To me, it's pretty obivious that we've given Bush EVERY tool he's needed to succeed yet he still fails. And somehow, people lean to Republicans to be "tough on terror," what a joke in light of the facts. It's the opposite, they've lost this war, and it won't be won until we get a Democrat for president.
2007-12-27 07:16:56 · 12 answers · asked by Crystal S 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
G-MAN: Please note that we started giving money and help to Pakistan MORE after 9/11, when Bush was in power, as he is now. His policies on this war have been a disaster and he's had trillions to play with and has destroyed the American economy in this failed effort to defeat terrorists.
At the very least, he should've gotten Bin laden by now. Shame on this administration for squandering TRILLIONS and letting our troops die for NOTHING in return! We've seen NO SUCCESS after investing our money and the lives of our fallen troops.
2007-12-27 07:29:14 · update #1
In addition: Having Pakistan in a debstalizied state BENEFITS terrorists because they have nukes, so how can we call this a brilliant Repulican strategy? They are HELPING terrorists!
2007-12-27 07:33:23 · update #2
yep exactly,masharaff won't even let us look for al queida and bin laiden when we know they're there.also we know pakistan has nuclear weapons and we know pakistan harbor terrorist and is unstable seeing they're assainated the opposing political leaders over there,but iran is the big threat isn't it fox news and bush because they're trying to develope the bomb when pakistan already has the bomb and is harboring terrorist.
yes lets blame clinton as always when clinton was getting ready to leave office in 1999 and richard clarke stated in his book clinton opted to go after bin laiden but republicans said it would be a waste of time and money,he even opted to go after saddam hessein but what did republican dick cheney have to say about that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzGGS6GXVIY
2007-12-27 07:21:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You bl;ame Bush for this. Um, you do know that Bhutto was not a recognized member of the government, therefore the Pakistanis had no reason to spend money to protect her. Oh and since you guys are so mad at Bush for making us look bad to the world, how do you think we would look if we were seen to be meddling in Pakistani politics?
Musharraf came to power under Clinton. Didn't hear any of you guys whining about it then.
2007-12-27 07:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
To coin your phrase:
In light of the assassination in Pakistan today, it is obvious that the war on terror still needs to be fought.
If it still isn't obvious that these Islamic extremists will do anything and everything to destroy us then there is no hope for those of your kind.
Bush has not failed, nor have our troops. Failure will be at the hands of a Democrat!
2007-12-27 07:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by LadySable 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why is it Bush's responsibility to protect a former prime minister of a country on the other side of the world. I'm no Bush fan, but I don't think you can blame him for this, unless you think the US government helped with her assassination, which is a distinct possibility. Musharaf's weenie is so far up Bush's ***, we'd do practically anything he wanted us to do...
2007-12-27 07:23:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
r U dumb? We are winning and killing the terrorist at their home base no attack on the USA in 6 yrs... we paid for Billyboys soft stretagy w/ 9/11 and he paid 5 B to n. korea not to develope the nuke lol... we know Musharaf killed Bhuto but if we throw him out than what we'll get some one who works w/ Iran or Russia? U have no clue...
2007-12-27 07:26:15 · answer #5 · answered by ss 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As for the Clinton responces....Clinton is NOT THE PRESENT PRESIDENT!
George W.Bush IS..................nuff said!
My only fear of the Democrats getting in to power is the "Illegal Alien" Issue & Amnesty. I boast of 'no Party', I vote the Man or Woman, NOT the Party!
If you thought Bush/Kennedy were bad with agreeing to a Plan that never succeeded...JUST WAIT....the Democrats will give away the 'store' (Country) to "ILLEGAL" Aliens!
As many have said before, "WHAT PART OF 'ILLEGAL' DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND"?
2007-12-27 07:30:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It still has massive political implications. Johnson was way left of JFK. He gave us the War on Poverty, He enslaved many black people again by putting them in the housing projects, all in the name of getting votes. All politics moved farther to the left after 1963
2016-04-11 03:36:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if any terrorist attack ANYWHERE in the world means a failure, then I guess you are right on the money.
I don't remember many successes out of the previous administration on the terror front (USS Cole, First WTC bombing, etc...)
2007-12-27 07:23:07 · answer #8 · answered by Citicop 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh yes, I am positive that you could do a better job, and if given the chance, you would be willing to show our CIA and intelligence forces up. Problem is that you would never be able to live on the reward money, huh?
2007-12-27 07:22:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Keep in mind it was a Democrat named Bill Clinton that let Osoma Bin Laden leave Sudan, even after Sudan promised to use their people to get him and hand him over to us. Clinton like Bush failed horribly in combating terror.
2007-12-27 07:21:47 · answer #10 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋