It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mwm1331
The real queston you need to ask is what happens if there is an attempted major strike which is foiled because of Bush's policies?
Originally posted by mwm1331
Im reminded of a quote by I think Roosevelt
(paraphrased) If I walked acroos the surface of the potomac river on the way to work the haedlne in the papers the next day would read "The president can't swim"
Originally posted by slank
.
Initially on first reaction I think people would reach for Bush. Stress tends to have people grabbing what they know. After they thought about it and weighed GW Bush's accomplishments and failures, I think most of that knee-jerk support would quickly diminish. He took down the Taliban,+5, He went to war with Iraq,-7, He was incharge when the arab world was enraged by Abu-Grabe,-5, He has done virtually nothing to locate, secure and acquire nuclear materials around the globe, -17
I personally will feel much safer with Kerry in the Whitehouse.
.
Originally posted by Ycon
It sounds like a great movie Bush nearly escapes bombing of RNC. In the end everything looks good for Bush when he captures the big bad terrorist and wins his second term as president.
if there is a big attack it just shows that he (Bush) has in fact done nothing effective excpet kill thousands of people...
Bush's credibility is riding on the fact that the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001. If the U.S. were attacked before the elections -- especially if it's an attack of the size or larger than the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were -- then Bush would completely lose his credibility. He'd lose the election in a landslide.
how many attacks where there in the three years preceding 9/11...