- NEW!
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on September 15th, 2008
When is primary election day?
by Answerbag Staff on February 27th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Obama, his own original "birther", claimed Kenyan birth for 16 years. Why do libs throw name-calling fits when you show them that?
by More2Be on May 19th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Does anyone have a clue what is meant by a 'gratuitous crisis'? Fake? Like what f'r instance?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on May 20th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Should a lie detector test be applied to all political candidates, do you think that is a good idea?
by formichinoo on May 18th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
We're not doing as good a job maintaining our country as our parents/grandparents did. Our politicians are dreck,theirs weren't,right?Why?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on May 19th, 2012
| 2 people like this
You're reading George W. Bush has done the best job a president can do in his situation. Am I right? What could have been done if I'm not right? If America didn't go over to Iraq, I guarantee there would be a war in this country.
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
LOL they didn't even have the technology to mount an actual attack against the US. (If you're thinking, "what about 9/11" - keep in mind, 9/11 was carried out by a small group of Al-Qaeda operatives, not the Iraqi army)
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on September 15th, 2008
But don't you think Al-Qaeda has the technology to come over here again?
by JoeBobDirt on September 15th, 2008
No. The security frenzy that followed 9/11, and the more accurate intelligence and defensive measures that could've been purchased with the money that drained into the war, no way Al-Qaeda could've pulled off any further attacks on US soil.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on September 15th, 2008
I believe it is still possible that the US will be attacked but then I also know that a lot of the military attention is going to focus on Israel.
by JoeBobDirt on September 15th, 2008
I don't mean to interfere in your conversation, but LOL @ "Bomb us with their flying camels"!
by mistje on September 17th, 2008
Right. The Iraqi army didn't exactly have a world-class air force.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on September 18th, 2008
They dont have an air force AT ALL.. and of course no Navy either... there is no way they'd be able to send any military army to the US..
by prisoner on September 23rd, 2008
Not just Iraqis but the middle east in general.
by JoeBobDirt on September 24th, 2008
Umm.. who?? You think Iran would abandon there borders from Israel to come all the way over here to attack US?? Hardly..
by prisoner on September 27th, 2008
Well someone over there has. Twice just to attack the world trade center. Just sayin it is very possible to pull off more attacks in the US.
by JoeBobDirt on October 8th, 2008
Those were attacks that could of been prevented.. the CIA was overseeing the entire operations...
Besides Iran NEVER attacked us.
We were attacked by Saudis.. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia?? Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC attack.
by prisoner on October 9th, 2008
Oh really. Are you the CIA? Do you know everything that goes on behind the scenes? First of all your grammer is poor so you are obviously not well educated. It is, could have been prevented, and I believe if the attacks could have been prevented, they would have been.
by JoeBobDirt on October 9th, 2008
Please, Joe. You make is sound as if the hijackers were a bunch of brilliant soviet cyborgs or something. Of course it could have been prevented - it's been well-established by the 9/11 commission (public info, no need to be "behind the scenes") that security was lax, and communications broke down during the crisis.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on October 10th, 2008
Yea so nothing could do have been done. Well established fact. This country has been ran well under the circumstances.
by JoeBobDirt on October 10th, 2008
Now you're just ignoring facts: Security being lax isn't some kind of supreme destiny - it is precisely a mistake that WAS preventable, same for the communications breakdown.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on October 10th, 2008
joe, watch National Geographic's "Triple Cross: Bin laden's spy iun America" .. it lays out CIA's involvement pretty well. And maybe try reading some non-fiction books.
.
as for your grammar comment... this is a freakin online forum... get used to it.
by prisoner on October 11th, 2008
I meant to edit that, but it won't let me. ...
anyway,
That documentary not only shows CIA ALLOWING known terrorists into the country and joining the US military, but actually working WITH the the terrorists and using them as assets.
by prisoner on October 11th, 2008
Are you kidding me? National Geographic?
by JoeBobDirt on October 17th, 2008
PLEASE, BobDirt: Don't start picking a bone with sources now that you've been thoroughly wiped. National Geographic is an extremely reliable source...NO, they aren't just about animals.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on October 17th, 2008
no joke, JoeBobDirt...
look into it for yourself..
by prisoner on October 18th, 2008
I wouldn't trust National Geographic for anything. They have some fascinating stories, just not fully reliable ones.
by JoeBobDirt on October 22nd, 2008
Why? Can you name some specific fact-checking problems they've had?
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on October 22nd, 2008
omg....
okay I'm curious, JOeBobDirt; Who WOULD you trust?? the government? Fox news? CNN? MSM?
You really think National Geographic are the only resources for the info I presented?? There are plenty of others but I named National Geographic because most people with common sense would agree NG is a fairly credible source of information.
by prisoner on October 22nd, 2008
I do not trust anyone.
by JoeBobDirt on October 27th, 2008
So I suppose you're a battlefield journalist, or a pentagon official and you've literally seen everything first-hand? Otherwise, that's a crock.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on October 27th, 2008
Just because I said I don't trust anyone doesn't mean I know everything.
by JoeBobDirt on November 9th, 2008
You've still yet to show a single fact-checking problem that National Geographic has had.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 9th, 2008
joebob, if you don't trust anyone... what makes you support Bush?? that really doesn't make sense to me...
by prisoner on November 10th, 2008
Exactly. You'd think a true cynic would be the biggest hater of Bush's policies, even more so than Democrats.
.
And I'm still waiting for the National-Geographic problem...
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 10th, 2008
It is more of a values thing for me. I have my values and beliefs and with Bush, they line up, and National Geographic, they don't always line up. It is as simple as that.
by JoeBobDirt on November 13th, 2008
LOL...
by prisoner on November 13th, 2008
Yeah, I mean how dare those bastards support wildlife refuges and use observational journalism...seriously, can you just give *1* specific example of a problem you've found in N-G's work?
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on November 14th, 2008
I don't look at National Geographic that much but if I had to pick one it would be Triple Cross: Bin laden's spy iun America. And then there viewpoint on evolution if I had to pick another one.
by JoeBobDirt on November 20th, 2008
Have you even seen "Triple Cross" yet? I doubt it... how do you know you have a problem with it?
How about HBO's documentary "Ghosts of Abu Ghrab"?
by prisoner on November 20th, 2008