i also totally agree that it is the person, not the party.....just asking in
general terms......i think you all got that, though, just wanted to make myself clear.
Quote:
Originallu posted by jh124
IMHO, they have no experience in war, so they have no business sending others into harms way.
|
so since clinton had even
less experience in dealing with a war, he was right in never putting into action the documents he signed about ridding the world of saddam? makes sense...... :not rolling eyes, just raising an eyebrow: that's why the president has advisors and consults with ppl. i'm sure that just b/c a person is the leader of a country, it doesn't mean he has done everything that he needs others to do. and just b/c a man is president, it doesn't mean he is perfect or has all the answers......but if he can get with the right ppl, he can hopefully come up with a solution. there will never be a president that everyone thinks is superman or a genius. clinton was a man-ho, bush is an idiot.....that kind of stuff will go on forever.
Quote:
Originally posted by jh124
if Gore had won the election, 9/11 never would have happened. The Middle East hates the Bush family. And I'm sure a cabdriver of Middle Eastern origin would know those things for a fact, right? 
|
i'm trying to take this in the light-hearted way i am pretty sure you meant it.....but just to stir the pot
---does that mean we should elect someone under the thinking that he won't upset the terrorists? why do you think middle easterners hate the bush family? b/c they want to stop the terror
they cause.
the question is: based on party policies, etc....which is the best to have in office during a time of war?