(no subject)

[bubosquared]

Mr Clinton, sir? We need you back. I need you back. All I can think of when I hear Bush is "Oh god, no no, don't talk about retaliation, don't talk about revenge, don't talk about more violence!" I want Clinton back. For whatever reason, he felt safe. LIke he was in control. like he would understand.

(I make no sense.)

Comments

[strandia.livejournal.com]

No, I'm thinking that too. I'm not American, so maybe I don't know, but I just don't trust Bush at all to even attempt to solve things peacefully. This is the perfect opportunity for war, and I don't doubt that Bush will take it, and that scares the shit out of me. Clinton, I'd trust a little more. There'd be less dread. I think.

[ex-frown243.livejournal.com]

I don't have a political affiliation of any kind, but I really think that Bush will prove himself to be worthy of handling the nation in this time of need. While Democrats are more peace oriented, Republicans are notorious for being military-oriented. While that can be dangerous if you're looking for a quick ending to everything, it also means that they have a better grasp on security and defense.

That's just my two cents, though.

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

The problem is that mane people (like the coffeecup freaks) are talking about striking back against entire nations, and I. I just can't handle that. Especially not because if the US strike back, there is a very real possibility that whoev'r they strike against will take revenge, and since they're unlikely to succeed striking against the US again, Europe is a likely target. I work right in the most likely target of Europe. I'm scared.

Re:

[ex-frown243.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. I'm very afraid that if that if this carnage parade continues, I'll be right in harm's way - I live in the second largest city in America, right down the street from the main Naval bases. It's frightening, it really is, when you consider that the terrorists could actually already be occupying America. And then there's the threat of Nuclear War, which is just...horrifying. But I don't think we can dismiss Bush as an idiot hick from Texas, just because he's a republican. *shrug* Then again, no one -really- knows what's going on at this point. I think that when Bush addresses the public in a few hours, we can make an educated guess about his priorities.

Re:

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

I know that( re: Bush), it's just that the general public's opinion is "Punish first, find out who was actually responsible later (if at all)" and what if people go along with that?

[daznjonesy.livejournal.com]

Adelaide, you are my new best friend.

Everyone thinks Bush will hop right into war, when it's not really his decision. Yes, he signs the papers, but there are lots of people in his cabinet, in congress, in the military, etc. that are all working on it together.

They cartainly aren't pacifists, but I believe they will do everything possible to avoid more deaths.

[jotun.livejournal.com]

Clinton? Oh you mean the guy that bombed asprin factories in foreign nations to divert media attention from him and his complete and utter lack of professionalism? Nah, you can keep the guy.

you do make sense

[dine.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking the same thing; Clinton inspired more confidence in his ability to handle a crisis. I'm not even taking this to a political party level, it's a gut feeling based on personality and persona - Bush hasn't impressed me much to date, and I worry about the language of reliation or revenge.

Re: you do make sense

[kkscatnip.livejournal.com]

bush doesnt handled crisis very well, but clintion would have been forced to take the same reaction that dubya had... the president needs to stay popular, period, end of story.

*snorts*

[meimi.livejournal.com]

As an American who's quite used to the 'people in power' playing upon the majority, I can easily tell you that Clinton would be saying the same fucking thing. x_x