English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

30 answers

I wouldn't give anything on this planet to have his job and have to make the decisions that he has to make everyday. We can look at things all cut and dried, and announce how we'd do it differently. But we have to realize that he's got people coming at him all day long everyday, with differing information, most that we may never hear or even understand the scope of, and he has to try to assimilate it all and make decisions in a short time. No, I don't envy the man his job in any way. And because I know that there are things I'll never understand, I don't feel that I have the right to condemn or second guess his decisions. Face it, we really only hear the stuff that journalists and the media tell us, and that is skewed always by their own personal opinions. I AM a journalist, and know how that works. What we hear is also twisted by those who are still angry at the way he got into office in the first place, by that I mean the election vote hullabaloo. I am amazed that there are people out there who are still holding that whole thing to their hearts with such strong emotion. We have a process in this country for these things, and the process works. Just because it didn't go the way you wanted it to, doesn't mean that everything that follows must be condemned. The whole thing just makes me crazy.

So, not knowing how I might have done things better, or just how anyone else would have either, I have to say that I believe he's done a good job.

2006-06-22 03:05:20 · answer #1 · answered by Crooks Gap 5 · 0 0

Absolutely. Without a question he did it correctly. For which every American should be grateful. How sad that so many are not!

Post 9/11, it was a slow and deliberate pace to make sure we were doing the right things at home and abroad. For both Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush received Congressional authorization to use force, UN authorization to use force, and built broad coalitions of dozens of countries to take the actions.

This policy change to take the fight to the enemy, to take actions against countries that support terrorists, was a necessary and intelligent policy change.

The prior policy of treating it as an internal police activity, instead of a foreign engagement military activity, is what led to the rise of al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Clinton's failures to take larger action after the 1st WTC bombing, the Khobar Tower bombing, the bombing of 2 US embassies and the bombing of the USS Cole led directly to the events of 9/11. QED.

Any other route would have been a show of weakness and fecklessness.

And the actions have had many positive results, that naturally have been downplayed by the media and Democrats lest they be forced to admit that Bush did something right.

2006-06-22 10:19:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I certainly do. And so did everyone else at the time.

Because WMD's were not found right away, people began to have doubts. (Even though everyone believed WMD's were present...including Democrats, the UN, Britain, and the majority of the world)
When 9/11, Katrina, and the war began to push the National Debt out of sight... people began to blame our president and call him a liar about the reason the war was started. The reason all of a sudden was for oil..... instead of terrorism.

I believe President Bush has done an outstanding job with the many atrocities he has had to deal with. We have been safe in America, so far, because he took the war to the terrorist instead of waiting for another 9/11.

God bless America, our troops and President Bush.

2006-06-22 10:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by MesquiteGal 4 · 0 0

Basically he is looking out for our future security over the next 50 years. Whoever was in power would make some mistakes. They made plenty in WWII. We are on the right path and i thank god our leader has the cabinet he does to provide him with the foresight to see the "possible" future if we didn't address the Middle East in this fashion. A free Iraq is a terrorists worst nightmare making there way of life impossible throughout the Middle East. The irony of us in Iraq on Irans western border and Afghanistan on there eastern border makes me think this is too much a coincidence while they are on the verge of nuclear proliferation. A plan has started to engulf the world in freedom. We are simply setting the ball rolling. Qaddafi in Libya got the message quick by voluntary disarmament. After Iran the domino effect will take place or the current regimes will collapse from within.

2006-06-22 10:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Assuming that Al Queda was behind 9/11, is was correct to go after the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. As we now know, however, the adminstration never really wanted to go into Afghanistan, they wanted to invade Iraq. Everything else they did was wrong. Saddam Hussein was contained, was a secularist not linked to al Queda, had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was like poking a stick into a beehive.

And Bush has violated his oath of office "to perserve and protect the constitution" as he has undermined the constitution through the use of signing statements and weakening the Bill of Rights.

Also, I am tired of the lie "everybody thought he had WMD" Hans Blix and other inspectors all said he didn't have WMD, there were contrary reports within the CIA that said he didn't have WMD. Also, he had no navy, no air force, no missles that could reach US. Bush played on fears after 9/11 and distorted intellegence to get support for invasion. He lied when he said we would only go to war as last resort. Cheney lied when he said "there is no doubt Saddam Hussien has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program" and Condeleeza Rice lied when she said "No one could have imagined that people would fly airplanes into buildings" and Colin Powell presented false information to the UN.

Also, a large number of democratic congressmen and women voted against war resoulution as did some senators. To say "everybody was for it" is not true.

2006-06-22 10:13:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As much as I don't like Bush or what he is doing, I think 911 was handled in the best way it could have been.

American's were pissed and wanted vengence, he gave it to them. Although now it seems like we are being excessive in the war, we need to occupy Iraq to control the future of the oil reserves there.

Soon we're going to run out of homeland oil and we need to have a reliable source if the country wants to stay the way it is.

2006-06-22 09:52:33 · answer #6 · answered by Brandon53 2 · 0 0

The war on terror is a lie to begin with! That question in null and void.

If anyone were to do any REAL research, they'd find that 9/11 isn't what most people think it is, with regard to who was actually behind the events.

It's starting to become humorous that so many people actually still believe that jet fuel weakened the multiple, enormous steel structures that supported the twin towers. That people still think a plane hit the pentagon. That people still think that flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. That we are actually fighting a war on terror. That the Bush family is actually good Christian people. That his two election wins were legitimate. That so many of Bush's staff have quit him because of "personal" reasons, etc. etc. etc.

My question to you is: When will America wake up?

2006-06-22 09:49:43 · answer #7 · answered by Truth Seeker 3 · 0 0

He absolutely handled 9/11 correctly. He portrayed strength and determination on the outside to the world when you know inside he was upset like the rest of us, as far as the war in Iraq, his intentions were honorable, but I think now the war has gotten out of hand. We need an exit strategy. But lets not forget, it was the House and Senate, (democrats, republicans, independents, etc. alike) that voted to go to war. The President did not go to war on his own. It takes an act of Congress to go to war.

2006-06-22 10:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by Caleb's Mom 6 · 0 0

911 was handled correctly but he's gone downhill from there. I don't believe we should still be in Iraq. Once we got Hussain, we should have left. Of course, this leads to all sorts of speculation about who will take care of the people, etc., but we've lost too many soldiers to stay.

2006-06-22 09:54:08 · answer #9 · answered by bernie1701 3 · 0 0

9/11 I think he over reacted and has taken many freedoms away from otherwise law abiding citizens. As for the Iraq war a big no because we should have never been in the rush to go to war. It is not right that we overthrow any government and install a puppet government just because we don't like the origional, that is to Soviet Union for me.

2006-06-22 10:01:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers