Does the re-election of bush prove that americans are supporting bush government for the barbarianism in iraq?

Question

America

Answer 1

I hate when people assume that ALL AMERICANS voted for Bush because he won. People need to understand how American elections work. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

Not all Americans support Bush, nor did they vote for Bush. The re-election of Bush was not something unanimous by every American.

States like California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the New England states were not won by Bush.

48.3% of the 122 million people who voted, voted for John Kerry, not Bush. The reason Bush won was because of the Red States across the Midwest who actually bought into his bullshit.

Bush had 286 Electoral Votes / Kerry had 251 Electoral Votes.

Had Bush lost say, Ohio, with 20 Electoral Votes, Kerry would have won the election with 271 and Bush lost with 266.

To answer your question: The re-election of Bush proves the gullible nature of the Red States. Where are his approval ratings this week, Reds?

Answer 2

To some extent. Rabbi Heschel said that in a democracy, some are guilty but all are responsible.

Some people who object to the Iraq war policies and abuses would say that Bush isn't linked to them. I don't think that's true, as Bush's signing statement on the McCain ban on torture exempted the executive branch from the ban. This was a defense of torture. The same can be said for the executive branch's vigorous defense of extralegal extraditions and imprisonments in both the Afghani and Iraqi theatres of war. Furthermore, the relaxing of the ban on white supremacist group members from military recruitment has obvious consequences for the field of combat and the adherence to the uniform code of military justice. Bush's administration is clearly responsible and fairly clearly linked, so that the voters cannot cry ignorance.

Others would say that the barbaric acts that have occurred in the wars are Bush's fault, but that he didn't win the election. This is also faulty reasoning. Whether or not you think he was elected fairly, or through some combination of tricks, he did win the election. In Mexico, where there is still no clear winner, both sides are being much more active in their protestations than here in the U.S.A. during 2000 or 2004. Now, one could rightly say that the Mexican response or something even more activist/revolutionary would have placed this country in crisis. Even so, the fact remains that the people as an aggregate accepted the results in both elections. Whining and carrying around signs after the fact does not count, as they clearly do not change anything.

We decided to accept President Bush in 2004, full well knowing that another four years would result in more war atrocities. And that doesn't even touch upon our knowing that the war was premised on falsehoods, or was a preemptively aggressive act, or was being mismanaged and allowed to fester into a chaotic morass that permitted large scale corporate theft of public funds. We accepted the administration that brought us Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and extraordinary renditions, none of which prevented us from having to "fight them over here" or on the lands of our allies.

We accepted this, you and I. We are responsible. The real question is, now what do we do?

Answer 3

The re-election of Bush proves that America is the least intelligent 'civilization' on the planet. The average American is a xenophobe and does not even know where the rest of the world is in relationship to their own country. Heck, they have a hard time getting from state to state. This is the world's poster country for the greatest dumbed-down society. Iraq is just another grocery store for Americas' energy needs and when they rob the store blind they will move on to the next one. Just like the inner city animals that rob the local corner store.

Answer 4

No, the re-election of Bush means that the Democrats didn't provide a viable option for a presidential candidate. They didn't have a clue in 2004 and they don't have one now. It's about numbers and support, and not just in Blue states. To win, they need to field a candidate that a significant percentage of Red staters will support, too. Here's a hint: that ain't Hillary Clinton.

Answer 5

We support Bush in the attempt to STOP the barbarianism (is that a word) in Iraq. Where have you been the last 20 years idiot.

Answer 6

Its yet another example that people are easier to motivate by fear (in this case of terrorism) than they are of being motivated by love. Remember that Carrey's position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush's. Carrey came across as wishy washy, atleast Bush had direction and seemed solid which appeals to those in the shadow of fear. As in most presidential elections, both choices suck. Too bad Nader did not get in but he weas not even allowed on the debates. Go figure

Answer 7

NO It Does not. , In fact, Bush was never really elected or re-elected. It was Decided that Bush was the winner of the first term in spite of not recieving the majority of votes, and the second term elections were full of fraud/voting machine errors.
investigations are still on-going..just look at Bushies 30% confidence level, or ask your ordinary person on the street what they think of Bush's oil war or domestic policies...
Personally I say we can get rid of him fast enough!

Answer 8

Are ya saying that Wife Beaters are better than us?

Do you want Wife beaters to take control of this COuntry, by opposing War in Iraq you are a supporter of Wife beating and you are also a supporter of being placed under the Iron fist of sexist pigs.

Answer 9

Not necessarily, though a disturbing number do. I think what his reelection is most indicative of is the credulity of the masses, which equates dissent with being unpatriotic. Secondly, his reelection is proof that fear is a great motivator for individuals to turn off their rational faculties. Finally, the choice to put him back in office underscores the fact that the US citizens only maintain a pretense of morality and they are not truly as moral as they think they are.

Answer 10

"persevered presence" and "persevered conflict" are 2 VERY multiple issues. we've an eternal military presence in a variety of of, lots of our greatest buddy international places international, and that i see no rationalization why Iraq should not be one among them. also word "because the difficulty facilitates." Iraq is extremely volatile on the instant; lowering our variety of troops may be large, yet we are able to not o.k. merely thoroughly go away and bypass our fingers that the Iraqi authorities and protection would not fall down in our absence. the reason no one can seem to get us out of Iraq--such because the Democrats--is that there is not any thanks to go away at this actual second in time without doing extra damage than reliable.