Honestly, he is keeping us in this war, so he can stay in power. Oh no!!!!
2006-08-11 06:20:38 · 12 answers · asked by fitgalmel1 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There CAN be a repeal of the ammendment. If the republicans control the house - it could happen. I doubt it . . . but just wondering what you all think!
2006-08-11 06:40:59 · update #1
Theoretically it can happen, amendments can be appealed but there would have to be a lot of controversy, like during prohibition and the repeal of the 18th amendment. There would be to much justified argument of abuse of power by any political party.
No Bush will not be re-elected you can sleep safe the boogey man will not come and get us...
2006-08-11 06:55:59 · answer #1 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, he cannot. He is not keeping us in this war so he can stay in power. There would probably be another civil war if he tried to. Bush had problems shoved on his shoulders from the Clinton Administration. I honestly don't know how Clinton got elected in the first place. He is not cute, he was just playing up the African American population to get elected, and he seems rather dippy. Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter by the CIA when he was in office. Osama was number one on the world's most wanted list and Clinton turned it down. That left Osama free to do whatever he wanted and guess what ? We had 9/11. Clinton or someone in his administration sold US military technology secrets to the Chinese, some Middle Eastern countries, and probably just anyone who paid enough. Was he impeached over that? Was he hung like a traitor? No. While I don't agree with everything the current President does, most of his problems came about because Clinton was an IDIOT!
2006-08-11 13:41:22 · answer #2 · answered by bookgeisha 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He can't. The Constitution was amended after FDR's presidency came to an end to provide that a President can spend no more than 2 4-year terms in office. (so hopefully America won't elect someone even worse in 2008).
2006-08-11 13:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by Suzanne L 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
From your message to G-d ears! FOUR MORE YEARS, FOUR MORE YEARS! At least President Bush had the courage to take on Islamic extremists and terrorists. It is long overdue!
It is due, in large part, to President Clinton inaction that we are in the situation we are in now. Have you forgotten the 1st terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York? How about the attack on the Cole? How about other attacks during Clinton Administration? Due to his inaction, and charming ways with the Muslim terrorist loving UN people, President Bush has inherited a very dangerous situation that culminated in the 9/11 terror attack.
If you don't know, the 9/11 terror attack was years in the planning. Yes, contrary to the nonesense the liberals have spewed, President Bush had nothing to do with this attack. While President Clinton avoided military confrontation, and allowed the terrorist cells to grow and get stronger, President Bush had the courage to deal with this dangerous situation head on. None of us wanted war, but waiting longer would have made the situation even worse down the road. War on terrorism had to be waged, and I am glad that President Bush did it. If only President Clinton had done it when the situation was easier, we would not be posting here right now about this topic.
Even though I don't agree with everything President Bush has done, he and his administration have done an incredible job in light of the terror and natural disasters the U.S. has been through since 2001. The economy was already in a recessionary mode in the last year of Clinton's Administration, and President Bush has helped the U.S. come out of recession fears into a growing economy.
The biggest problem this administration has is the lack of Public Relations, and talking about its accomplishments and the situation we are facing. While President Clinton could sell ice to the Eskimos, President Bush can't seem to sell baguettes to the French. President Bush is not the master orator and charmer that Clinton is. That is the Bush Administration biggest issue, and unfortunately, perception is what the people understand as reality, despite of actual reality. That is why you see the terroist groups using their own media outlets to make up people's mind through perception, at any cost, with any lie. Unfortunate, but true.
2006-08-11 13:27:16 · answer #4 · answered by EDDie 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, it wouldn't work. No one in the U.S. would let bush become a life long dictator. I doubt that even the most die hard republicans want that.
2006-08-11 13:23:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure, George wants to stay in office 12 more years so he's gonna start a new war every 2-3 years and then the stupid American people will keep voting for him and then they'll (note the "they") keep voting for him and then....well, you get the idea.
2006-08-11 13:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
He cant. Officially a president is only allowed to serve 2 terms. But than again there is dectatorship and communism
2006-08-11 13:23:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You must be confusing GW with the Clintons. It was CLINTON that was trying to do away with term limits.
2006-08-11 13:28:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no with all the criticizing he has gotten why on earth would he want to?
2006-08-11 13:24:33 · answer #9 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Kind of difficult given the 22nd Amendment (ratified in 1951), which didn't apply to FDR (served 1933-1945).
2006-08-11 13:24:58 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 11⤋