2006-09-06 19:50:01 · 15 answers · asked by Victor C 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Our last Democratic president appointed a Republican Secretary of Defence.
2006-09-06 19:57:03 · update #1
Well that would be the politically rational thing to do but we all know there is nothing rational about Bush.
2006-09-06 19:57:32 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would be nice in two ways:
1. He'd be getting rid of Rumsfeld. The Democrats are a stone throw away from holding a no confidence vote in him.
2. Placing a Democrat in such a high position would be a great show of bipartisanship on his part. He'd be able to show that he can work with the other side.
Unfortunately, he just nominated his new Transportation Secretary, who sp happens to be a Democrat, so the chance he'd nominate another Democrat is VERY slim. Also, he would not put a Democrat (the party that generally opposes the war) into the driver's seat of the whole operation. No matter which party controlled the White House, that would be crazy for a President to do.
In my personal opinion, I'd like to see President Bush nominate somebody NEW to head the Defense Department, no matter which part he/she hails from. A Democrat, like I said above, would be nice, but unfortunately, that won't happen. When a war gets to this point, though, it's time to remove the guy heading it, if only for PR purposes.
2006-09-06 20:01:20 · answer #2 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Prez Bush needs to appoint a Secretary of Defence with some backbone. I don't care if they are Dem or Repub or even and Independ as long as they do what is right for this country and don't fall into the political cluster and merely do as they are told. Our country needs a leader. Someone who stands up and closes the borders, educates the people on what is really going on, does not play wargames for economic benefit and someone who can actually hold a conversation in front of a camera without looking like a junior high drop out.
2006-09-06 19:55:02 · answer #3 · answered by Kayak_Girl_2006 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Except Sen Lieberman
2006-09-06 19:55:49 · answer #4 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No! That's the last thing we need, a democrat controlling the military.
Under Presiden Clinton, the military's funding and size was DRAMATICALLY decreased. That's all we need when were right in the middle of a war on terror.
2006-09-06 19:55:17 · answer #5 · answered by cman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the 1st area, yet no longer he 2d. Clinton is a political opponent of Obama, and the final element Obama desires is a political opponent interior a similar social gathering calling out his errors interior the Senate (because of the fact she might try this). If he fired her, she might maximum actually spill the beans on something questionable occurring interior the Obama administration. no longer unavoidably something criminal, yet something she might have carried out in yet differently.
2016-12-12 04:02:31 · answer #6 · answered by endicott 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely! Then we wouldn't have to worry about war or Jihadists. We would surrender in about 10 seconds and let the Muslims have their way. We would all be Muslims. Great new world.
2006-09-06 19:57:37 · answer #7 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
HA, HA, HA, HA, Did you hear about the Stevie Wonder concert???????????? The idiot waved to Stevie Wonder when he thought he was being looked at! This man is running the country!!!!!!! You think by appointing another Dumb and Dumber is going to help???????? ARE YOU KIDDING?
2006-09-06 19:55:09 · answer #8 · answered by soniaatcalifornia 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No and "defence" are you talking about de fence they are building on the border
2006-09-07 00:09:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Defen"C"e? Only Brits spell it with a "c".
Bush should commit double suicide with Cheney.
2006-09-06 19:56:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋