US SENATE found out about the faulty intelligence in IRAQ. That
Sad'am Husseint did not cooperated with AL Zarqawi , or AL Qaida
activity in IRAQ.
2006-09-08 17:43:52 · 15 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I know. I JUST read that, and I can't believe it. When the Senate, in a roundabout way, says they don't believe President Bush, you know he's in trouble.
2006-09-08 17:51:35 · answer #1 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Bush should resign, So should Cheney, and Rummy none were ever elected, they were appointed by the bias high court. Kerry won Ohio and that is fact. If Bush does not resign Democrats will impeach him anyway after the November elections.
BTW, democrats are leading in every race in every State now.
Every time Bush speaks he lies, all Democrats need now is for Bush to keep reading Karl Roves PR speeches.
BTW, Bush has the start of a very serious disease, he should resign, he will not have a public physical for that reason, he knows this. Congress should order him to have a physical and Cheney should also resign as he is Physically unfit to serve.
2006-09-09 09:30:54 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The equivalent to Blair's action would be to not run in the next general election; since, in Bush's case, this is not possible due to the two term limit, he cannot 'follow in his footsteps'.
There are no written term limits for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, rather they follow constitutional conventions which are basically informal guidelines. The Prime Minister, in theory, is the person with the most support in the House of Commons, thus the Prime Minister's term tends to follow a change in the House. The only way a Prime Minister can be forced to step down is if the House passes a Motion of No Confidence.
2006-09-09 01:05:31 · answer #3 · answered by wiegraff13 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be the most logical and best thing for the United States, but unfortunately he was the cause of Iraq, therefore we have to suffer along with him and put up with the mess we have in Iraq. What I find appalling is that his supporters aren't complaining about the humongous amount of money that the taxpayers are paying for that mistake. Any other time, they would be putting the blame on everyone else on how money is being spent. It goes to show you that as long as it is for the Party that it is wasted on, money is no problem!
2006-09-09 06:51:34 · answer #4 · answered by manyolito 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't buy the "Don't change horses in the middle of the apocalypse" argument, because how could things possibly get any worse? He should step down but only if he takes Cheney, Rove and Rumsfield with him.
2006-09-09 03:28:49 · answer #5 · answered by galacticsleigh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! NO! No! As a Republican with mixed feelings about the war and the President, I still don't want to change horses in midstream and thus go to President Cheney!!!!!
2006-09-09 00:54:51 · answer #6 · answered by catintrepid 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it wasn`t HIS, faulty info. He relied on Info, from Professional experts. They need to be convicted.. He went on the information supplied to him. He acted on what he was TOLD was facts..
Did I vote for him? NO, Do I like him? NO! BUT, He is not the problem in this mess. The people who are supposed to be IN THE KNOW are at fault..
2006-09-09 00:51:09 · answer #7 · answered by jaantoo1 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Watch some nutcase inbred conservative will tell you "there is a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam". They'll try to make it fit just watch. And Halliburton isn't done stealing oil yet for Bush to step down.
2006-09-09 00:49:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
yap dude ur absolutly right bcoz bush is more dangerous compared to blair he shld resign his job.
2006-09-09 00:51:37 · answer #9 · answered by loki 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question sounds like a desperate attempt to say something "important" or "profound", OR, you're younger than I think, and just don't know enough to sound as educated as I'd like. Oh well. God Bless you.
2006-09-09 00:50:20 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋