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

He still insists Rumsfield and Cheney are doing 'fantastic' jobs, even as the 'war' is out of control.
Did this smirking imbecile change the meaning of 'conservative' too, just as he changed the meaning of 'lies'?

2006-11-01 15:30:41 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

21 answers

I think he's a fool who has made his fellow party members looks like fools as well. I think deep down they only re-elected him because they refused to let a different party prove them wrong. So many Republicans are embarrassed to share the same party with him as well so we are not alone in this. Some Republicans even speak out but are quickly squashed like bugs for talking badly about Bush. There is still Freedom of Speech that is unless Bush can rewrite the Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit his own needs..

2006-11-01 16:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by dazedreamr 4 · 1 1

I wouldn't go so far as to call him "fool" or "imbecile" or liar, but yeah, he obviously doesn't see that the war is out of control. What is it with you people always insulting everybody? Do you not know enough about politics that you have to resort to that to fill the dead air between coherent thoughts? Try learning a few new words, and maybe a few new things about politics. Insults take away your credibility.

Bush probably does really know that the war is out of control, but that's because he's meeting much more resistance than expected. You don't come back and tell your country that the we are losing control of the war; that would ensure a loss. The worst mistake he made was underestimating his enemies. The second worst mistake he made was overestimating them, like an over-correction. They intelligence community did not spend enough effort studying everything about this enemy, not that they could have, since the enemy lied dormant so long.

They should have known that the insurgents were going to use guerilla warfare, as this is the only way they have fought so far in other wars. Recruitment of another kind of army would have been beneficial, but probably not feasible.

This is quite a fantastically complex situation olde' Bush has gotten us into.

Yes Bush is pretty stubborn. At least he's sticking to his issues, so we know what they are. Every one else seems to be riding the polls like a stripper that's a dollar short of the end of the night. I don't trust that at all.

2006-11-01 23:44:23 · answer #2 · answered by Rockstar 6 · 1 0

Well, he's pro-war (supposedly anti-diplomacy given that he refuses to talk to Iran and North Korea), he's pro-National Defense, he's anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, pro-BIG Business, he doesn't really care for the environment, and he's had too many tax cuts to be good for the nation. He keeps increasing the U.S.'s debt, especially for not raising taxes to pay for two big wars and several other operations. Now we're indebted like trillions of dollars, a lot to china, and that's one of the reasons we can't annoy China and impose sanctions that would work on Iran and NK. Most all of these Bush qualities, and more, can be found in the typical Conservative.
On the other hand, he is too stubborn to try diplomacy with Iran and NK. He's too stubborn to change plans in Iraq also.

On the plus side though, under the Bush administration, the Stock market reached record highs recently, and the economy has been growing since several years ago (but it's not great yet).

Also, to some people above my comment, the War in Iraq may not be going as smoothly as we want it to go, but the U.S. is definately NOT losing the war. There have been some 3000 U.S. soldier deaths, but there have been over 600,000 Iraqi deaths. The war was bad in the first place, and I still don't approve of it, but be careful when you want to say the U.S. is "losing". I'm sure the U.S. won't be doing a lot of that for quite some time to come.

I'm also surprised at how many conservatives are on this topic...

2006-11-01 23:49:28 · answer #3 · answered by The Riddler 3 · 0 1

He was selected, I never felt it was a fair election either time. I don't trust the machines, I vote absentee - never a Republican. This country has gone to the dogs lately - one sad thing is that Republicans hope a Dem gets in next time so they don't have to clean up the mess they created. I say give the Repukes another term and let THEM clean up the economy, jobs and intl. relations this time. We're sick of picking up the pieces of wreckage they leave behind.

2006-11-02 01:58:24 · answer #4 · answered by Lake Lover 6 · 2 0

He is a typical Conservative and a stubborn Fool. As a Conservative he won't admit he is wrong and will blame all mistakes on someone else. And the Fool part is pretty self -explanatory.

2006-11-01 23:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by MrsMike 4 · 4 1

Who is stubborn him for holding to his convictions or you for trying to force him to bend to your will?
Define "lie" was Clinton's invention so I doubt our President would want to be accused of stealing Clinton's words.
Cheney & Rumsfield do not have the power you give them credit for, the terrorist & gangs in Iraq run their own war & we can not control their battle plans, just fight the best fight we can. It appears that the end of the war is in sight - Iraq will take over within the next 12-18 months one way or the other.

2006-11-01 23:42:55 · answer #6 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0 2

BOTH. And he has to stay with Cheney. Rumsfield will go AFTER the election.

2006-11-01 23:47:06 · answer #7 · answered by greg j. 6 · 1 1

He isnt a conservative, he's a blue blood yankee who made money off the people of Texas and didnt go to the NAM when his country called.

2006-11-01 23:38:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I totally agree with you. I can't believe this country decided to have this idiot as our president for not just one but two terms.. Most Americans are being fooled by this president.

2006-11-01 23:34:59 · answer #9 · answered by Queen Momma 2 · 2 2

He is just a liar, and a murderer who needs to be put on trial and convicted.

2006-11-02 16:11:05 · answer #10 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers