Because he just refuses to bang fat chicks in the oval office, rape and harrass his subordinates, cut and run like we did in Mogadishu/Somalia, and fvcking damn it, every time terrorist hit us overseas, he keeps going after them. Couldn't he just gotten a ******** from a fat chick and let things be like we did when the USS Cole got bombed?
2006-11-08 05:35:18 · 21 answers · asked by I have a crush of Pelosi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LOL that is all true and libs dont know the meaning of truth
2006-11-08 05:36:58 · answer #1 · answered by IMPEACHED! 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You have something against fat women?
In answer to your question: No, he couldn't. His methods may be questioned, and sometimes misunderstood, but at least he was doing something and not too "busy in the oval office" to take action when American interests were attacked.
What is amazing is that people so defended the man who used the Oval Office for anything except defending the nation, and Bush was attacked by those same people for taking decisive action against an enemy.
Now, he may have made mistakes and I don't agree with all of his actions. The fact is that no president in history has ever had to fight this kind of war. There are no directions and no precedent set for how to conduct this type of war. It is so easy to criticize, but I doubt anyone would have wanted to be in his position as this thing progressed.
Even when documents were declassified that showed THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ, Fox news is the only major news station that announced it. ABC, NBC, CBS all ignored that news last summer. hmmmmm.... One might think they are not interested in the truth, but just their own liberal agenda.
So now the Dems have control of the house, and pobably the senate, although we are waiting for the ballot counts in a couple of states on that one. No major terrorist acts have happened on American soil since 9-11-01. How long do you think we now have until another major terrorist act happens here at home?
We will undoubtedly bring troops home, only to leave Iraq in the hands of people who cannot and will not maintain security at any level. I suspect we will see the oil fields go up in flames and blacken the sky. Civil war will be long and hard. Iran may move to war with Iraq again since they have a long time hatred of Iraq and fought an eight year war with them before our issues with Iraq began. Do we really want Iran to control the region?????
Yep, the dems are now in control, and may very well take the White House in 2008. There are some things scarier than terrorism...
Sue
2006-11-08 13:49:42 · answer #2 · answered by newbiegranny 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats is good......and I hear a lot of talk about "sour grapes" and wining...however....was it not the Dems who were going "we lost...it must have been fraud"....."who riged the machines" bla bla bla.....yeah the Dems won but guess what...not by enough to really change anything.....they did not win by enough to override any veto. I am actually kinda glad....now both parties will have to work together to get anything done....the Pres won't have congress to pass whatever he needs and the Dems won't be able to pass anything without making the Reps aprove also....it will be good for us.....Veto power-vs-compromise.....Now the moderates from both parties are going to become the key players...not the far right wings or left wings...
2006-11-08 13:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by yetti 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush never went after terrorists overseas. Bin Laden was in Pakistan when we invaded Iraq, not Iraq. Bush was just finishing Daddy's dirty laundry after Daddy cut and run the first time.
2006-11-08 13:37:16 · answer #4 · answered by robtheman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, even though Im a devoted democrat, I want to have the republicans take the seat so they can get all the garbage left over that they have to deal with from the previous republicans, thats why. Let them sit in their crap untill they sort it out, then democratsnwill geta clean chair.
2006-11-08 13:38:03 · answer #5 · answered by -:-vInTaGe PaSsIon-:- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ahahahahah Clinton and his pre- moistened cigars now that brings back memories of the days when a pervert was in office and his socialist wife was really in power!
2006-11-08 13:41:28 · answer #6 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow....you GOP guys arent taking this whole loss of power thing very well, huh? Looks like a buncha sour grapes to me.
2006-11-08 13:38:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right on buddy !! I'm with you & NOW how the heck do we get Georgie out & not be screwed for another 2 years !!
2006-11-08 13:40:24 · answer #8 · answered by day by day 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and that does what? nothing. it shows a complete lack of resolve, and it let's terrorists walk all over us.
no thanks. i rather have a President that lies about a war, but is proactive in addressing terrorism, than a President that lies about sex and does nothing about terrorism because he's too busy playing with an intern and a cigar.
2006-11-08 13:38:53 · answer #9 · answered by Heath 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Except he FORGOT to go after Bin Laden! He did Bin Laden a favor and went after his enemy instead. Nice.
2006-11-08 13:37:53 · answer #10 · answered by Ladybug 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you know what i agree with you. i prefer Democrats instead, i am more of a informant person. and i like johns idea to stop listing to peoples conversation and the tell phone.
2006-11-08 13:38:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋