Would Bush have been a better leader if he didn't invade iraq?
politically -for the nation
personally -his personal leadership trait
2006-11-11 14:59:20 · 7 answers · asked by sdbsenm 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let's face it, Bush knew a responsibility to deal with rogue nations and terrorists. Push came to shove and the goal was to deal with the problems now, not let them fester.
If he didn't pursue taking Sadam out, who violated multitudes of UN resolutions (why Bush even bothered with the UN before the attack is beyond me, for some reason he still believes the UN is an effective organization.. whatever) it would have been irresponsible.
Let's not forget, it was under the previous administration that determined Regime change in Iraq was United States policy. It was Intelligence collected by not just our country, but by allies around the world that pointed to Sadam's pursuit of WMDs. It was Sadam who kicked the weapon inspectors out of Iraq leading to more distrust of his intentions.
So, considering the terrorist climate in the middle east, can we afford a terrorist state, like Sadam's Iraq, who has already tried to assassinate one of our presidents (George Sr.) to continue to exist? No, it would have been irresponsible.
So, he would have been a 'half ***' leader if he didn't address the Iraq situation promptly. Politically, he would have floated through just fine so long as Iraq didn't do, yet something else, during his administration.
2006-11-11 15:19:53 · answer #1 · answered by Tony C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he had not invaded Iraq, I personally would say that it would have shown greater leadership, in that he would have chosen NOT to go to war against a nation that did not threaten us. I think the the invasion of Iraq was part of the neocon agenda that Bush picked up from Cheney and Rumsfeld. Now that We the People have spoken, I'm hoping Bush will marginalize the neocons and go back to building consensus like he did as Gov of Texas.
2006-11-11 23:09:04 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but he did. He did it for some very dark reasons, and I'm sure against the advice of the military. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but he snuck it in right under our noses while we still simmered over what happened in NYC. He obviously did not care what we thought,or how it would affect this country or the opinions of the rest of the world community.
2006-11-11 23:19:48 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How do you call this question current affairs? What a ripoff.
Firstly, you are asking for us to look BACK in time. For the purpose of answering an irrelevant question.
Geeze. Who knows.
2006-11-11 23:29:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes politically for the nation-we are not looked at as the great nation we once were considered to be before 2003.
no personally he is a big loser and won by corruption, money, and one could honestly think it was rove who ran for the election not really dubya
2006-11-11 23:06:35 · answer #5 · answered by Jessy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I sincerely doubt his "ability to lead" has changed at all.
So, no.
2006-11-11 23:01:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Saddam had to go.
2006-11-12 01:24:23 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋