Has anyone asked George Bush why he didn't 'stay the course' in Afghanistan?

Question

He never seems to mention it anymore.

For all you 'educated' people, NATO has taken over military operations in Afghanistan.

NATO takes command across all Afghanistan; Reuters Oct 5,2006

Now, you read the news.

Answer 1

Someone ask the dictator to explain himself? Of course not, they would have been ushered from the White House as quickly as possible. It's very clear, from all reports, that Bush doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't kiss his butt and just accept everything he has to say. Colin Powell ring any bells? I fully agree with what this question seems to suggest. Bush 41 should have finished Hussein when he had the chance, and Bush 43 should have set aside his obsession with Iraq and finished the job in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to him, the terrorists are now in Iraq in droves. Self-fulfilling prophecy? I suppose so, he claimed connection between Hussein and 9/11 before the evidence forced him to admit there was no connection. Now he can talk about the terrorists being in Iraq all he pleases, we blew the country wide open and gave them very safe passage inside. Good job again Bush.

Answer 2

Actually I like your question... it is true to a point... we are still in Afghanistan but for different reasons- we are no longer trying to find the terrorists in Afghanistan... we are helping them train their army and helping them secure their borders from invading Afghanistan... while that's all well and good.. we didn't finish what we went there for... what we did however is send most of our troops to Iraq and start the war over there...I think we should finish one war before we start another and we never did finish our cause in Afghanistan. I think people have forgotten what this war was actually about.. it was to catch Bin Laden and his followers... Bin Laden and his followers were and are a bigger threat... Saddam never attacked us.. Al-Quidea attacked us 3 times that we know of, not to mention the Embassies and other countries- I heard Bush as well as anyone else say he will go anywhere to find Bin Laden.. what happened to that... where is Bin Laden.. why do we have Saddam and not Bin Laden..People say not to worry about Bin Laden, that he is probably dead.. and I can't forget about the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, and 9-11... he is a threat to us and yet we are no longer looking for him, our priorities have changed

Answer 3

We are in Afghanistan, and so are UN forces. But it's not a primary battlefield anymore.

But, if you had any appreciation for what it takes to sustain military presence in a land-locked country with little infrastructure, you would have long understood that a major military presence was never sustainable, and was especially difficult to supply once it ventured into the mountainous wilderness.

All the equipment and supplies, etc. have to be airlifted in. That limits presence more than any other factor.

Answer 4

We should have gotten Afghanistan stable and their government working before we ever went to Iraq. It's sad that we are still their after 5 years it should have been over with by now.

Answer 5

That is a great question. Instead of doing the things that needed to be done there, he siphoned the resource into Iraq, which is about the same thing as giving it back to the Taliban. More bloodshed.

Answer 6

I agree with the previous answers that the US still are in Afganistan. The fact that he didn't mention it just means that he had other priorities.
On the other hand...Does anybody expect a sensible answer from George Bush???

Answer 7

Are you just mentally challenged? You do know we are still in Afghanistan, right.

Answer 8

We still have forces there. I consider that staying the course.

Answer 9

Watch the news once in awhile.

Answer 10

I think so.