There is no logic that can be used to "prove" that he is competent. In some ways he is competent on the home front, but not in very many ways.
Foreign policy-wise, it is nothing but the worst fiasco since Vietnam.
So, I'd like to see the thoughts from republicans on this.
2006-11-28 08:45:18 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They blame others for the failures if its iraq its the insurgents if not them they say they just listen to the generals (who they fire if they don't agree with them). and the last refuge is they say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11, forgetting that between 1992 and 2001 there were no terror attacks in the U.S a period of 9 years.
2006-11-28 08:54:02 · answer #1 · answered by region50 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has a "don't ask don't tell policy" about his failures in office. This goes something like; don't ask why I didn't close the borders to hoards of illegals pouring in, don't ask why we have gone to war with a country that posed no threat to us, don't ask why we could not have done more for Katrina victims, don't ask where are the so called weapons of mass destruction, don't ask why I want to give millions of illegals amnesty. If you do ask, I would not tell you anyway! He may or may not be competent on foreign policy, but I don't see how anyone can defend his record on anything! In my opinion, this is the poorest job performance to ever hit the White House!
I am NOT a Democrat!
2006-11-28 09:07:36 · answer #2 · answered by Marie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They just say there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11, which proves Bush's policies work. Of course, they also say Clinton's policies regarding terrorism were horrible, but after the World Trade Center attack in '94, it was SEVEN years before the 9/11 attack. Oh, and Clinton actually caught the mastermind of the '94 attack, unlike Bush and Bin Laden. Oops....
2006-11-28 08:52:09 · answer #3 · answered by truth be told 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about proving that he is NOT competent? You whine about Iraq, but what were our other recourses? There were none after 8 years of Clinton failure to do anything about Saddam or Al Qaeda.
I'd like to see anything resembling a coherent thought from Democrats on this.
2006-11-28 09:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
we are all greatful for the journalist's launch. you're able to be rather constructive, even although, that invoice Clinton had to subcumb to a pair style of GIVING deal to Kim Jong earlier this might have befell. permit's wait and discover out in basic terms what that consisted of. it could have even been extortion. i'm prepared to believe Obama might provide in basic terms approximately something away to look solid in this adventure. I even think of Carter does no longer have long previous over there except he knew in strengthen that this "commerce" might prevail while he arrived there.
2016-12-13 16:10:55 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of them blame Bill Clinton for George Bush's mistakes. They are in denial. Just the way it is.
2006-11-28 08:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush's has the blood of many on his hands. He will answer for it.
2006-11-28 08:56:32 · answer #7 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋