Aw don't get mad that he's protecting us at home...
2006-12-04 07:12:37 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Alex, you already know that Bush critics will never have the honesty to admit that he has had a number of accomplishments in his years as President. To do that would be to distract themselves from their 24/7 hate fest.
2006-12-04 07:19:33 · answer #1 · answered by C = JD 5 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Oh I see what happend on 911 was Clintons fault,the 0 Americans killed on American soil is an acomplishement of Bush?Great logic indeed.
George Bush and Dick Cheney deliberately misled Congress and the American public about Iraq in order to justify an illegal war. Over 2600 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result. This and other "high crimes and misdemeanors" are grounds for impeachment.
2006-12-04 07:29:58 · answer #2 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, he wasn't responsible for 9/11 of course, but I do think that it would only be fair to the U.S. troops in Iraq that after the 1st of either Bush's leaving the Presidency or the withdrawal of the last major contingent of troops from Iraq that he should apologize to all of the troops who served there, and the families of the troops who died there, for putting them in harm's way.
Impeachment should never be the application of any group of peoples' just war theory (in this case the liberals).
2006-12-04 10:28:13 · answer #3 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would make just about as much sense as anything these days.
Honestly, approval ratings are retarded and don't matter. If a President is really so terrible and dreadful and really MUST be impeached and removed from office, he probably will be, especially these days. Bill Clinton was even impeached for such a silly reason, that it's evident that the government will react to actual problems (I really didn't even like ol' Clinton, by the way, but there was no reason for him to be impeached).
Bush is one heck of a lot better president than most. Where would we be now with Al Gore, or John Kerry, or even *shudder* Hillary Clinton.
2006-12-04 07:25:10 · answer #4 · answered by plasmasphinx 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Your question makes little sense. Perhaps Bush should be made dictator for life since I have not had a bad case of the flu since he was elected. While you can produce a blanket statement you can do little to intrinsically show how Bush has made us safer. I however could produce an exhaustive list of ways that he has failed during his presidency to secure our nation.
Lets look at a few things:
1. He has so debilitated the strength of our military we could not engage in any other conflict on the planet.
2. He has done nothing to secure our ports of entry.
3. Terrorist cells around the world are as active today as they were 7 years ago. But why go through all the trouble of attacking America when you can shoot a soldier on the streets of Iraq.
4. Bush policies have so emboldened our greatest adversaries around the world Iran is now the largest power broker in the middle east.
6. Crime rates are on the rise around the nation as is poverty on the home front.
Should Bush be impeached for these failings .. sadly no. For the truth is that impeaching Bush would only continue to consume our nation in the political morass instead of solving the problems he has failed to address. Security of our borders, health of our citizens and rebuilding a military decimated by the Iraq conflict.
2006-12-04 07:24:35 · answer #5 · answered by Patrick B 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
So what you're saying is that if 5000 people were killed by terrorists on a cruise ship, and that cruise ship had sailed out of Miami, and the ship crossed into international waters before the attack, that Bush would get a pass on that?
I'll give Bush credit for 5 years without an attack when Rush Limbaugh gives Clinton for nearly 8 years without one.
2006-12-04 07:28:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hell of a question, exactly what the American people should be asking, except without the word impeached, but that is to the crazy wing of the Democratic party.
2006-12-04 08:41:30 · answer #7 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lets not forget that there were no americans killed by terrorism on american soil for 8 years before 9/11. LOL
LOL "Americans killed by terrorism on American soil since 9/11" The fact that you had to type all those words kinda shows that you have to be specific as to something that has been achieved(even though it hasnt) Example?:
I hold the world record in long distance grape-catching in the mouth while at jogging speed and wearing red shorts.
Question: If he is really concerned with making us safer at home, why hasnt he implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 comission? I hope you see that what is going on in Iraq is not going to make us or anybody else safer in the future.
2006-12-04 07:20:11 · answer #8 · answered by vanman8u 5 · 4⤊ 7⤋
That is quite true. There haven't been successful terrorist attacks at home since.
Then again... if I was Bin Laden watching America right now I'd be so happy. America is split and crumbling within. Liberals and Conservatives yell at eachother now more than they yell at terrorists.
2006-12-04 07:32:00 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
He's not protecting me. Just this morning on my way to work I was attacked by a flock of squirrels. It was horrific. I was surrounded in my own back yard by these terrorists. Luckily the chief of police lives on the next street, heard my screams and came to my rescue. Where was homeland security when I desperately needed them? I'm filing a complaint with Chertoff. I could have been killed.
Hey, one more thing. How's our border security doing?
2006-12-04 07:26:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Why since 9/11?
3000 Americans were killed on American soil during Bush's watch.
Another aside to your question could be that who perpetrated or facilitated the 9/11 attacks?
There are definitely two sides to this story.
2006-12-04 07:39:37 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 7⤋