2006-12-13 02:52:10 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not really.
A war President is generally elected or selected during a war as they have qualities that are better suited to the situation. For example Tactical knowledge, Charisma and the ability to motivate the masses.
An example would be Sir Whinston Churchill, who replaced Neville Chamberlain who stood down has he recognised his diplomatic skills where no longer effective.
George Bush is a Cowboy President an ignorant opportunist who believes the security can be improved by making those who oppose him afraid of him. Yes America is hated unfairly due its wealth and power... but he has foolishly bitten at the bait after 9/11 and allowed people like Osama Bin Laden to say "See I told you they wanted our oil, they want to kill us all" etc.
I'm wrong am I? So why is there so much resistance to America in Iraq still now? Surely they would be happy with a Democratic system of government after a Dictatorship? If you want to hide in denial you can of course assume they are all stupid muslim extremists who live in the desert riding camels etc etc. But we know that is not really the truth now don't we.
Bush is no War President and he has done more damage to Americas global diplomatic standing than any other former president. Europe disdain is only held by Britains participation and Bush knows without that the UN turning a blind eye to their "Invasions" may not last much longer.
With China waiting in the wing weighing you up and your forces stretched across the globe I think it may be time for your nation to elect a real "War president" because diplomacy will require a lot of humility and grovelling and I don't think Americans are very good at that.
2006-12-13 03:10:43 · answer #1 · answered by Bohdisatva 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Bush is president and there is a war going on.
2006-12-13 06:18:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess you could add him to the list of Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, all were war time President and Democrats.
2006-12-13 03:02:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
We've had a lot of presidents in office during war and skirmishs so if they are a war president then I guess Bush would be but if not then he isn't. That wasn't hard.
2006-12-13 03:03:18 · answer #4 · answered by Brianne 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Obama does no longer comprehend Economics and employed an entire slew of economist to hel rehabilitate the economic gadget. YOu heard the term "Too many chefs break the broth"? nicely obama hear to them suddenly and that left him with out direction. He tried all the financial rules even nevertheless they counteract one yet another. One says we would desire to cut back government spending and the different stated we would desire to apply Keynesian economics. nicely in case you chop back government spending you hearth somebody with an enduring job, and with the stimulus you hire a temp that does no longer undo the wear and tear of firing somebody. because of the fact he did no longer supervise those economist, the biggest bastard took administration. For some hugely idiotic reason he employed the single economist that brought about this recession larry summers. the different situation is he employed Geitner and did no longer withstand him whilst he refuse to maintain on with Obama's coverage. Obama advised Geitner to break up the super banks, and Geitner refused. Gietner additionally twisted Tarp so he supplies huge volume of money to his acquaintances. Obama positioned his believe contained in the incorrect human beings and we go through. He gave money to companies to help stimulate teh economic gadget and that they turn around to apply it to get revenue and purely hire few jobs. Cricket, in simple terms given which you do unlike a question does no longer advise you have the right to silence somebody. we would desire to comprehend what Obama did incorrect to restoration it. for the duration of an interview with Suskind, even Obama admitted he screwed up for the 1st 2 years. He took it in stride and appeared what he would desire to do to alter this. He fired his financial panel, yet he have been given scared into doing no longer something.
2016-10-05 06:31:55 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) We are at war.
2) Bush is our president.
3) therefore Bush is a war president.
Simple, isn't it?
2006-12-13 04:05:09 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To be fair, he was not involved in any wars before 9/11/01. Yes, I do agree that his pre-emptive policy has proven to be wrong and he is not solving the root of the problem (Israeli-Palestenian issues) by diplomatic conversations with Palestinians, Talibans, Israelis, Arabs, and Iran.
Would you call FDR a war president? He didn't have a choice but to enter WWII after Pearl Harbour (yes, you can say that American policies than, like now, were favoring our allies - Europe than and Israel, Egypt, Saudi now). BUT FDR and Truman did have the brilliane to also negotiate with USSR and establish diplomatic ties and financially support Germany and Japan after the war (so not alienate them like after WWI).
2006-12-13 02:59:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The Accidental President is even better
2006-12-13 03:51:13 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you are referring to his war against the English language, then yes.
2006-12-13 03:12:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Are you joking? He concocted that description in the absense of anything tangible to say about his tenure in office. History does not remember nonentities.
2006-12-13 03:31:12 · answer #10 · answered by Blessed 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋