At least changes are being made. Rumsfeld is out, Bush is admitting his folly and taking time to reconsider strategy.
Wouldn't it have been better if the administration faced reality 2 years ago?
Or heaven forbid, before even invading.
2006-12-16 06:13:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
everyone who did NOT see this coming, please report for getting smacked across the knuckles with a yardstick.
2006-12-16 06:16:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I guess that you could take the positive side of it and say, "Hey, atleast now we know it was wrong.", or you could be against the Bush administration... You see, Rumsfeld wasn't the only person who at that time wanted to invade Iraq. The funny thing is, even though we know Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, the CIA reported that he was in Iraq -- or did they?
No, it was actually the Bush Administration that said that Bin Laden was in Iraq, drowning out the noise of the CIA and invading Iraq before anything could be done.
I'm not saying this for you to become a conspiracy theorist, but in reality, that is what happened.
But again, you could take the positive side and say, "Hey, atleast now we know it was wrong."
P.S. When did Bush admit that it was a mistake?
2006-12-16 14:31:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is all very strategicly planned so Bush will not have to admit folly.
Infact, that's been one of the biggest problems. Changing approches really isn't what held him back as much as finding a way to change approches without appearing to 'conceed' anything to the Democrats.
Everyone has had to bend over backwards to accomidate his ego.
And I think it's high time we start at least stop mocking 'conspiracy theorists'. The GREATEST ally of this administration has been that NO ONE beilives the truth and anyone speaking it is called a crackpot by the general public. The levels of hyporcracy and media manipulation that have occoured under this administration has damaged the very office he holds.
2006-12-16 14:46:30 · answer #3 · answered by socialdeevolution 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would have been much better if Bush had not lied and invaded Iraq, a country that were not terrorist or had anything to do with 9/11!
Bush won't admit to much, but he did admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 during a press conference. A portion of this press conference was posted on MY TUBE and was one of the most hit clips on the site, as was the testimony before Congress on how easy it was to bug a DieBold voting machine! My Tube has eliminated both of them! I wonder if they are part of Fox news?
Our troops are involved in a civil war and 80% are being killed by Iraqi's (those we liberated), which has nothing to do with terrorist!
2006-12-16 14:24:47 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If Saddam were still in power, then he would be funnelling $$$ to terrorists and KILLING thousands of his own people, which is a major human rights violation. I say that the Armed Forces should stay in Iraq until the country is stable and running efficiantly, even if it takes 20 years. The liberal media is lying to you, and reporting only bad stories about the war. The U.S. has two enemies in the war on terror, the terrorists, and the Left that wants to appease them.
2006-12-16 14:58:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes but did you see the deer in the headlights look from Bush during the unveiling of the results of the Iraq committee? I think he was quoted that he was only "here to listen" and passively so.
He clearly only had one strategy... get in and get Saddam out... and then... a miracle takes place... or else freedom rings around the world because everyone deserves a democracy--even if they're too weak to think of it themselves.
2006-12-16 14:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by bluasakura 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't know whether it is a mile stone because the American people realized their mistake in electing George Bush and it only took 6 years to do it. But with the last election the American people have spoken and I would say it was only 6 years to late.
2006-12-16 14:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Maybe they realize this before they started
and we just have a warmonger for a president
They must of realize something, some kind of
outcome ? We don't live in a prefect world
and sometimes the decision that others make
are not prefect either ?
2006-12-16 14:35:40 · answer #8 · answered by Rachael71 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
WW2 WAS A MAJOR MESS BEFORE WE WON IT. 7000 MARINES DIED IN THE BATTLE AT IWO JIMA THAT LASTED A MONTH AND WE WERE WINNING THE WAR AT THAT TIME!! AS I HAVE SAID, MISTAKES ARE MADE IN EVERY WAR. THIS ONE IS NO EXCEPTION.
2006-12-16 14:40:08 · answer #9 · answered by Rich S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think Bush has admitted his folly?
2006-12-16 14:19:41 · answer #10 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
don't forget your precious democrats had their hand in there too. you think the world see's us as bumbling idiots now wait till your cast of misfits take over
2006-12-16 14:58:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋