Or perhaps it disappeared with Rumsfeld? Will we see a different handling of the war in Iraq and a different approach to foreign relations? Or will we have to wait for 2008?
2006-12-21 05:50:02 · 17 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nobody said anything about partisanship, I am talking about the current administration. Answer how you see fit, but at least answer...
2006-12-21 05:55:28 · update #1
Zidane, the people spoke in Nov. Not the media, the people. We haave BEEN speaking, but they didn't want to listen. SO they got fired. Not the media, the people. The majority.
2006-12-21 06:14:24 · update #2
I think we're screwed until '08
2006-12-21 05:53:48 · answer #1 · answered by klixmaster 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Arrogance is not in the adminisration but in the media and for the most part in the people of the nation itself. Bush hadn't changed his policy in Iraq which has resulted not only in American casualties but thousands and thousands for Iraqies as well, the house of representative and senate elections stated that the popular will was against the course taken in Iraq. Bush has now been coerced to change his tone and policy which he would not have done and hadn't done otherwise, therefore his changes in policy are of a foceful nature and not personal or strategic will which eliminates him as having any credibility or authority upon the matter. The fact that he is now changing his tone is being viewed and declared in the media as his own personal strategy, that the resignation of Donald Rumfsfeld is his own decision, the fact of the matter that he was forced into doing so is forgotten and not mentioned. This outright attack against popular will is a show of the fact that the American people have lost power in their voice and the media has lost the will to show the truth. As a result Bush can make these outright policies contradictory to the popular mass. He hasn't been humiliated or shown defiance from the people to a standard that should be expected in a democracy, as a result he can act arrogant, the people themselves allow for its continuation. Frankly also the democracts are alike on foreign policies to that of the Republicans, thre is bipartisianship on the issue to control the strategic oil supply in the Middle East and therefore the Democratic party is an effectual failling opposition party. They dance after winning the election because now they get to keep their jobs that have a standard of living not available to most Americans, but can they trully deliver opposition to the Republican party is very speculative, I think no especially as the Democrats have shown, as well as the REpublicans that they are liars during election time for the votes. The Democrats declared they would withdraw from Iraq, now far from it they are actually supporting Bush's policy to redeploy and increase troop deployment.Nothing will change in 2008 or a decade from now, unless the entire government system is restructured for more accountability and their has to be a more effective opposition to the government, the Demoracts are not a fit and healthy opposition and therefore should be replaced by another, or more than one opposition parties should be present and politics should not be dominated by two similar parties, this is not the morals of true democracy.
2006-12-21 13:51:57 · answer #2 · answered by Zidane 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Come again, how can one be arrogant about a failed war?
I think you are mistaking what Bush had when the war started (yes, arrogance) for what he has now - unswerving determination and pride in his beliefs, though not necessarily his actions.
I don't know if you have any statements by Bush to back up your claims, but I have heard him admit his political and military mistakes at press conferences several times, even if his next sentence was "But we still have to fight the terrorists on their land so they don't bring terror to our land again."
2006-12-21 18:25:49 · answer #3 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After watching the blithering idiot's last press conference, the arrogance level is still high, but his quivering voice and inability to articulate shows that we are still in the clutches of someone who never should have been allowed to get there.
2006-12-21 13:54:33 · answer #4 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where there is politics, arrogance will always reside. Bush and his criminal posse have taken arrogance to "new levels", such a high level will disappear once they disappear, hopefully to a federal prison somwhere.
2006-12-21 13:54:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
when jeb bush fails to win the white house,
when his son Jorge fails to win the white house, or when the democrats have a first daughter that doesnt look like a man in drag, then they will stop being arrogant
2006-12-21 13:53:40 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob Da omniscient 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not likely, unless, the CIA, NSA, PNAC and APAC disappears along with him and his 'band on the run'.
I am the Fringe and any American Administration is just another front for higher powers......much higher powers.
2006-12-21 14:05:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The new Speaker of the House is having a party that each ticket cost $15,000.00! What makes you think arrogance is on the downslide?
2006-12-21 13:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by jack w 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very doubtful because arrogance is a human trait and not one that belongs to a "certain" party.
2006-12-21 19:13:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Arrogance and the stupidity it brings will live on no matter who is in charge.
2006-12-21 13:59:50 · answer #10 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋