His supporters would still support him.
2006-12-23 05:04:29 · 26 answers · asked by Ringo G. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would be too much like honesty for him to handle. Admission of anything goes against the republican national platform and will not be tolerated
2006-12-23 05:41:05 · answer #1 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because that's not the real reason the USA is in Iraq (it wasn't for democracy, either). Any idea of getting oil out of ***untapped reserves in a war zone***, should clue folks that was a folly from the start.
Even if Big Oil was drooling over the idea, it would've been way too costly even for them (the same group that refuses to build more refineries to increase output for cheaper fuels), would simply balk on the idea of gaining twenty zillion extra gallons of crude, have nowhere to store it at home, let alone refine it.
So no, Big Oil may have wanted a stake in the untapped Iraq reserves badly, but even they noticed the price was too high even with their deep pockets (they must keep prices high, if they pump too much oil it'll have to be stored and refined in the USA, which means they can't justify $3/gallon pricing when they're undulated in crude).
2006-12-23 05:17:00 · answer #2 · answered by SandyKIT 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do know the Democrats in congress also agreed to go to war with Iraq. They had access to the same intelligence info he did and came to the same conclusion. I seriously doubt a single Dem would have given the go ahead if they thought for one second that it was oil and war profiteering.
2006-12-23 06:05:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT IS TRULY LUDICROUS FOR ANY TRUE AMERICAN TO BELIEVE THAT OIL AND PROFITEERING WERE THE REASONS WHY WE WENT TO AND ARE CURRENTLY ARE IN IRAQ. THIS KIND OF THINKING IS THE RESULT OF WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA PUTS OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TRULY SHOWS HOW GULLIBLE AND MISGUIDED WE, AS A NATION, HAVE BECOME. I AM NOT A BUSH FAN MAINLY BECAUSE NOWDAYS I, LIKE MANY PEOPLE, VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS. HE WAS THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS. THE SAD PART IS THAT NEITHER REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE, NORMAL HARD WORKING AMERICAN. HOW CAN THEY WHEN THEY ARE MILLIONAIRES AND WE GENERALLY ARE NOT. NOW THAT SHOULD WAKE UP SOME IDIOTS OUT THERE!!!!!
2006-12-25 04:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by charles leroy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really don't think that was the reason at all and I have never supported this war. It was misplaced idealism and altruistic nonsense that propelled the USA into Iraq. Bush's "bring democracy to Iraq" policy was embarrassingly naive. What the hell do Iraqis know about democracy? Nada, nil, zilch. And what the hell did Bush and his buddies know about Iraq? Yep, you guessed it: Nada, nil, zilch.
2006-12-23 05:16:09 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And the rest of us would convict him of the crimes he admitted to. It is called treason. The only way he would admit to that is if he was waterboarded. Maybe that is a good idea, though. Since he was so eager to make it legal, why should he not be among those being tortured to discover the truth behind his own terrorism? It's almost like he has already consented to it.
2006-12-23 05:12:56 · answer #6 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, Gringo... you have a cute avvy but you need to do your homework on this one. Oil is a factor (in spite of what some want to believe), but it goes much deeper than that.
Start with anything by Claudia Rosset at Wall Street Journal Online. Look up Oil for Food.
There was profiteering but not by the US... it was Saddam, as well as some of the French, Germans and Russians... the very same countries who refused to send troops to the effort, because they stood to gain if Saddam stayed in power.
As for his approval ratings, while it would be nice to have through-the-roof numbers, George Bush isn't up for re-election, so those numbers really don't mean much. That's a great example of how the media wants to cast doubt over this Presidency... they mislead readers with half-truths and suggestions that they know more than the administration does.
Well, the newspapers don't serve as Commander in Chief, which is the primary responsibility of the President. When you look at it that way, George Bush is a heck of a leader, not afraid to stand up for the United States, and doesn't waffle under pressure. He says what he means. I'd rather trust someone like George Bush than a flip-flop like Kerry, a screecher like Hillary or a shadowy guy like Obama.
2006-12-23 05:08:29 · answer #7 · answered by princessmeltdown 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because he's a coward. All of the qoutes are very impressive however, this corrupt administration is the one who launched a fiasco of a war. These retards totally screwed it up. You can try to blame the dems all you want, which is typical of you people, but the Bush administration is the group that put us in this lose lose situation. Face up to reality and stop blaming others for your fvck ups!
2006-12-23 05:16:40 · answer #8 · answered by American Patriot 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the Iraq War was fought for oil, why did I just pay 2.33 per gallon? It should be about one dollar a gallon now.
Your question is another example of why children under 5 should not be allowed near a computer. Go suck your binky.
2006-12-23 05:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
B ecause he would be setting himself up for impeachment, like he hasn't already.
By the way all the comments supplied by netnazivi appear to be based on the belief there were Weapons or Mass Destruction.
2006-12-23 05:09:22 · answer #10 · answered by beez 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋