change his strategy?........what?....... one has to have a strategy before they can change it. there was never a strategy
2007-01-05 20:44:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
To change his mind he would first have to have a mind. Really though any change in policy is just a publicity stunt at this point. He made a huge mistake by not listening to his generals before he started this war. He is going to get up on tv and talk about how we are losing and that we can still win. He will then proceed with some vague ideas that no one can really object to because no one can really define them.
2007-01-05 20:41:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by premise 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Maybe he will fly over Baghdad or Fallujah and see it looks devastating down there, and know if he lands, it will be doubly devastating on the ground, just like flying over New Orleans. No wonder Scott McClelland quit, could you imagine having to explain what came out of Dubya and Rumsfeld's mouths??? That is like being the spokesperson for two retards and having to explain how they came up with 3 when trying to solve 2+2!!
2007-01-05 20:53:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Chris B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mind? What mind?
Strategy? What strategy?
You must be very confused, as neither of those words can be used in reference to Bush.
2007-01-05 20:49:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by joe_rocket_81 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, for us all who're just sitting and watching on the news report, it's too easy to say a word, but are you sure if you're in the position everything will be in control? I'm not for him nor against him, but at least if he doesn't have the mind of a President he won't be in the position.
2007-01-05 21:06:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by JUSS 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
it incredibly is an Op-ed contributed piece common with the aid of the NYTimes to post. The NYTimes became allowed to edit the content and it became the NYTimes that entitled the piece. A warfare that we'd only Win, the words chosen with the aid of the massive apple cases editors, would not have been the selection of the writers, who admitted this on a countrywide information broadcast this night. Regardless, all of us might desire to comprehend the validity of the substantial successes in Iraq that have been reported. That Anbar province is now the main shelter and good area after the Kurdish controlled area is a substantial reversal. That Sharia regulation is gaining wider exposure as a blasphemous and inhumane equipment it incredibly is forcefully rejected with the aid of maximum Iraqis particularly those able to resisting is exemplary for oppressed peoples interior the greater beneficial center east. cf. ("Al Qaeda and different Salafist communities, as nicely as (to a lesser volume) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi military. those communities have tried to impose Shariah regulation, brutalized conventional Iraqis to maintain them in line, killed substantial community leaders and seized youthful women folk to marry off to their loyalists.") it seems fairly irrational and impugns the reasons of premier Democrats who orate against the get up efforts of our militia in Iraq with the aid of glibly and irresponsibly calling for the unconditional abandonment of the venture asap.
2016-10-30 03:45:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
President Bush I believe still saying he trying to help the Iraq people untill he say something in the news that all there can be.
2007-01-05 20:42:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Linda 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Are the people killing innocent people going to change their strategy? Yea, if we don't stop chasing them then they are going to come after you. I prefer our military and our President maintain his course. It's not easy, but it could be worst.
2007-01-05 20:43:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by LuckyChucky 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
unfortunately Bush want win all cost in Iraq
that it mean more troops and more money
2007-01-05 21:06:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Arizona A 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
he's sending the likes of;
schwarzenneggers
stallons bruce willis et al!
2007-01-05 22:08:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋