Face it EVERYONE has said that Iraq is a total mess and troops should be taken out. Bush's response is (to be confirmed shortly) is to send in MORE troops in in a ditch attempt to sort things out. One of the factors is that he will not have to worry about re election as he has served his 2nd term limit.
If he was facing a 3rd term defeat, his attitude would be very different to save himself, so should the 2 term limit be changed?
2007-01-09 02:51:24 · 11 answers · asked by David 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. The last time we had a president for more than 2 terms (FDR) he nearly destroyed this country with his authoritarianism and socialism. He's the only president who put people in concentration camps. He tampered with the economy and caused the depression to last years beyond when it would have recovered normally without such interference. He attempted to pack the court with "yes" men who would not declare his policies unconstitutional.
No, we can do without 2+ term presidents.
2007-01-09 03:02:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
YES, YES, YES!!!!! It should be one 6 year term only for US President and then out. The last two years of just about every US President in their 2nd term is almost always a lame duck period anyway. The some the best Presidents in US history did most of the best work in their 1st them anyway. Bush jr. has shown how power hungry US Presidents can get and that is exactly what the founding fathers did not want to happen.
2007-01-09 03:00:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
7. hundreds of harmless Iraqi's have been killed rather of terrorists. 8. No WMD's 9. Vetoed stem cellular study. 10. Eminent area. 11. Patriot Act. 12. Stold votes from Evangelists under fake pretenses. 13. Barred gays from the protection rigidity, yet employed one to artwork interior the White domicile. 14. Drove away maximum of out allies. 15. authorized torture. sixteen. Katrina. 17. Rumsfeld.
2016-12-15 19:31:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The president's term should be for 6 years with no chance of re-election. If you look at all 2 term Presidents you will see their effectiveness and sanity start to fall prey to the 24/7 job. Plus you'll get the full term out of the president instead of loosing time when he is campaigning.
2007-01-09 02:59:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I believe the law should be changed to prevent new Presidents giving pardons to Presidents leaving.
All politicians should be held responsible after leaving office for their actions while in office.
This should be the case in Iraq especially for Bush and Blair to answer for the lies and genocide committed by their deceit and executive orders.
It was good enough for President Milosevic, President Pinochet, President Noriega and President Saddam Hussein why not for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and their henchmen.
2007-01-09 03:07:49 · answer #5 · answered by ian d 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the damage has been done right?
+ with all the controversy surrounding his re-election, who's to say he wouldn't be voted in for a 3rd term to screw the world up even further? And that people, would be democracy down the toilet.
2007-01-09 03:05:46 · answer #6 · answered by MissMe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't make a difference. If there was a 3rd term he would just steal that one like the first two.
2007-01-09 03:00:59 · answer #7 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say we should get rid of 2 term limit but I believe he would win again.
2007-01-09 02:55:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I usually don't often agree with Jesi, but I couldn't agree with her more on this issue.
2007-01-09 03:14:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, but it is a good argument for ending the existence of the Republican party.
2007-01-09 02:55:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋