He has made it very clear that he doesn't go by public opinion (or not concerned), but instead insists he knows what's best for America. Almost seems like we shouldn't worry about Iraq because he can/will handle it.
2007-01-10 05:02:25 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The news indicated that Bush will not address what people are saying about Iraq, but will instead by in Explanatory and educational mode in his speech
2007-01-10 05:04:19 · update #1
Nicolasraage- what the hell does that have to do with my question. stay with us!
2007-01-10 05:16:11 · update #2
Not saying that I agree or disagree with him, just pointing out his tactics in this war.
2007-01-10 05:17:32 · update #3
Bush doesn't have to listen to public opinion in how to run the war. He is the Commander in Chief, as provided by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 2).
2007-01-10 05:11:52 · answer #1 · answered by cornbread 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I see your point. However, I don't necessarily think a good leader has to follow public opinion. Some of the hardest decisions that leaders have to make are those that go against public opinion. The recent remembrance of President Ford brought back how unpopular it was for him to pardon Nixon and how it probably cost him the next election. That was an unpopular decision that most people (including Clinton) say was proabably in the best interest of the nation.
I'm not sure how he can follow public opinion anyways in this situation. Just because the majority of Americans do not support the war, how does that translate into policy decisions? Do we drop everything and pull out? Do we pull out gradually? There is a wide range of possible ways to handle Iraq going forward.
I am no fan of Bush either. I think his speech tonight is not going to change that Iraq is a clusterf**k. But I don't agree with your premise that he should follow public opinion.
2007-01-10 05:12:42 · answer #2 · answered by harrisnish 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Skull & Bones is about as elitist as you can get. They believe they are born to lead, "and that if God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep." This elitism is not so much disregard or stupidity, but rather comes from a contempt for the rest of us. He comes from a family that financed the Third Reich in Germany ( Grandaddy Preston ) http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bush_nazi.html
and they are now making a play for Dominion over the Middle East while plundering the US Treasury for $3 billion per week for their war making businessmen friends. What's public opinion to men like these?
2007-01-10 05:17:09 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I totally respect the man and would vote for him again, but yes. He does seem like a dictator in a sense, but in times of crisis every major Democracy has had some form of dictatorship. From the Roman Empire to present day America, threats to national security have prompted the executive to act in a very direct way.
The argument start because there is a difference in view of our enemy. Any person can see that there is a world-wide war going on invovling radical Islam. From Central Africa to the South Pacific there radical Islam is fighting wars against non-radical Muslims. I feel this threat constitutes the Executive to dictate authority. We are in the begining stages of WWIII.
2007-01-10 05:24:39 · answer #4 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It happens, every time there is a Republican in the white house..The opposite side, just want to make President Bush, look like a racist, which he is not..He has more people of color in his administration, than ever before, in history..
2016-05-23 04:55:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a president has to LEAD. not just take opinion polls.
the fact u are struggling with the concept demonstrates the president is doing the right thing by ignoring ignorant as Ses like you.
no offense
2007-01-10 07:20:20 · answer #6 · answered by seans brother 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you ignorant or just stupid? We do not elect a president to lead by polls or public opinion. (that was Clinton). We elect a leader to lead. To lead you must do the right thing regardless of popular opinion. If we went by popular opinion....we would still have slavery in this country. Actually we still do, the Democrat welfare state. A slave voting block.
2007-01-10 05:17:47 · answer #7 · answered by Tropical Weasel 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Was Truman an elitist? How about Lincoln? They would be by your premise.
2007-01-10 05:16:39 · answer #8 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he calls himself "the decider" if that is not elitist then I dont know what is
2007-01-10 05:27:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Answer: Yes.
Comment: Bush probably can't spell "elitist" or even comprehend what it means.
2007-01-10 05:16:15 · answer #10 · answered by Gemini 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋