If he's cynical, he's just hoping the additional troops can hold off the inevitable collapse of Iraq untill 2008, so that Bush's successor, not Bush, is in office when the helicopters start lifting people ff the embassy roof. If Bush is delusional, he simply can't face cutting his losses; like a gambler on a losing st reak. he's hoping one last big bet willsave him from his previous mistakes.
2007-01-21 15:42:03 · 7 answers · asked by iiashley 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think you summed it up yourself. Not much to expand on beyond that.
2007-01-21 15:45:45 · answer #1 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a simple man and hard job.He needs simple answers to hard questions.Saddam bad kill Saddam! War problems more troops needed.We do not give a test to people who run for president.We could teach Bush to ask do you want fries with that.Nation building 101 could be a problem.He has yes men and women who will not tell him we have a problem.It is clear he will not take advice.The last few years we have decreased money for the war on cancer. This is a war will can and should win.We need more money not less.President Bush was not the man for the job.We will not fire Bush for incompetence.This is not grounds for impeachment.
2007-01-22 21:15:25 · answer #2 · answered by radio309 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush holds strong that he was right in ridding the world of Saddam and taking steps to make Iraq a democracy. He is neither cynical or delusional. He told us this would be difficult and would be a long battle against terrorism (I know, Iraq is not part of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but it's a part of the bigger picture). The media and dems have ignored this, causing it to look as if it's all been a failure. It will fail because they will pull out too soon and not allow us to do what we need to do.
2007-01-21 15:50:11 · answer #3 · answered by lulu 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Obama wasn't required to vote on the bailout of AIG or any of the early Bush bailouts by way of fact the approval of Congress replaced into no longer required. this interior reason recent historic past which you're able to be attentive to in case you will ask questions approximately it. i'm no longer saying that the Bush bailouts have been outstanding or incorrect yet do no longer accuse the left without only reason. Liberals maximum truthfully did no longer placed Bush in workplace so which you're able to bear some accountability for the movements of your selected chief. This consistent ranting against Obama is amazingly hypocritical.
2016-12-16 10:20:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. He is trying to find something that will help the situation. I think that that is much better than cheering for our enemies.
2007-01-21 16:24:20 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about just a dam fool an dumb that sums it up
2007-01-21 15:46:32 · answer #6 · answered by bigdogrex 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Delusional comes closest, but he's a moron. He doesn't have a clue what's going on.
2007-01-21 15:50:02 · answer #7 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋