English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

Some people are talking "impeachment" some are toying with the idea of charging him with " war crimes".What happened to all those people who supported him in his actions, at the outset?
Who knows what is next!

2007-01-28 03:52:33 · answer #1 · answered by John W 5 · 0 1

George W. Bush is an asshole and he has brought a pair of wide quantity of damage. The conflict shouldn't in any respect were allowed to happen and youngsters from extra often than not decrease-type backgrounds are over there dropping their lives. If this become like Vietnam and there have been a draft the conflict might want to were longer over! i imagine that is way previous time to tug out of Iraq and that i imagine the military ought to pull out immidately. Then, George W. Bush that ridiculous excuse for a president should be impeached for his conflict crimes!

2016-12-03 03:49:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Get a clue. There has been strife in the Middle East long before Bush was born. Certain areas in the Middle East are considered 'holy land' by people with antithetical, deeply religious beliefs. The U.S. is involved so events like 9/11 don't repeat themselves, plus, we're fortunate to have so many brave men and women who are willing to fight the battle over there so the rest of us can continue on with our daily lives.

2007-01-28 04:06:38 · answer #3 · answered by °ĠיִяĿỵ° 4 · 3 1

It doesn't mean world peace and Bush is only one man...how in a logical world can one man claim responsibility for a middle east war that pre-exsisted before he was even born.

2007-01-28 03:56:22 · answer #4 · answered by Spades Of Columbia 5 · 1 0

If it meant no more liberals would post hypothetical "what if" questions, I would personally fly to the middle east and take all their guns away. The bad thing is they used stones and swords before and I'm sure they'd go back to that now.
OK, what was your question? Yes he is being held accountable.... watch the news.

2007-01-28 03:51:00 · answer #5 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 0 0

Why would we hold him 100% accountable for the Middle East problems, when the bastards were fighting as it was, and he had the recommendations of some other people (i.e. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) to get involved out there.

2007-01-28 03:51:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Yes, in much the same way that if it meant peace in the world you would allow dangerous dictators of countres like Iran and N. Korea take over the world (as long as it meant peace).
Maybe you can negotiate them to death!

2007-01-28 04:13:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I think he should be held accountable whether or not i means peace.

2007-01-28 03:54:06 · answer #8 · answered by nospamcwt 5 · 1 1

No. We need to stand behind our president even if we don't support his ideas. America heard his speach this month, hes changed. Even though he said he doesn't care if we don't belive in him or not. Bush deserves loyalty, we elected him. So we should stand behind him.

2007-01-28 03:50:41 · answer #9 · answered by Buffy 4 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers