If you have a clue you should have little difficulty responding correctly and if not as I suspect you need to keep your opinions to your self .
2007-01-31 04:03:41 · 8 answers · asked by -----JAFO---- 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well--yes. He was hoping I suspect, to fly under the radar until the end of his term, hence his "stay the course" strategy, until a democratic majority was elected this November, when he suddenly did a 180 and decided that a "new direction" was needed after all. He doesn't rely on many of the joint chiefs of staff members opinions, in fact early in the Iraq conflict, one was fired for speaking up about the need for more troops to control Iraq in the beginning. I think right now it is obvious that he is grasping at straws, hoping to pull up the right one. Very sad. (As a side note, I think President Bush is "anserine" altogether)
**anserine- "foolish" "silly". It is a very obscure word, but a word nonetheless.
2007-01-31 04:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by Katie 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
consider spell check before you play politics.
I think the word you were aiming for is "ASININE"
as in "Question like these are asinine"
and in answer to your question, Bush did not go in to office with a strong foreign policy background, however the team he had backing him did.
in all honesty if you look at bush's world policy and the way foreign trade is going, I think you will find it is up to par with past presidents. and in some cases better.
Bush had 1 unpopular big war.
Clinton had 3 small unpopular wars. (Bosnia, Somalia and Yugoslavia).
The only difference between Bush's handling of foreign policies and Clinton's.
Bush was ready to make unpopular choices to get the job done. Clinton broke down at the first sign of trouble. (see Somalia)
Add on: it seems I made a mistake, Anserine is a word, for that I do truly apologize.
I do feel "anserine" about attempting to correct what I perceived to be an incorrect spelling.
But this does not alter the truth behind my statements.
Clinton was responsible for the world that was handed to bush, a failing economy (and yes it was failing prior to bush taking office) and a very active attempt to disrupt America's presence overseas.
I am sorry if your own personal bias clouds you memory, but let me remind you that there had been at least four major "terror" (domestic and international) related incidents during Clinton's tenure, While Bush, again, only had one.
Clinton's list:World trade center 1, USS Cole, Oklahoma city, Embassy bombings in Kenya...
Bush's: 9/11
I think statistically that should speak for it's self.
And if you want to discuss foreign trade, remember a nifty little deal called NAFTA? that was Clinton's and it is considered a failure across the board.
by the way, thank you so much for your well versed comment, which had no bearing on the question that was presented. Claiming that just because I do not agree with your point of view must mean I am ignorant.
Just so you are aware I am more than capable of making my own conclusions thanks to my own two eyes, ears, mind and research that I do.
I am so sorry that individuality and a different perception of the world seems to disturb you so...
And I am so glad you showed me how truly caring and sympathetic the left side truly is...
I am glad you feel compelled to lord over all us poor souls who actually struggle with the ability to put together words in to mildly complicated sentences.
Why I just mastered this big electrical box with the preedy pictures a couple days ago... don'ts I do swell?
I truly am sorry to have insulted you, but it does not change the facts of the answer. nor does it impress me that you are sooo darn smart...
And pat your self on the back for putting me in my place.
2007-01-31 04:53:11 · answer #2 · answered by Stone K 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Surely, he speaks like a fool. Communication skills are necessary for a world leader. However, his approach to foreign policy should be led based on the needs of his own people, not on the needs of the world. Rather, the effectiveness of that foreign policy is a hotly debated topic at the moment.
It's a question of whether the ends justify the means.
2007-01-31 04:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but your attempt to appear more informed than you are, are anserine.
2007-01-31 04:18:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anji 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anserine? What's that??
2007-01-31 04:09:46 · answer #5 · answered by Fred C. Dobbs 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok fancy words are dumb. When you are talking to audience that doesn't know the word. You are making your point to your self only.
2007-01-31 04:18:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh really, gee I kind of feel the same way about your opinions.
2007-01-31 04:13:45 · answer #7 · answered by Jim Ignatowski 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anserine? What's that??????
2007-01-31 04:14:00 · answer #8 · answered by sammy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋