why not? or why yes?
2007-02-15 04:08:44 · 8 answers · asked by Michel Souza 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no I don't
2007-02-15 04:14:37 · answer #1 · answered by the vet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO he is a criminal.
What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals -- ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B [Bush Sr, Scrowcroft, Baker]. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do.
We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself.
He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too.
Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile -- hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain).
The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, see Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, [excerpt below].
Maybe the bums planned this mess for their own profit, or maybe they planned to profit without mess; maybe some of them regret what they have wrought. However, they all share the blame for whatever he does next.
2007-02-15 12:13:03 · answer #2 · answered by FOX NEWS WATCHER 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
absolutely NOT!
Why, you ask? Let me ask you this..how can you tell when GWB is lying ? Answer : His lips are moving.
He lied to the american public giving false pretense for a war that would benefit his golden lined pockets. He should have been impeached for that but with a republican congress for most of his presidency that was impossible to expect just as it would be worthless to impeach him now.
He has failed the working class American people and is making this country a 2 class society of the very weatlhy and the poor, our country will no longer have a middle class with GWB's economic policies.
He is a national disaster.
2007-02-15 12:24:32 · answer #3 · answered by starfish 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes I do, reason being is he is the first President to stand up to terrorism, making our Country a safer place.
2007-02-15 12:44:27 · answer #4 · answered by Hannibal 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I like Bush because he's a nice guy.
2007-02-15 12:13:58 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, because he has made very poor decisions that have cost us all dearly, in terms of Iraq, for example.
2007-02-15 12:35:28 · answer #6 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. I think he's hard-headed and childish, and I think he doesn't do what he should to earn the respect of his office.
2007-02-15 12:13:21 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I prefer Dick
2007-02-15 12:12:56 · answer #8 · answered by joedude471 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋