Many have considered Bush a dictator. Do you Agree??

Question

Rephrase:

At first, there was enough "intelligence" to gain Congress's approval to go to war. Now that Congress found out that the intelligence was made up and disapprove of it. Is it still okay that Bush still wants to send young children into war without Congress's approval.

(keep in mind that the initial votes to send children to war was under the false presumption that their were "Weapons of Mass Destruction")

He threatens congress if they require Rove aides to go under oath. Isn't going under oath a part of what this country stands for? How can you be the president of the United States and threathen those who advocate going under oath? No one man or group should feel that going under oath is beneath him.

It seems like he does whatever he wants whenever he want. Can't anyone do anything about it? Congress? Hillary Clinton? Bill Clinton? Senate? Barack Obama? Al Gore?

Answer 1

He's a dictator wannabe. He hates opposition and will not just argue a point but eliminate them altogether if he can. Like a dictator does. He wants things his way and only his way without thought of compromise. Just like a dictator does. He would rather use military force than diplomacy as dictators tend to do. He lies when it is convenient and that is almost always just like dictators are proned to do. He will visit children at a day care center and say how much he appreciates such places and how he is working on getting more money and support for day care centers and two weeks later he guts all funds for day care centers to pay for his war.

God forbid he dare even think of raising taxes to pay for his war. So we go bankrupt by taking a finite amount from already funded and operating entities. Veterans suffer from no funding, PBS and NPR suffer meaning children don't see Sesame Street and other educational programs. An on and on and on.

Answer 2

FAUX! Faux on you!

"At first, there was enough "intelligence" to gain Congress's approval to go to war. Now that Congress found out that the intelligence was made up and disapprove of it. Is it still okay that Bush still wants to send young children into war without Congress's approval."

First off, the same Intel was used as was used before the 2000 elections, by President Clinton. Was there bad intel? YES! The doctored intel was that which linked Saddam to Al-Quaeda. Senator Kerry, was screaming for blood in 1998, but, suddenly the docotrerd intel makes him all pious? I'm not buying this BS. You can go blow helium up someone else's rectum, thank you very much.

And young children?! These aren't 12 yr olds. These are young men and women old enough to be tried as adults in a court of law. These are adults, capable of voting. These are NOT a bunch of pre-teens that you misrepresent them to be.

SHAME on you! SHAME!

Answer 3

exciting. Going under oath to be interrogated with the help of a opposed congress while NO crime is even alleged is rarely what this us of a 'stands for'. This president has not extra nor much less powers than any president in the previous him. With all due admire,you're the two very youthful or very brainwashed . additionally, for the record Congress authorized the Iraq Invasion. you will possibly sound plenty smarter in case you will possibly purely persue the info and argue on the inspiration of them. the whole thesis is in keeping with inaccuracies.

Answer 4

2 sections of the Joint Resolution were regarding WMDs.

In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, senators at the time also cited Iraq's sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam's attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.

Had the reconstruction of Iraq gone as relatively smoothly as the three-week removal of Saddam, most Democratic candidates would now be heralding their past muscular support for democratic change in Iraq.

So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.

Answer 5

Tricky Dick was evil, but even HE was ACTUALLY elected and he felt SOME constraints to his power grab from the Constitution. UNelected Dumbya feels NO such constraints.... well maybe SOME now with the new Congress, but his openly expressed WILL to be a dictator remains. Dumbya thinks the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper" as he said it. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 6

If you really believe that bush does anything by himself, then he fooled you too. That moron needs help with his shoes in the morning. What you should be asking is why we let the American government run amuck without so much as a "by your leave" to the public. They are supposed to work for us, instead they have the public working for them. We fear our local and national government, they threaten us fines, jail and any number of threats, and we just plod along. What's more disturbing?,A president who is this bad, or the millions of people who actually think he and our government are actually acting in OUR best interest?!

Answer 7

Unless Bush commits a crime instead of just being in disagreement with you on how the world should be run there is nothing anyone can do regarding the fact that the constitution gives him certain powers. In Jan 09 Bush will be gone, your irrational fears of him being a dictator will evaporate, the war with terrorist will continue, and the next president will likely do things you don't like either

Answer 8

Tell me, have you always been stuck on stupid, or is this a new developement?

Bill ( I did not have sex with that woman) Clinton, and his socialist wife, John Fn (I voted for the war before I voted against it) Kerry, and a whole host of Democrats all said that Saddam had weapons, or was developing weapons of mass destruction. I guess they were all lying too, eh?

The panty waisted, limp-wristed U.N. gave Saddam plenty of time to relocate those aforementioned weapons that he used on his own people, and in the Iranian war.

Finally, someone with a full set of gonads (GW) held Saddam accountable for not complying with U.N. sactions.

GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!

Answer 9

Your use of the term "Bush wants to send yound children into war..." is a bit exaggerated don't you think?? First of all, these aren't fourth and fifth graders being sent out as suicide bombers as the actual terrorists do with their children. These are men and women, young and old, who have chosen to support and fight for their country and the peace of others, unlike yourself. Second, even though you and most other liberals believe it, Bush doesnt "get off" on sending anyone to war! Its part of his job and rather than sitting there on your soapbox, you should be greatful that we haven't had to deal with another terrorist attack. You can thank Bush for that!

Answer 10

I think Bush has had a distinct disadvantage over many of the other presidents. Think about it, ever single move he makes is under a microscope, more so than any president before him. I'm not saying that he makes all the correct choices but come on!