The biggest issue for voters in 2006 was the war in Iraq...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/issues/
The Dems. who for the most part took a stance of getting us out of the war won both the House and Senate majority...
Therefore,
If Bush ignores this mandate (in the form of vetoing the bill recently passed by Congress to compel our troops to leave Iraq by Sept of next year), is he acting like a leader of a democracy or a dictator? Or in his words "a decider".
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best"
---President George W. Bush 2004
So, am I coming to a logical conclusion?
2007-03-24 22:02:22 · 15 answers · asked by ♥austingirl♥ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Cali...is it irresponsible and devisive for Bush to accuse the people who don't side with him as siding with the terrorists? Hmmm...maybe I kinda resent that, especially since many of his follower parrot that same phrase.
2007-03-24 22:16:38 · update #1
Your conclusion is very logical, and true. Sometimes I think that Bush, seeing the writing on the wall after the mid-terms, let Rumsfeld go as a token sacrifice. Maybe thinking that throwing the public a bone would satisfy them, because he had no intention then, or now, of listening to the will of the people where this war is concerned. He's been frustrated ever since that tactic didn't work, and found that the people, and Congress, are demanding more from him.
I think he's barricaded himself behind this issue, and he will fight Congress tooth and nail over what he sees as his right to do what he pleases with Iraq. He's accepted that the majority of Americans find his stance to be one of stubbornness and arrogance and he's resolved to let that be his legacy. I think he really believes he is right, though sometimes he resembles a 4 year old having a temper tantrum at the thought of not getting his way. I think any leader who is so convinced of his own superiority is dangerous to any free society. But, we are stuck with him until January '09, and we will see this war between him and Congress escalate to even greater heights between now and then. Scatter the corruption scandals in the mix and the day he really leaves office we'll hear a collective sigh of relief across the United States. Until that day, nothing much will change - whether it be Iraq or his lack of attention to domestic matters. We're all going to have to learn the lesson of patience it seems, because we are stuck with this demagogue for a long time to come.
2007-03-25 08:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is very little doubt that Bush is adamantly holding to his beliefs on this matter, but one of the reasons there has not been a more forceful push for withdrawal is that there is no real easy answer for a strategic exit.
An apolitical analysis of our predicament could be that an absense of a stabilizing force in Iraq might create a vacuum that would likely result in choas and bloodshed in a scale larger than Darfur, not to mention a potential Iranian alliance with Iraq's shiite majority that would expand that country's borders and strength in the region. The repercussions of such developments could be catastrophic.
Unless our forces are replaced with some other stabilizing influence, we can't leave, plain and simple. Not for popular reasons like 'victory' or democracy, but for purely selfish reasons such as survival. The middle east would implode upon itself if Iraq were left in a vacuum and the US would find itself in the middle of the ensuing flux and aggression.
2007-03-25 05:50:48 · answer #2 · answered by zapcity29 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not on the dictator part, you need to look up the definition. Bush is not a good speaker, so he meant he is the decision-maker and that is often what a president has to do...make decisions that go against popular belief. He and his party pay a price for that. If he ordered the military to take control of the House and Senate and declared a police state...then you can throw the word Dictator around. To do so in this light cheapens what has happened to people who have lived (and live) under real dictators.
Similarly, saying "Bush is a Nazi" or similar phrases are minimalizing the victims of the holocaust.
When people use this type of grossly exaggerating rhetoric, they lose credibility.
2007-03-25 05:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by CaliDoc 3 · 7⤊ 3⤋
The bill only went through the house, and it only won by 6 votes. That is no way a mandate. The bill will not pass in the Senate, and I cannot wait to see what you have to say then. I will most definitely be checking back. How would Hillary and Obama explain being Commander in Chief if they support this particular bill. It will be interesting to see, Obama has already said we should stay until it is resolved, and so has Hillary.
President Bush's threat to veto, which is his "mandated" authority is really mute until it passes through the Senate.
2007-03-25 05:44:52 · answer #4 · answered by Dina W 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Bush has had 4 years in Iraq and it is a total failure and according to the commanding general in Iraq, it cannot be won militarily. This Sectarian civil war is going to spill over into other countries!
If that is the case, with the exception of trying to rewrite his place in history, why are we there!
The Iraqis don't want us there. There were 100,000 Iraqi protesters in Baghdad burning the American flag! What does that tell you?
Bush can never admit a mistake, and he will make more mistakes trying to cover-up the one he made before. It becomes a snowball!
He can veto the bill all he wants but Congress controls the purse strings. Let's see how much of a decider he is if he gets money with strings attached!
He has always acted like a dictator. I believe he is a fascist!
2007-03-25 05:23:16 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Look, the democrats don't want to stop the war, they only ran for office on the idea that they would to get votes! Listen to them! It is impossible now to leave Iraq. If we do, what do you think will happen? Peace around the world? No. Even the democrats know we must stay. If we leave Iraq, Iran is right there to take over Iraq. If you look at history, that is what they have always wanted. More terror on the Iraqi innocent people will happen. Their new found Democracy will be ripped away, without protection. They are still learning what freedom is, and if we don't help them, their dream of freedom will die. Little girls won't be able to go to school, and learn anymore, like the male children do, and neither will they, after we leave. Know why? They'll be dead, too. Terrorists don't care if you're a child, or even a giving, loving person. If you don't think like they do, to them, you deserve death.
2007-03-25 05:19:55 · answer #6 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
No the president president is the Commander and Chief when elected his job is to look out for the best interests of the country weather or not you agree with him is different issue he can acually veto the bill coming from congress. I doubt there has been a president in our history that has acually done what everyone has liked but yes he has the authority when it comes to the troops.
2007-03-25 05:14:30 · answer #7 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Haha "the president is under no obligation to do what is popular" ... Like take post when he wasnt voted in? But on the other hand he kept a war going so he could be popular...
Anyway, America is supposed to be a representative democracy where the president is supposed to act in the interest of the people. I understand there are times when a president has to make an unpopular decision. But when your popularity amon gthe citizens indicate that you are not wlecome to be president anymore, it should be the courtresy of the president to the American people to obey their wishes as indicated by the votes of the house and senate.
2007-03-25 05:13:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I challenge each and every person to read te Facts, completely. Before choosing who's right on this Issue. Once you do? You very well may see it another way. But you would at least have the chance to say that you know what the truth is.
2007-03-25 06:37:54 · answer #9 · answered by Nunya Bidniss 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No you aren't. This is not high school and he isn't in it to win a popularity contest. It is easy to sit here and critique everything Bush does when we are not privy to the information the president has. The dems ARE playing a popularity contest, saying whatever they felt needed to be said in order to win. This is not the time for playing politics.. You don't give your enemy timelines, deadlines and strategies. have you any idea what the outcome of that could be?,
2007-03-25 05:42:15 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋