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

2007-03-29 07:47:45 · 19 answers · asked by simpleton templton 2 in Politics & Government Politics

but shouldnt a leader listen to his people after they been calling for this for years now?

2007-03-29 07:51:59 · update #1

19 answers

Dumbya is a dictator because he was NEVER elected. What you cite is just one example, disregarding Congress, of his dictatorial tendencies.

2007-03-29 10:40:30 · answer #1 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0 0

No, in this instance, Bush is a realist. He sees the most probably results of various actions, withdrawl, time limits, etc, and then makes his decision. If we withdraw, what makes this different from Viet Nam, which we lost? Consider the horrible possibilities if we withdraw without achieving any of our goals. The democrats are only doing this for political reasons, and they put their own political agenda before their concern for national interests, or the welfare of the military already there. To democrats, the military are only hired guns, so let them die as long as they get what they want.

2007-03-29 14:55:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Your question should be directed towards the constitution not Bush. The question is this: Is it right that a President can continue to act in defiance of the American people, and can the congress continue to act in defiance of the American people.

Bush has to work with his checks and balances, but the democrats, after promising to get us out of Iraq if they took back the house, won't do it. I told someone on yahoo answers when they won that they were just selling us a bill of goods, and that's precisely what they've done.

Bush can act within whatever congressional support he gets, but can veto anything bill the congress sends to him that limits the time we have in Iraq, and they won't have the votes to counter the veto.

2007-03-29 14:55:01 · answer #3 · answered by billy d 5 · 0 0

No he is not. He is still bound by the constitution. Wake up and do some reading. If he was a dictator, he would have imprisoned all the democrats into jails and tortured them. Nancy Peloci would have been arrested and placed into house arrest.

Hey idiot, be glad you live in US. I have lived through a military dictatorship and it wasn't fun (Having to watch propagandistic cartoons, etc).

Exercise your rights and go out and vote, but don't blurt out stupid comment like that.

Do not take the freedom for granted. It sickens me when I see so many people taking freedom for granted and act like idiots and do not take actions.

2007-03-29 14:54:26 · answer #4 · answered by BBBigster 2 · 0 0

No. That you use the term "dictator" to describe a lawful and constitutionally mandated duty of the president shows this to be just another tired example of hate for the man but no depth of knowledge of real issues or the constitutional basis for a commander in chief to operate under.

2007-03-29 14:52:57 · answer #5 · answered by cappi 3 · 0 0

He becomes a dictator when he crosses the line by ignoring the laws and ignoring the mandates and statutes of Congress.

So, for example, if he signed the funding bill that contained the mandatory withdrawal provisions, and then ignored those provisions (which are legally binding when signed into law), that would be acting as a dictator.

Or if he ignored Congressional subpoenas (which are legal by statute, see 2 USC 192), then he'd be acting as a dictator.

2007-03-29 14:52:56 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

people has no knowledge about political world - they only care for themselves since US is best known for its Individualism. Pres. Bush can predict the consequences of dictating a date for withdrawal - which I considered a stupid thing people could never do during war except US. No country ever do this if they want to preserve the life of their troops in battlefield. I thing our Dem. Congressmen must be reeducated in political-war's strategy and tactic!

2007-03-29 15:08:14 · answer #7 · answered by holyfire 4 · 0 0

The time definite retreat (defeat) is a relatively new ploy on the part of liberal democrats to try to de-fund the war without actually having the courage of their (dare I use this word in reference to these cowards?) convictions.
Ignoring this nonsense does NOT make Bush a dictator - it makes him the COMMANDER IN CHIEF...which is why we put him there.

2007-03-29 14:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 0 0

I don't agree with Bush at all, however, as supposed leader of this country, a President will sometimes have to make tough decisions and do what he thinks is best for his country no matter what the masses might think.

Or regardless of how terribly wrong he might be.

2007-03-29 14:53:36 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Some of his actions resemble a dictator. If it talks like a dictator, acts like a dictator, makes laws like a dictator then guess what. Its a dictator.

2007-03-29 14:58:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers