2007-04-01 13:52:42 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think you should stop using a dildo to please yourself. Anal is not always the answer!
2007-04-01 13:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Two weeks? No, he should have waited 6 years! I don't think that the UN was proposing any invasion of Iraq for anyone, let alone Bush! Why would anyone with brains ever see any reason for an invasion of a country that had done nothing to us? To bring Saddam to justice? That was not our job, that was up to the people of Iraq, if they couldn't do it or wouldn't do it, then too bad, live with it!
2007-04-01 21:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Good old hindsight.
The fact is, Saddam had been playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors for over 10 years - what difference would two more weeks had made?
2007-04-01 21:02:49 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding me? This is like asking if the mob should have waited until Kennedy's next parade to assassinate him.
Dude... Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and was solely done to take over oil in that region. Please man, get a grip!
Lord have mercy! It really is incredible how many people have no clue that Fux News, Lumbaugh, etc. is spewing garbage faster than the rate the world is dying do to global warming!
2007-04-01 21:01:22 · answer #4 · answered by ConspiracyExaminer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush was working on that My Pet Goat novel and couldn't be bothered then.
2007-04-01 21:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, he did it for the Libs, for also for Blair, who was getting lots of heat
2007-04-01 20:58:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
got any facts, a link, newspaper article,.... anything?
2007-04-01 21:16:42 · answer #7 · answered by daddio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋