does he not understand that he can no longer get everything he wants from congress? he is calling for a "meeting" but states that it is in no way a negiotition. he thinks he can sit all the dems in a room and tell them what he wants and how he wants it done and it will be so. sorry, but its not going to happen. he no longer has a republican congress behind his every move. the dems are doing exactly what the american people want, and thats who they work for. why does bush not understand that he has lost?
2007-04-10 05:48:09 · 10 answers · asked by 2010 CWS Champs! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is hard to understand when for 60 years you have never been told no you can't have it your way. He's a spoiled brat.
Have you noticed the absense of the smirk? It went away on Nov. 7, 2006 and hasn't been seen since. I think he has an inkling he is in trouble and daddy can't bail him out of this mess.
2007-04-10 05:55:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
He got used to acting like a dictator and now he's trying to adjust to the reality of being part of the three branches of our government. He's not exactly doing well dealing with it is he? It's been a long time since we had a President who had so little respect for Congress. I'm 50 and I've never seen a President so full of arrogance and stubborn resolve for a position that is so clearly wrong. His father was actually a pretty decent President, but his legacy will be a study in how NOT to run a country. I wish I could feel sorry for him, but he has made that impossible.
2007-04-10 13:13:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm wondering about the existing time tables that we all agree to...in which the time expected to act has already gone. Bush doesn't get it that that Iraqis will string us along forever unless we show them that we are very impatient. Bush will continue on this winding path for 2 more years unless the Congress can reason with him...this latest bi-partisan meeting is really just an opportunity for Bush to tell them again what he wants, he's not going to be listening
"The Iraqis promised to achieve, by the end of 2006 or early 2007, the approval of a provincial election law (so far, no progress); approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues (while the Council of Ministers has approved a draft, it has yet to be approved by the Parliament); approval of the de-Baathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and Arab nationalists into public life (no progress); and approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias (no progress).
By March, the government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments (no progress).
By May, the prime minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias (no progress); the approval of the amnesty agreement (no progress); and the completion of all reconciliation efforts.
By June, the Iraqi government promised to hold provincial elections (no date has been set).
As for security issues, things are not going much better. The Iraqis have increased security spending over 2006 levels as promised, but they are falling behind on the number of battle-ready Army units.
By April, the Iraqis want to take over total control of the Iraq Army (not likely based on current progress).
By September, the Iraqis want to be given full civil control of all provinces (to date they control 3 of 18 provinces).
By December, the Iraqis, with United States support, want to achieve total security self-reliance (too early to tell, but does anyone really find this likely?).
Yes, there have been some notable successes. For example, the Baghdad government has made good on its promise to appreciate the Iraqi dinar to combat accelerating inflation, and has increased domestic prices for refined petroleum products.
But particularly in terms of reforms needed to reconcile Sunnis and Shiites, progress has been minimal. And unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon."
2007-04-10 13:26:28 · answer #3 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One gets so tired of educating some of YA just because you don't have a majority does not mean you cannot influence and control congress that is what the veto is for . Even when Clinton had a republican congress he was still able to get some of what he wanted you need 61 senators to override a veto so if there are not 61 senators ready to override a veto they are basically blowing smoke.
2007-04-10 13:07:48 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Democrats (and you) do not get it.
Congress is not suppose to conduct foreign policy or wage war. This is Constitutionally the purview of the executive branch of government.
Congress can choose to fund or not fund items but they are not in charge of policy in these matters.
The American people narrowly elected a slim majority of Democrats to Congress. The American people did not give Congress a clear mandate to lose the war, raise taxes, continue to do "pork" spending, start conducting foreign policy or run the executive branch of government.
2007-04-10 12:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by InReality01 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why do you not get it? Even w/ dems control of the house and congress we still have the d*ck so we make the rule. Ho.
2007-04-10 12:56:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Brain washing, brain damage? I dont know. He really is a confused about the world. He really ought to be saved again this time make sure it takes.
2007-04-10 12:53:42 · answer #7 · answered by mr bliss 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's what Naggy Pelosi wanted. More non-partisan and bi-partisan communication. You hate Bush is your problem not theirs.
2007-04-10 12:53:04 · answer #8 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
He's like alittle kid that doesn't like someone telling him he isn't allowed to do something!
2007-04-10 12:57:17 · answer #9 · answered by fatbrat64 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CtVJrf7FfRA&mode=related&search=
2007-04-10 12:56:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋