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

2007-04-18 03:58:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

14 answers

yes he's so much in in denial he believes his own lies

2007-04-18 04:18:02 · answer #1 · answered by Chery 5 · 3 0

he's extremely no longer in denial, he knows that he's in charge for the 4000 or extra lives that have been lost in Iraq. McCain knows this too, yet fellow warmongers seem on the lost of lives as numbers and figures they do no longer seem able to understanding that those females and adult males human beings had households that loved them. even nevertheless McCain has a son struggling with in Iraq, it form of feels that it is purely a value to pay might desire to something terrible got here approximately. which may be ok to an quantity if this have been a merely and ethical war, even nevertheless it is not. McCain is a warmonger, it incredibly is why he traveled with Cheney to Iraq, to no longer help the troops yet because of the fact he loves the seen being in a war.

2016-12-29 06:49:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

What Iraq war? I was under the impression that we were fighting against insurgents/terrorists not the Iraqi people or army. The Iraq war ended when the former Iraqi army and government was dismantled and the dictator removed from power. How can we be at war with a government we are helping to create and protect?

2007-04-18 04:05:08 · answer #3 · answered by Goober W 4 · 4 0

In denial about what? Well, it couldn't be about the country being at war -- everybody and his dog knows that.

I think the ones who are "in denial" are those who oppose the war on the grounds that we have done nothing but harm and that nothing good has come out of it. Gloom, doom, and sorrow. Try looking at the facts for a minute here: we have credible evidence that leads us to assume that Saddam Hussein, a man with previous history in regard to disobedience and violation of rights, was working covertly with the very people who had very recently attacked us. Would you want to be the President who sat back and did nothing after drawing this conclusion, and then turned out to be right as several major cities are vaporized? What are you going to do then, "talk with them"? Give me a break: at that point they wouldn't care how pathetically you whined to them (but then, they never do); they'd keep right at it. Your only solution would be a war, one in which thousands more servicemen's lives would be lost in addition to millions of civilians. And if you didn't, I would be very disappointed if you were to remain President for much longer.

Even if Saddam wasn't in with al-Qaeda, we also had credible evidence that lent us to believe that he was developing nuclear capabilities; given his somewhat rocky relations with us in the past, and his continuing and growing hostility toward us, it was safest to nip the problem in the bud before we had a nuclear holocaust on our hands. And even if Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't anywhere near developing them, have we forgotten his genocide against the Kurds before the Gulf War? In other words, have we forgotten that Saddam possessed weapons of varying strength (a nuke, as I'm sure you'll realize, is not the only effective tool of destruction) and would likely have used them against us or our allies given the slightest provocation to do so? And if you still don't believe the evidence, why don't you swallow your pride for a minute and write a letter to the President asking for some more detailed information -- or better yet, as he has far better things to be doing with his time, go look it up for yourself? It would take a little doing, but it couldn't be that very difficult.

2007-04-18 04:29:10 · answer #4 · answered by Richard S 5 · 1 1

FYI: When ever there is a report of a bomb going off, see what city they are referring to. It's almost always Baghdad. Most of the country is actually in good shape.

Baghdad is utter chaos though. ABCNews had a report on how different parts of the country are doing. Iraq's really not as bad as we keep hearing.

2007-04-18 04:05:12 · answer #5 · answered by Thomas 3 · 4 1

I don't believe he ever denied we were at war in Iraq.

2007-04-18 04:03:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Even fearless leader knows hes LOST this. But he would prefer to continue the murders on the long shot something might happen, and also his nassie followers love him for his bloodlust of civilians.
200 HAVE DIED TODAY!
Yep, 200! Murdered by amerka.
The entire bushbunch shd be turned over to a world court.

2007-04-18 04:05:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

The name BUSH means war. They've always had their own agenda. I think I should run for president.

2007-04-18 04:08:39 · answer #8 · answered by Jared S 2 · 1 2

He obviously has his own agenda. He doesn't care about the will of the majority of citizens in this country. He has no plan and never has. Denial? I think it's more about oil and making his daddy proud.

2007-04-18 04:02:38 · answer #9 · answered by katydid 7 · 2 4

no, there is a difference between convictions, which he has and liberals don't. He is denying nothing

2007-04-18 04:26:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers