Hi! well im canadian so i wouldn't know alot on this subject. for the things i know, i'd say Bush is an alright guy. but again im canadian and im probably missing out 90% of the whole story. I mean what he did after 9/11, isn't that alright? And i think sending troops into Iraq is ok. America is over run by the minority. Just because you see a couple hundred people are holding up signs infront of the white house is shown on T.V., all of America thinks the other way. Stop being such a hippie, strap on a helmet. Is it really a good idea to withdraw the troops from Iraq? Take a look at what happened to Vietnam. As you can see im very comfumbled about the situation. OPINIONS PLEASE!
2007-04-23 13:07:07 · 7 answers · asked by adam n 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
He lies...any number of websites will show where he says something one day, and the next day his administration does the opposite.
He cut funding to over 200 programs to help impoverished, disabled, and elderly Americans find food, medical care, and job training...then sends billions of US dollars to Iraq for health care and job training.
He absolutely lied about weapons in Iraq.
I could post here a list of 15 parallels between Bush and Hitler, but my answer would be deleted if I did so...check out my blog on Yahoo 360.
Sending troops to Afghanistan was necessary. Sending them to Iraq was not necessary, and he needed a huge campaign of lies and deceit to get any support.
The list of unacceptable behaviors goes on for awhile.
2007-04-23 13:59:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W. did what the rest of the country wanted to do, and invaded Iraq. Only the far left groups were opposed to it at the time, and even Kerry said he would have gone into Iraq. Now that people are not seeing enough progress in the country, they say that we should not have gone over there... hindsight is always 20/20. Our president is also thinking rationally about Iraq, comparing it to Vietnam and that fact that things became much worse after we pulled out. All of the war opposers now compare Iraq to Vietnam, but demand that troops be pulled out immediately. That is irrational thinking, if you compare it to Vietnam, then learn from what we did wrong in Vietnam, do not make the same mistakes. There is evidence that the cities where the US troops are staying are much safer, and life is going back to normal, as opposed to the cities where the troops have withdrawn.
2007-04-23 20:42:07 · answer #2 · answered by Jenny C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say he's a pretty bad president. I think that sending troops into Iraq was not a good idea. When interviewed and asked why we sent troops there, he said that it was to free Iraqis from Saddam Hussein and find weapons of mass destruction. Well, we caught Hussein and found no evidence whatsoever of WMDs, so why are we still there? Also, I wouldn't call storming innocent people's homes and telling them to get on the f***in floor exactly peaceful. He also did not prepare us for disasters such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, although he had at least a year's worth of forewarning of both.
Plus, the guy can barely speak.
2007-04-23 20:41:09 · answer #3 · answered by Jaylin B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W Bush - means well but has had the misfortune to make decisions based on some bad advice and poor intelligence data. I don't think he is a stupid man...in many ways he is braver and stronger than he is given credit for. Lets face it - none of us ever have the whole story...and to some extent perhaps some things should be kept secret...or it undermines the phrase "Top Secret". God be with our leaders and our troops.
2007-04-23 20:14:45 · answer #4 · answered by RITI 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These are just a sampling of George W. Bush's ineffective leadership.
The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
2007-04-23 20:42:02 · answer #5 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush is doing the best job any President could do under the circumstances. Our biggest non-lethal enemy is our Democratic Party, that can't stomach seeing the President do the right things, so they are out to Assasinate him Politically, by lying, scheming and rallyining their sheep to do the same. PresidentBush will not allow these Cowards to do what they din\d in VietNam, as long as he is in office.
2007-04-23 20:15:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he's good
because he helped free some 50 milion people
sure, there are some who don't like that, and are prepared to murder anyone to get their way. in our "civilised" countries we call them gangsters and get rid of them. Why should we call them "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan and hand these countries to them?
2007-04-23 20:13:48 · answer #7 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋