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

Today: "One message I have heard from people of both parties is that benchmarks make sense and I agree," Bush said.

He AGREES? Last week, he thought that setting deadlines emboldens the enemy and increases the danger to Americans.

What happened???

Did he allow himself to get bullied? And if he did, is he the right man for the job?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

2007-05-10 07:31:24 · 16 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government Politics

markj: I knew someone would be that pedantic. Congratulations.

2007-05-10 07:55:52 · update #1

To all those who think that, by deadlines, I meant "pullout deadlines," you need to pay more attention.

Part of what the Decider vetoed was a plan to give the Iraqis deadlines to accomplish certain things. (i.e., benchmarks) He said that to do this would be to embolden our enemy and threaten the security of the American people.

2007-05-10 07:57:34 · update #2

16 answers

First, listening to other opinions, particularly those of people who are trained to make security decisions, is not a flaw. It's a strength that allows policy makers to do a good job.

Second, saying that one admires Bush for "staying the course" is akin to saying that you admire someone who is driving right towards a brick wall while refusing to turn to avert disaster. It's stupidity, nothing less, and probably more.

Third, Bush has never been consistent. He's just not the right person for the job.

2007-05-10 07:36:11 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 6 · 1 4

28% of the people still approve. Only 2 presidents have had a longer string of consecutive months under 40% : Truman during the unpopular Korean War and Nixon during Watergate.

We know Bush never reads polls because he says he doesn't. So it could be a combination of other things that made the decider decide to accede to benchmarks. The 11 Republican Congressmen who talked to him yesterday, the very unpopular decision of the Iraqi parliament to take 2 months off, and pressure from Secretary of Defense who's just put 35,000 more troops on notice that they well be sent to Iraq before Spring 2008.

On second thought, who says he'll actually agree to benchmarks? He's often said he'll act in a bipartisan way, that he'll talk it over with Democrat leaders of Congress. When they meet with him, they're told he's decided to stick to his guns.

Finally if benchmarks are included in the bill, you don't have to worry that these might actually be 'timelines'. There's no doubt the Republican think tanks have worked out all the fine distinctions between a timeline and a benchmark. Check back here next week and see how these new definitions have filtered down to the average Republican voter.

2007-05-10 14:36:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I still admire President Bush for being the only one in the political arena to realize the radical Islamists threat to Americans. Second benchmarks are not pull out deadlines. This questions makes no sense because the President put benchmarks in his own plan. It is no wonder that he agrees with the Dems on it.

2007-05-10 14:49:47 · answer #3 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0 1

28% of the people still admire his bullheaded approach to the war in Iraq. The benchmarks Bush refers to are not the ones the majority of the public wants to see..

2007-05-10 14:47:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Benchmarks and deadlines are two completely different things. Look up the definitions in the dictionary. Bush has always said he will accept benchmarks, but is unwilling to accept artificial deadlines. This is a compromise the Democrats have made, not Bush.

2007-05-10 14:37:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

Benchmarks and timelines are different creatures...looks more like the Dem's backing down from timelines to me...so I still admire Bush for standing up and making a difference and ignoring popularity polls ...which are a joke.

2007-05-10 14:40:59 · answer #6 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2 2

Hey, Pelosi talked about a bipartisan government during elections. Yet she refuses to meet with Bush after several invitations to discuss a withdrawal from Iraq. The moral of these stories, all politicians are full of sh!t.

2007-05-10 14:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Anyone who can still defend Bush is all about their inability to open their minds. They don't see the man, they see their own stupidity.

2007-05-10 14:47:18 · answer #8 · answered by cashmere 3 · 1 1

28% and dropping by the minute. And I would rather say Dumbya is "Staying the Curse". Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

2007-05-10 14:40:03 · answer #9 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0 3

Only the die-hard nationalists who dont understand reality.

2007-05-10 14:41:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers