Which will be worse: Bush losing the war in Iraq or him handing Hilary the Presidency on a silver platter.....

Question

because of his Iraq war failure?

Answer 1

The war in Iraq can’t be won militarily and Bush is incapable of exercising the diplomatic skills and political vision that might resolve the situation. Handing the presidency to Hillary would be a good thing.

Answer 2

how would either be bush's fault? the American people are the ones who don't have the stomach to do the right thing in the war. and, the liberal media machine and the growing number of Americans that can't make an informed decision based on common since and morals will be the ones that hand Hilary the White House on a silver platter. Wake-up America!!!!!!!!

Answer 3

I fail to see the problem with the distinction provided by question source. I understand the erroneous but too common view that Mr. Bush and Mrs. Clinton represent
positive/negative choices drawn from the American 2-party
system. The error, of course, is viewing this is a choice of
Democrats and Republicans. It is not. Both have electrical
poles remarkably near each other which is why so very little changes when the power flows from one to another. Your
big shock comes from remembering (too late), America has
one elected Socialist, who represents American Socialism.
Everyone else, from Neo-Conservative to the much abused
Democratic Liberal, are all elected Capitalists. American
Captialism has never had its citizens less free nor more burdened with debt than this moment in its history. Readers
need to think outside their box. RISE. Peep past the silver platter 'patter' and vote for change. Kick aside sheepdogs
belonging to the Democrat and Republican Sheepherders.
>>>>>>PEOPLE MANAGEMENT FLASHBACK <<<<<<
Twilight Zone : Remember that entitlement, 'To Serve Man'?
".............Its a cookbook."

Answer 4

Iraq war is already lost. Blair has lost the job. Bush has completed his career by accomplishing gas prices as desired by his friends. And, now, he won't mind handing Hillary the presidency on a siver platter.

Answer 5

The occurrence of either one would support an inference that the American people had finally come to the point of being no longer worthy of greatness.

And we would have nobody to blame but ourselves.

The most conclusive proof of this would be the fact that we would have somehow nurtured a near-majority consisting of home-grown, born and bred, American citizens who actually, unbelievably, fervently hope for America to be defeated in war.

Victor Davis Hanson has asserted that, throughout history, democracies have almost never lost wars. He attributes this to the fact that democracies will ordinarily be slow to arouse to war but, once they have gone through the lengthy process of debating the pros and cons to death and have arrived at a consensus by democratic means, the entire nation takes ownership of the consensus position and also takes responsibility for making it happen.

As a result, the military forces sent out to do battle on behalf of democracies have been, according to Hanson, infused with a ferocity and an ingenuity that have historically made them virtually unbeatable on the field of battle.

Answer 6

The only failure would be on the American people letting a non-military supporting liberal into office. And it would be even more of a failure if that liberal pansy was Hillary...

I agree with the dude who gave that spiel about al-Zawahri and Iraq and Vietnam's "diplomatic defeat"... he's right. Militarily, we won, and militarily, we're winning Iraq. Let a pull-outer into office, and we can basically kiss the country goodbye... once we're gone from there, it's only a matter of time before al-Qa'ida operatives invade the U.S. of A. and wipe us all out... by us being there, we're preventing them from being here.

Honestly people, where would you rather fight - the streets of Baghdad and Basra, or the streets of NYC and Los Angeles?

Please, for the sake of the nation, don't let Hillary into office. Always vote conservative - they back the military, through thick and thin.

Answer 7

Thats just it, Bush actually believes he can win a war...These people in iraq have been fighting since time began. No one can go in and expect them to change their way of life...they live to die! They (Iraqis) are only a threat to themselves. We should hand it back to them and get the heck out. Mrs Clinton would be a change for the better in my opinion and both FREEDOM and PEACE are counting on her to win 2008. We can't handle another egotistical prick in office like McCain, Rudy, Jeb, or Obama. it would not benefit us if one of these guys win, They are out to make a name for themselves, Mrs Clinton has a Name and history of peace and dignity. She happens to be a very strong woman to endure what she has and still accomplish major task with the help of Bill

Answer 8

This is a dumb question.

Assuming you people have studied history I guess you know that historically we can expect a recession/depression after a war.

As much as I would love to see Hillary as president, I'm afraid that the average American would blame her for the ensuing recession/depression.

Answer 9

The only reason Hillary is a viable candidate is that Ruppert Murdoch, the owner of FOX""""NEWS"""" has put millions into her campaign. He does that so that his simple mindecd followers have something to focus thier hate on.

Talk about being duped!

Answer 10

If we have to leave Iraq without having it stable, Bush will have had nothing to do with that. It will be the white flag waving left wing communists. Hillary has TWO chances of winning the presidency-----SLIM and NONE.