isnt it a good idea to keep him in office until his objective on terror is seen through ?
2007-06-07 12:53:45 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No, but I would vote for the corpse of Reagan should he run again.
2007-06-08 06:36:37 · answer #1 · answered by Gespacho 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If anyone with half a brain answers yes to this question should be put in the gas chamber. What exactly is his objective on terror? Terror in the middle east will never just be tumbled, terror here at home can be delt with but never completely.
2007-06-07 13:04:24 · answer #2 · answered by Eric D 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No! I think George has lost it. He is not a true conservative, and his decisions are getting worse all the time. I won't bad mouth the guy, but I'm done defending him. This amnesty thing was the last straw. If he agrees to this Putin idea of putting a defense shield in Russia, we'll pay for it, then they will demand we leave. No thanks.
2007-06-07 15:23:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a Republican but I would not vote for GW again, he has proven himself to be incompetent, and does not seek to represent the interests of America.
He has bungled this Iraq war (and that was completely unnecessary, but was due to his bad decisions). The only reason he has not competed his objective in Iraq is due to his and his appointees incompetence. He has done absolutely NOTHING about illegal aliens and closing our borders (a MAJOR national security problem). He has made deals to give away the sovereignty of America to third world nations. He has made "free trade" the god of the nation, at the expense of everything else, even to risk millions of American lives, and engaging in deals that have zero benefit for this nation. and on and on....
No way would I vote for him again. He needs to go home and retire in Texas and take McCain with him, and they can chat about "the good ole days".
2007-06-07 13:06:08 · answer #4 · answered by Calvin 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
in view that this question is conditional and speculative, enable me to respond to contained in right here way. If he would desire to run returned, it would continually count number against whom he became working. If it have been as quickly as returned Al Gore or John Kerry, incredibly and in a heartbeat. whilst and if the democrats can positioned a achieveable, electable candidate to the leading edge, i might evaluate than person.
2016-10-07 02:02:46 · answer #5 · answered by doolin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually did vote for him both times. But my answer would be no for two reasons. #1 The war in Iraq needs new leadership who will fight it to bring the enemy to their knees, so our military can come home. #2 I would imagine that being president is extremely stressful, after eight years the man HAS to be burnt out. I think overall we need a fresh face with fresh ideas.
2007-06-07 13:16:58 · answer #6 · answered by Cinner 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. But, I think we should only leave Iraq in a way that won't create mass genocide like the military consensus says will happen if we withdraw. I might support John McCain in 2008.
But McCain is the only Republican i like of the nominees right now.
2007-06-07 13:03:35 · answer #7 · answered by NFrancis 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hell no. When Bush went into office his only motive was to continue what his father started. He is an egotistical maniac and I can't wait for him to be out of office so that our country can hopefully get back to some normalcy.
2007-06-07 13:03:00 · answer #8 · answered by cvkv2 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. That would have been like keeping Reagan in office for the War on Drugs.
2007-06-07 12:56:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, But I would be scared that the Democrats would realize that it takes a Clinton to lick Bush.
2007-06-07 14:24:56 · answer #10 · answered by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋