when the details of his corruption have been widely detailed on international news stations?
2007-07-09 13:08:02 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Did you just wake up from a 6 years coma?
2007-07-09 13:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by Bonneville P 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The most common one is Iraq and the reason why.
WMD, did Iraq have them?
Every liberal and Bush hater out there will go though great lengths to tell you Iraq didn't have them. If that's the case then why did so many intelligence offices around the world believe Saddam had WMDs? Was Saddam deliberating misleading people into thinking he had WMDs? I never see these questions, but its all Bush's fault. I think Saddam bears a large part of the blame as well, either for really having WMDs or leading others to believe that. If he had been totally honest and allowed UN inspectors in with full access and no harassment then this might not have happened.
2007-07-09 13:17:56 · answer #2 · answered by rz1971 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the U. S. has by no ability had regulations requiring alleviation wells be drilled. So purely how did Bush get rid of a regulation, that by no ability existed ? you are able to now say Bush, did no longer put in place a regulation requiring alleviation wells be drilled. yet then Clinton and Obama additionally did no longer put in a regulation requiring a alleviation nicely be drilled. 2. yet we could be immediately, it became the Obama administration that did no longer enforce the regulations on the books, whilst it got here to the deep horizon oil nicely. The regulations from requiring an environmental effect assertion, to getting NOA approval, to accepting the emergency action plan. So whether Bush had extra a sparkling regulation requiring a alleviation nicely be drilled, what makes you think of Obama could have enforced it, sine he did no longer enforce any of the different regulations ?
2016-10-01 06:31:09 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are assigning blame to him. Republicans and democrats alike in congress because now their running away from anything that has to do with him. but some people (mostly Republican) think everything he has done so far was great and for the right reason. Just because its a fact doesn't mean you have to believe it like stephen colbert says its truthiness and Justish.
2007-07-09 13:13:45 · answer #4 · answered by bunnygrl43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not true. However, besides blaming Bush, we need to blame the whole administration. To only blame Bush is to let off the rest of his administration. With our large government, you can't just only blame one person can you?
2007-07-09 13:52:36 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't noticed anyone having any problems assigning blame to Bush on anything.
2007-07-09 13:26:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems there are a great many American citizens - some 72% of them, IIRC - who are entirely willing to heap blame upon thier current president.
2007-07-09 13:12:06 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Bush" is not the problem. He's dealing with the problem, which is terrorism.
That's not to say that I even like him that well, or that he doesn't make mistakes. But I assure you that a liberal Democrat will finish this country off and we would not survive.
2007-07-09 13:12:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only the libs assign all blame to our President. The rest of us assign blame where blame is do.
2007-07-09 13:10:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I find it easy to blame our President for everything that has gone wrong during his time in office. I'm not blind, I can see what a corrupt man he is.
2007-07-09 13:11:08 · answer #10 · answered by Cate 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋