can cut & run from the White House in 2009 & thus not having to take the blame for losing the Iraq war by withdrawing US troops?
2007-07-14 15:35:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That's his stated goal and policy.
He's actually said that, though not in those words.
2007-07-14 15:38:38 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First the war in Iraq is starting to go better than the reports show. I know this because I talk to people that have been there since the start of this year. Also if the Media and the Democratic leaders would stop saying that the war is lost and wait on the report that is coming in September, then maybe people would not have the negative thoughts about the war. I feel that if a Republican get the White House then the war will be won, but if the other occurs expect more terrorist attacks in this country.
2007-07-14 15:43:08 · answer #2 · answered by Christof 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Thats his plan, to pass on the mess to someone else so that he can blame them because they didn't follow through with his way of doing things. Who ever succeeds Bush would be very wise to pull out the troops as soon as they take office.
2007-07-14 15:41:54 · answer #3 · answered by niddlie diddle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Republican pressure will force him to redeploy the troops in time to save the Party from complete disaster in 2008, if it is not too late already.
Conservatives 'care so much about the troops' that they will allow them to stay and die in Iraq until it is most politically expedient to do something with (exploit) them.
2007-07-14 15:53:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The troops will be in every country that has oil for as long as it takes. bush will be able to do whatever he wants...because Americans are far too brainwashed....far too afraid to question...to disagree....and the government will continue to screw the people and the planet till there's nothing left.
2007-07-14 15:46:28 · answer #5 · answered by flyingprimate 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. Everything having to do with Iraq from then on will be blamed on the Dems--and amazingly Clinton.
2007-07-14 15:40:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's all in the eye of the beholder... the victor writes history and he will be gone so the democrats can say that they save the world from the debacle of ruthless dictator and move the propaganda until people believe it. So it all depends on who is the real victor.
2007-07-14 15:44:47 · answer #7 · answered by Jose R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
long enough so that he can get the Iraqi oil for his father's oil import business. You did know that Bush Senior has been in the oil business since he left the white house, right?
2007-07-14 15:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
he will never get away with not getting the blame for the war.it was his decision just because he probably wont be the one to end it doesnt mean its not his fault it failed.
2007-07-14 15:46:24 · answer #9 · answered by Ashley010 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question makes no sense.
And how is serving out your second term a "cut and run?"
2007-07-14 15:41:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋