taking into consideration what he has said the last 6 years about anything and what eventually transpired...why should I believe him now if he tells me anything?
In fact, is it not logical to assume that whatever Bush says or advocates at this time that we should do the complete opposite?
2007-07-18 21:54:43 · 18 answers · asked by me 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anything coming out of that man's mouth is riddled with lies and self-serving motives...all administrations had spin but this one took it to a whole new level! What gets me is that some are still buying their garbage... following like blindly like sheep allowing themselves to be spoon fed lies after lies....and the sheep swallow!
2007-07-19 05:04:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
About the only thing I can say to believe about Bush is that he does have an agenda... and we, the average American public, are the last ones to know what it is.
War on Terror:
--- Iraq: no WMDs, Saddem is dead (1 for the home team) and no real strong terrorist groups... until we invaded and occupied this soverign nation.
--- Afghanistan: has terrorists. We don't hear much about this war, except that our soldiers are undermanned and under equipped there.
--- Iran - Google search on 'Bush' 'Iran' and 'terror' and it's mostly what Bush has said; Cheney's frothing at the mouth to go there. As recently as Feb. of this year, Iran captured terrorists trying to cross their borders from Pakistan to Iraq in their effort to keep al-Qaeda out. At the same time, Bush tells UN Iran is harboring al-Qaeda. Huh? Isn't 'harboring' them in jail a good thing? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902294.html
--- Pakistan: here's some terrorists, maybe even Bin Laden. Bush's way of fighting terrorism here is to 'win hearts and minds', with $750 million to tribal regions where al-Qaeda is. No chance of that money falling into the wrong hands, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/asia/16pakistan.html?th&emc=th
Homefront
--- US: wide open borders. That plan to outsource port security was sure a winner.
--- Katrina: FEMA fumbles; Bush bumbles... and refuses offers of aid from foreign countries because US is not used to doing that. It's easy... accept the aid, say "thank you" and see it gets to those who need it... twit!
Rotten fish smells better than this!
2007-07-18 23:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given the reality and facts of Bush,s last 6-years of Americans trusting his every word,I would think NO WAY,,would best serve best interest at this point..chow
2007-07-19 00:00:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the two Bush and Reagan have been undesirable presidents. They abused and made a mockery of their place. In a democracy the political chief of a united states of america should not be some effectual idol. while Reagan became president, even inspite of the indisputable fact that the U.S. knew that Saddam Husein became a danger to the area and his very own human beings, the U.S. offered him weapons. look it up. Bush and his cronies offered you the "conflict" in Iraq, even inspite of the indisputable fact that Bin encumbered is Saudi Arabian, the folk who commited the 9/11 assaults have been Saudi Arabian, and that they have been funded with the help of Saudi Arabians. i've got faith sorry for you individuals who in straightforward terms see an American view. in case you acquire out of your united states of america for awhile and paid interest, you ought to understand those issues. a number of you recognize those issues and are doing some thing approximately it. yet, regrettably a lot do not. So, Saddam went forward and killed human beings using American weapons! He sprayed chemical components from American helicopters! and then while Bush starts the conflict on a united states of america for no stable reason, his cronies sell the belief of conflict to you with the help of announcing how undesirable Saddam is/became! it is not even a "conflict", so there is not something to lose, different than the lives of harmless human beings. What precisely would define "prevailing" for you? there is not something to win. Who would you win it from, in spite of this magical element is? it somewhat isn't one thousand years in the past once you had united states of america A struggling with united states of america B and one comes out a "winner". The U.S. protection rigidity is purely worrying an already stressful difficulty, killing hundreds of individuals, consisting of individuals. Even Vietnam became greater sparkling-under this, and Vietnam became an entire waste of human lives. you may pass to Iraq and notice for your self what's happening, or a minimum of get out of the U.S. for awhile to sparkling your innovations.
2016-09-30 07:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No you can't.
He used the 911 for his personal agenda to finish what his father didn't.
Did Iraq has something to do with 911? Of course not. Meanwhile the top resposibles are free while American soldiers die in the desert to make sure we get cheap oil.
2007-07-18 22:17:14 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, we should always take what other human beings say with a grain of salt as there will always be unforeseen circumstances.
To think otherwise is just foolish. There are no guarantees in this world and one can only assert what they think to be true or, what they hope will be true at any given moment.
2007-07-18 22:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
sometimes it even seems realistic to take what he says and assume the exact opposite is true.
2007-07-18 22:18:24 · answer #7 · answered by PD 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that's what thinking ppl have been saying all along .. that this guy a idiot and ppl where so moved by what he said that they voted him in. it just provided them with more evidence that ppl are easily fooled
2007-07-18 22:27:05 · answer #8 · answered by ♥lois c♥ ☺♥♥♥☺ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should anyone ever believe anything that any politician has to say? They are all liars and cheats.
2007-07-18 21:57:21 · answer #9 · answered by ravenna_wing1 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yep, hes a moron, dont listen to what he has to say! He seems so clueless, i recon a hair on my hubands left testicle would have more brain cells that bush... he seems more like a really bad commedian than leader.
2007-07-18 21:58:41 · answer #10 · answered by Lisa I 2 · 5⤊ 3⤋