Since I have no political advisors, no access to intelligence reports, and no security clearance, I would have to support him. I put him in office and I need to trust his decisions.
2007-07-22 15:41:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by mizmead 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I wouldn't have to. Bush could only send troops to a country for 2 weeks under executive powers. Any extension of that would have to be approved by the Legislative Branch. And I doubt seriously he could sell that without giving a reason.
Now, mind you, he could deploy troops, wait two weeks, pull them, then send another group in. But I don't think that would work either. Even as a hypothetical question, I can't get past that an action like this doesn't have much chance of happening.
edit: God, I am an Idiot! With a capital "I".
2007-07-22 22:43:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I am acutely aware that as a civilian, I am nolonger privy to the intel that is not made public. Did you ever wonder why it took Hillary so long to come out against the war she voted for? I suspect it's because given the intel that was available, she made the best decision she could. And, it only became a matter of time -- letting the spin doctors run the sheep in circles until they nolonger remember what the facts are. At that moment, it became safe for her to jump on the band wagon become just another one of the seditions, teasonous sheep.
2007-07-22 22:45:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Doc 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I will no longer support this president in anything, even though I supported the action in Afghanistan.
To the mind-boggling, logic defying 27%, or whatever:
Please put down the Kool-Aid.
Bush often defends all his foreign policy and military misadventures with the phrase, "It's hard work." He's right. Locking up a spot in the Top Five Worst-Ever Presidents IS hard work. Mission accomplished.
2007-07-22 23:33:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
He wouldn't do that. If he really felt we needed to invade Kazakhstan, he would explain it to Congress. Then Congress would approve it, and then attack him for doing it! After all, history repeats itself!
2007-07-22 22:42:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by plezurgui 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'm not a Republican, but if he were to say Waziristan, I'd know why, and I would support it. And I did not support this bogus "war" in Iraq.
2007-07-22 23:13:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I voted him in twice, I would trust that he is going there for a valid reason like he did Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and to spread democracy, which in turn will benefit us and the Middle East. Of course I would support him.
2007-07-22 22:43:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Nonsense. Borat and he are best buddies.
Now, Michael Moore, different situation--- he'd do it in an instant to quench his box office competition.
2007-07-22 22:46:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Boomer Wisdom 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
And you came up with this question because you are concerned with Borat, no?
2007-07-22 22:48:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Absolutely not. One war is enough!
2007-07-23 03:07:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by fitirishgirl36 1
·
1⤊
1⤋