Withdrawl from Iraq was the next president's problem?
2007-07-30 08:14:12 · 26 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. He got into a mess over his head and is so incompetent he can't handle it by himself. That is the story of his life. He gets into some business venture and daddy or daddy's friends bailed him out. Daddy can't bail him out of this one.
Besides if the war ends and troops are home he will have to address REAL issues such as affordable health care, campaign reform, the deficit, immigration and more head on. Because of his incompetency he is not willing to do that.
Another thing is that the war acts as a means for his buddies to get rich off the war.
It also is a diversion as he tries to get people's minds on the war and off the corruption of his Administration.
So many reasons Dubya needs that little war to continue.
2007-07-30 08:22:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 7⤋
I go with Option D: Honest
Well, if the President gets his way, there will be no withdrawal while he is President. He believes that a presence will be required in Iraq for more than the remainder of his term. He has stated this on multiple occasions
Why would it then be flippant, obstinate or stupid to state that withdrawal would not be happening during his presidency?
Granted, he cannot dictate what the next president will do, and that president may well withdraw troops. But President Bush does not intend to withdraw unless that option is made unavoidable by the legislative branch.
2007-07-30 15:23:15 · answer #2 · answered by Merissa F 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
He was being honest. He knows the job will still not be finished by the end of his term. Whoever gets in there next will be faced with the problem of when, if, how many and to what extent to remove American troops from Iraq.
That is a simple fact. We will not withdraw without victory during his watch. The next president will have to decide if something less than victory is acceptable.
.
2007-07-30 15:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 6⤊ 4⤋
Possibly flippant...but most definitely politically pragmatic. He doesn't have to do anything about it except keep the status quo. Whatever the next administration does will have some backlash, at which point Bush-supporters can say "see? we *told* you they would do a poor job of handling Iraq" as if it is all the new person's fault.
2007-07-30 15:21:50 · answer #4 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
In a rare moment of honesty, and displaying obstinacy and stupidity, he said what many have thought all along. Conditions on the ground are irrelevant in his view of continuing our presence in Iraq. If you understand his real reasons for invading Iraq—control of the oil and permanent bases—then it is understandable that he never intended to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Bush said nearly a year ago, "We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president," so contrary to what some have believed, it doesn’t matter what actually happens in Iraq. He does not intend for us to leave.
2007-07-30 15:53:31 · answer #5 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
He was stating an obvious fact. The progress that has been made in Iraq will not be abandoned on his watch.
He isn't going to withdraw from Iraq until the Iraqi government has strong stability and control over the country, which isn't likely to happen in the next 18 months. So that means that the next president will have to make that decision.
I know you people have a penchant for ascribing nefarious or malignant reasons for every Bush action or utterance, but it's really quite evident that he is stating a simple truth.
2007-07-30 15:28:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
NO, what he was saying is that there is no way we will be able to pull out of Iraq before the next election...therefore it WILL be on another president to carry forward or withdraw...
2007-07-30 15:36:16 · answer #7 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'd go with obstinate. It sounds like barring an attack on the US homeland, those troops will be there until 2009.
2007-07-30 15:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Nope. Just being honest. He knows that whoever gets elected, regardless of party affiliation, that there will be no pulling out of Iraq.
Don't let these politicians keep pulling your leg. :)
2007-07-30 15:37:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it was flippant... I just think that he is terrible talking off the cuff. You can call that a form of stupidity.
It sounded a lot like someone saying "it won't be my problem... I'll be playing golf and I won't be visiting any veterans' hospitals either..." Like I said, its a form of stupidity. I'm not saying that he feels that way (but I certainly wouldn't be surprised IF he feels that way... I certainly have questions about his capable of having any empathy).... It wasn't the smartest thing to say but when you say so many stupid things who really has time to pick on any one of them?
2007-07-30 15:22:57 · answer #10 · answered by cattledog 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋