Why is bush blamed for everything from 9/11 to hurricane katrina. It was your members of congress including HIllary clinton that said that iraq had WMD'S and saying that they should be stopped with military action. They voted to send our troops to Iraq. How is bush to blame for 9/11? he didnt know that was going to happen. And what should he have done when he was in the classroom full of kids? should he have been like "oh **** gotta leave some bad guys are flying planes into our buildings." He is doing the best he can do and all these liberal democrats just want to cut and run. If we did that then iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorists and mass killings. Why listen to the liberal media, they are just as bad and do not report anything but how many people died. So tell me, why should be leave?
2007-08-05 19:03:20 · 5 answers · asked by Reality Has A Libertarian Bias 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I agree with you chris. He had the chance to get osama when he was in office but never did.
2007-08-05 19:17:56 · update #1
I think Bush is blamed becasue people need someone to blame.in the 1930's who was blamed for the Great Depression? the president.was it his fault?no
For some reason people think pulling out of Iraq will end the war.Look at our history, Americans have never been committed to a long term war
Also, if anyone should be blamed for our problems in the middle east, it should be Clinton
2007-08-05 19:13:53 · answer #1 · answered by Chris C. 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's easier to do that than actually solving the problem. Which Bush isn't doing anyways.
I think the real question was why blame Iraq and why go there?
If all those suckers spend half the time they spend blaming each other we probably be home by now. And there will be peaceful Iraq with kids running around, flowers blooming all that crap.
Iraq was mistake, but it's true they spend more time playing blame game than to actually tackling the real problem.
2007-08-05 19:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're asking the WRONG questions. The CORRECT one is, "Why not?". The fact of the matter IS, there's PLENTY of blame to go around- and finger pointing is not going to solve ANYTHING. But if SOMEONE is going to be held "responsible" for a bad policy decision- it should be the HIGHEST RANKING politician who promoted the policy at the outset. And in THIS case, THAT person happens to be our great "Decider", George W. Bush. And as for why we should leave Iraq, -Mistakes DON'T improve with age. They tend to grow & GROW- like snowballs rolling down a snowy hill. We're "strangers" in a land we don't understand in Iraq... And we can chase the "insurgents" from one end of that Country & back over & OVER again- and they will CONTINUE to "pick us off", one by one- until the day we leave. Because that's where THEY belong...and we DON'T.
2007-08-05 19:24:59 · answer #3 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question has a touch unsupported assumption--one that is already fake (we defeated Saddam's tyranny--it incredibly is going to by no ability come back and Saddam will by no ability bypass away detention center alive). no person thinks the liberals have made us lose the conflict, yet maximum think of that (the) maximum (vocal) liberals are specific attempting! on the different hand, we've occupied Germany for greater desirable than 0.5 a century--we can in all risk occupy Iraq for practically as long. Will terrorism be less difficult to defeat than Nazism? difficult question--in some techniques, sure, in some techniques, no. yet terrorism would be defeated, without or with the noisy minority of detractors!
2016-10-14 03:09:16 · answer #4 · answered by saucier 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why go there in the first place
2007-08-05 22:52:46 · answer #5 · answered by Knuckles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋