That is a great question, dragon girl. I gave you a star for it.
I'm a Bush supporter. I think that many people will blame Bush for whatever he does. Some people are just whiny little spineless wimps who will complain about everything.
Ok. . . to the people who are still wondering why we went into Iraq after 911: we went there BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE TERRORISTS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLANNING AND FINANCING OF THE 911 ATTACKS WERE HIDING AND SADDAM WAS PROTECTING THEM. (I wish people would do their homework and use some common sense.)
Thanks again for the question.
2007-08-18 10:36:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I know that Bush declared war on Terrorism; however, technically, the President does not have the power to declare war. Only Congress can officially declare war.
What Bush did was purely symbolic to get the country all hyped-up to stand behind him so he could attempt (and I use the term loosely, because he really didn't accomplish this at all, he shifted focus to Iraq, which did not have anything to do with 9/11) to eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan. The big mistake here was shifting the focus to Iraq. Had he put 135,000 troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban would be totally crushed (instead of regrouping as they are right now), and Bin Laden's head would be swinging from a rope, instead of hiding out in a cave right now.
2007-08-18 22:02:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by sportguy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush and Cheney at one time said that there was no evidence that Sadam had anything to do with 9/11. Al-Queada was NOT in Iraq before we invaded. In invading Iraq, he violated International Law and UN Resolution 1440. Al Zakarai was in Iraq before the invasion. At that time he wasn't afilliated with Al-Queada and he was in the Northern No-Fly Zone. Saddam was kept out of there by the U.S. Three times the Defense Dept. asked the Bush Admininstration if the could get Al Zakarai and they where turned down. Also Bush didn't and can't declare war. That power soley rests in the Congress. BTW way Annie Oakley...didn't we go into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction or was it to remove an evil dictator or was it to give the Iraqi people a democracy? You should do your homework and use commomn sense. Before I forget, weren't 15 of the hijackers Saudi's and doesn't Suadi Arabia supprt Al-Queada?
2007-08-18 18:17:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Glenn G 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
He went into Afghanistan. That was appropriate and necessary because Al Queada had training camps there and was being supported by the Taliban.
Iraq is a different issue. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not an imminent threat so there was no reason for the invasion.
2007-08-18 17:01:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some would.
Many Democrats said Bush should have "connected the dots" and prevented the attack. Yet ANYTHING he does now - from the surveillance, detention and interrogation programs to "connecting the dots" and pre-empting Iraq - is criticized.
Merely saying "Bush is wrong" (or worse) is not a foreign policy.
2007-08-18 17:23:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
George Bush is sitting pretty because he has the full support of his employers. While he has that he could kill his entire family and get away with it. That is how powerful the man is at the moment. He is loved right now because he does and says exactly what the ruling elite want him to say and do. Do you honestly think dumb old boy Dubbyah calls the shots? He is the puppet and his masters are unknown.
2007-08-18 16:58:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Open your eyes 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
No.
As a reasonable human being I understand that theres only so much one can do to prevent a terrorist attack.
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of ways to kill other human beings. Its impossible to prevent everything.
I think it was a good idea to go into Afghanistan and root out the Taliban and Al-Queda.
But invading Iraq has weakened us, not strengthened us. We are more vulnerable and less respected now because of that.
2007-08-18 16:51:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jesus W. 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I would have, But it seem he is getting blamed for everything by the commucrats. I even heard he is being blamed for the 1906 earth quake.
2007-08-18 16:49:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by citizenvnfla 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
If Bush hadnt delcared war, he would have been accused of being a do nothing President...kinda like Clinton...
2007-08-18 16:47:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
i wish conservatives would realize there are more ways to deal with problems than just bombing the country of origin.
and WHAT did iraq have to do with 9/11!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
2007-08-18 16:51:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋