2007-08-22 19:52:25 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When listening to George Bush, you have to remember nearly everything he says is a lie. Any good act that he wants to take credit for is not his responsibility, and any bad act that happens is probably his. And, like a guilty 5 year old, he will blame the other side for things he does all the time.
In this case, we see that on the face of it, the sentence is grand farce: George Bush has been interfering in Iraqi politics since day one. He re-wrote their laws, disbanded the government structure, instituted American style capitalism, and is now arming nearly all the factions that are at war with each other, due to the lack of an intelligent plan. The latest bit of interference is Bush telling Malki to go kill some Shias.
The idea that US politicians, with a force of 300,000 and military spending 1 billion dollars a second (or whatever), cannot but interfere in Iraqi politics is obvious.
Now of course, if one really wanted not to interfere in Iraqi politics one might leave. So not only is George Bush meddling, but doing it badly. He certainly doesn't want another politician to meddle and do a better job than him, because that will make him look bad.
2007-08-22 21:23:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, we certainly have some right to make our voice heard (Bush does so; he obviously isn't speaking against that), because of the support we provide them across the board; but how legitimate can the elected Iraqi government be if we (the US government) talk about replacing it because it hasn't met our standards? Don't you think that that supports the image of it as a puppet government, giving the terrorists further propaganda to use? I think our politicians need to be more patient with theirs.
2007-08-22 20:22:09 · answer #2 · answered by Free Ranger 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe, what he meant to say is that he wants to see Iraq surge out of the ashes with a decent democratically elected Government. Until today, ever since the first election in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the country is still struggling politically (parties boycotting parliamentary sessions, rivalry among the shias and the sunnis has also affected Iraqi politics.)
He wants to sit down and watch Iraq bloom. He won't settle for anything less or more.
2007-08-22 20:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by s.reichenberger 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That it is wrong to play upon public sentiment against the war as a means to achieve votes.
Those running for presidency know the importance of our staying in Iraq and shouldn't pretend they don't for the sake of gathering support.
2007-08-22 21:24:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pretty simple! Why should US politicians interfer in another country's politics when they can't even get things right in their own country
2007-08-28 08:28:02 · answer #5 · answered by liquidfire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He meant that he along should be the Decider, and he alone should have any interaction with the outside world.
In other words, Congress should just shut up and do what he tells them to do and stop trying to act like their own branch of govt.
2007-08-22 19:59:14 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
He was secretly saying that he wasn't going to interfere with Iraq anymore. (sarcasm)
2007-08-22 19:57:37 · answer #7 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Isn't that almost hypocritcal?
2007-08-22 20:07:47 · answer #8 · answered by Giliathriel 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋