Pretty much.
Its his personal war which he dragged the whole country into it.
2007-09-11 10:54:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by BrushPicks 5
·
5⤊
5⤋
The question should be, would you rather have harry reid or G. W. Bush watching your back in a fight? Last i checked reid voted for the war and for funding the war! Reid has made many threats to stop the war for 3 years, and like many other cowards, HE'S BACKED OUT of each and every one of those threats. Liberals like him and pelosi, kennedy, biden, dodd, leheay, all shoot off their *** mouths but NEVER back their threat! You see being a coward is to find blame and point it elsewhere. 10 years from now we will see a very different result in Iraq. The real story is what happened to America!!! You best believe Bush's biggest blunder was on sept 12th 2001; NOT SECURING and militarizing the borders! You need to look up the brazilian connection, in which middle eastern islamics are going through central america into mexico and getting mexican id's and crossing over the border to do jobs americans wont do....you ask what jobs? Suicide bombings and terrorist attacks on our homeland! It is coming and 90% of the country is going to be begging the next president to make it stop. Good luck if its edwards, obama, or clinton! Lets see if the media blames them since it is on their watch!
2007-09-11 11:10:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by angeline 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yes, it is Bush's war. Although funding was approved under false pretenses it is still Bush's war. He wanted to take down Saddam Hussein and so stated before he became president in 2001. He once refered to Saddam as the man that tried to kill his dad. This war has nothing to do with terrorism, WMD, or oil. It is all about revenge. Thousands of Americans and Iraqi innocent men, women, and children have lost their lives because of this man's revenge. Yes, you bet it is Bush's war. Another thing is that he needed something to divert attention away from REAL issues because he knows he will lose when discussing REAL issues. Also he needed a war because his populary spiralled downward shortly after the 9/11 wore off and in order to be "reelected" he had to be in the middle of a war to say lets not change in the middle of a war. The Rove strategy worked for awhile but people have woke up and now they know they've been had and they are quite angry with Bush and his lying corrupt Administration. Yes, it is Bush's war for several reasons including support for his buddies in the military industrial complex. His legacy will be based on the war in Iraq and it does not look good for George W. Bush because it wasn't the slam dunk he thought it would be.
2007-09-11 11:17:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Based on the erroneous statements of Harry Reid (the surge is not working when the soldiers hadn't even arrived (REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g), and the dishonesty surrounding his investment dealings with backdoor land deals (REF: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KMJ8I00&show_article=1), the statements from Harry Reid should taken only with a grain of salt if AT ALL.
This war was agreed to by the Congress in October of 2002, and supported by the American population of over 80% (REF: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). Although some politicians are now having buyer's remorse or playing to the antiwar fringe groups, the war was agreed by an overwhelming majority and is now the cause of our generation.
2007-09-11 11:02:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by THE Answer 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Of course its his war. He ignored the U.N., ignored experts, and etc; I can't remember exactly how much of the population supported the war but I know I did not. It should have been more than obvious followers of Bin-Laden were gonna get involved in this war, since it is in the middle-east. Bush underestimated the enemy, and now not only do the troops suffer, but so do the family of the troops and the nation as a whole.
2007-09-11 11:14:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
well what ever Reid says you have to understand that with him and most libs in power their agenda is first and formost to bash Bush whenever possible make him look bad. They hate him more then they do the terrorists. They do not have the good of the American people as first only their own petty desire for power and control. And it amazes me how many take that bait hood line and sinker! You wanna be libs on here should do some of your fact finding not rely on hate speech as truth.
2007-09-11 14:39:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by crusinthru 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Mr. Reid is a true flake. The war was fought and won by a coalition of the willing, as many as 60 countries. Mr. Bush proceeded with the authorization from Congress.
2007-09-11 10:59:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
Too many Democrats (hello Hillary!) were willing to give George Bush a blank check back in 2003. He ran with it.
The so-called liberal media got sucked into the whirlwind of flag-waving and war mania.
Now that Iraq has blown up in America´s face, everyone wants it to be Bush´s war.
You wanted war. You got it.
2007-09-11 11:03:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yes, it's Bush's war. Congress passed the resolution to give him the right to make the decision and make it he did. He informed us all quite arrogantly that he was The Decider. He has "decided" us into the mess we now see in front of us every night on the news. America in general is upset with both parties in Congress, and I think many of us expected the Democrats to work miracles with their minimal majority. But the majority of us know exactly who to blame for this debacle and it isn't the Democrats. It's Bush, and since he is the figurehead of the Republican Party it continues to filter down to them as well. Bush owns this war lock stock and barrel.
2007-09-11 11:18:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Heck no. No more than WWI was wilson's war or WWII was FDR's war.
This is radical Islam's war!
Why do people forget Al Quada attaked us, Saddam helped and violated the cease fire.
And who would listen to Reid anyway? He is General Betray-us
Liberals want national heathcare. Well get this, you won't need health ccare if you are dead. So let's just consider killing terrorists as Pre-emptive national healthcare.
2007-09-11 11:30:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
His party got the ball rolling on this war, they just left it up to Bush to have to do something about it. As for Reid what a prise the democrats have in him. This guy can not even get anything straight and is playing in a league that he doesn't belong in.
2007-09-11 10:56:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by cfb193 5
·
3⤊
2⤋