Don't get me wrong.. hes not the best and he has made mistakes but...
Why have causualties in Iraq been cut by 50% due to the surge? And dont give me "war is bad, 0 is better" crap, it may be bad but its inevitable. Did you expect us to have no casualties when went to war?
Who could have predicted some crazy people would fly a freaking plane into a tower? By the way it was Clinton who cut many programs in order to get rid of a huge debt.
Give me more
2007-10-06 16:33:41 · 19 answers · asked by annoyingdude99 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Im not connecting Iraw with 9/11 i know that they were actually pretty far apart.
But 9/11 is one reason why Bush is considered a failure.
2007-10-06 16:43:03 · update #1
Oh wait hmmm... i value both opinions you know. I not like a die hard liberal or conservative, i think about my opinions.
2007-10-06 16:48:21 · update #2
As I come to realize, when you say its a waste u mean OUR money, OUR time, OUR lives. What about THEIR lives, THEIR freedoms, THEIR rights? I know many of you say that they don't care for peace, but I think they do its just that Saddam has pitted one religoius party against another for too long and their past is what makes them fear each other
2007-10-06 18:15:21 · update #3
Casualties have been cut by 50% ? Well, doesn't that just warm the heart..... Casualties in Iraq would be at ZERO right now, if we had never started this illegal war. We went in under false pretenses, with inadequate, faulty, and outright manufactured intelligence. Saddam had no ties to Al-Queda, no WMD's have been located, and Iraqis do not seem to care for our version of democracy.
This war has been a dreadful waste of lives time, and money.
:-o
2007-10-06 17:02:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your right, its war and we should expect casualties. HOWEVER, I'm tired of the Right glossing over the fact that he lied to get us INTO a war. Let alone the fact that he bungled it the whole way. However the war turns out, I can never forgive him as an American for putting us in Iraq in the first place.
Who could have predicted planes flying into a tower? The American Intelligence community. Bush was getting NSA reports weekly reporting that Osama bin Ladin may use airplanes to attack US targets. After months and months of ignoring the memos and reports, he had Dick head up a team to discuss terrorism. Befor 9/11 only ONE meeting took place. September 10th.
His job approval is in the 20's and here you are trying to defend him. Blind loyalty...sorry.
2007-10-06 17:16:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The casualty rate in Iraq has been cut because the criteria for determining what is a casualty of war, what is sectarian violence and what is a simple murder has been changed to alter the data in favor of showing that violence is dropping.
No one expected no casualties when going to war, of course most people didn't expect the President to take Congress authorizing military force if necessary and use that as an excuse to invade Iraq.
2007-10-06 16:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The surge was only in response to Congresses threat to pull funding! What took Bush so long to realize "His" strategy and planning of the war was totally wrong from the outset?! As far as 9-11, Iraq had nothing to do with it! Why are we not focusing 100% of our troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Osama Bin Ladan is hiding? Clinton cut programs and gave us a surplus! Bush has cut taxes for the rich, and now we have record deficits! Need more?
2007-10-06 16:40:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Millions hated Bush and did made mistakes like no other. Thousands of soliers were killed in Iraq all cos of him.
Clinton was btter than him a million times
2007-10-06 16:53:31 · answer #5 · answered by chasen54 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simply put, "Bush is soo bad" simply because he is in the White House - and as long as there's a republican in the White House, it makes it extremely difficult for the liberals to "moveon" with their agendas of a socialized America.
2007-10-06 16:45:24 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
France and Germany the two have leaders that are professional-united states of america. Russia can in no way be depended on. the european media is anti-united states of america no remember who's interior the White residing house. till united states of america is now no longer the main well liked united states of america interior the international, the media will proceed to denigrate in spite of we do.
2016-12-28 18:09:45 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well its good to know the war is over to your satisfaction
If I was in charge of the enemy I would pause and wait until the US got out
1,280 civilians killed in September, near enough
2007-10-06 16:45:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because the surge dropped casualties does not mean Bush is now a hero. Iraq is still a dump and refugees keep leaving it.
Wasn't the point to make Iraqis happy?
2007-10-06 16:39:43 · answer #9 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The Iraq war was 100% unnecessary.
2007-10-06 16:40:39 · answer #10 · answered by I can't think of a good name 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋