Bush did not deny what happened when he gave his speech, but asked the voters to vote against. Is that more important then the truth ?
2007-10-11 10:20:55 · 12 answers · asked by sober_fober 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I expect nothing less than honesty from our American president. He is an example for all children and I expect honesty and integrity.
Thus far, I think we are all appauled by this administration and their lack of regard for the truth, while at the same time lecturing about the importance of family values.
I don't know about your family, but in my family our values are: be honest, treat others as you would like to be treated, respect everyone, regardless of differences...
2007-10-11 10:25:58 · answer #1 · answered by ld040318 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is more important, condemning something that happened over 90 years ago (it was not an issue when it happened 89 years ago) or maintaining a relationship with an ally that is responsible for getting most of the supplies to our troops in Iraq?
Why has this become an issue NOW? Why didn't we condemn these actions in 1920?
I have my suspicions about the purpose of the timing by the democrat party on this issue, however it is not something I can prove at the moment.
2007-10-11 17:27:58 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is more important than the truth. Bush has done nothing right or done anything but lie to Congress and the American people since before he was appointed President. He and Cheney are obsessed with corporate greed. The Republican party doesn't care about you. They only care about money and power. Get the GOP out of DC. Their reign of terror needs to end NOW!
Biden in '08!
2007-10-11 17:26:29 · answer #3 · answered by rtanys 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
President Bush is an arrogant imbecile. Though he graduated from a very fine college he was probably at best a C student, if he took any world history at all. And he did not consult with the many people who knew something about Iraq, its religion, its people when he declared the disastrous war. We and the Iraqi people have suffered grieviously from his action.
That issue of his knowledge of foreign affairs and proven experience in dealing with them as sorely lacking was a matter of concern for many people in the US.
His "Texas" mentality (and I am not maligning all Texans) and limited regional experience made him a poor candidate for the presidency of the US.
2007-10-11 17:31:59 · answer #4 · answered by old cat lady 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whatever he does he's clamped. He's got no political gain necause he's off on vacation soon anyway. Like him or loath him he's the president and anyone in that position has to be looking to the future.
2007-10-11 17:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
of course it was genocide: hitler probably modeled the final solution on it.
on the other hand: what is the point of bringing this up now? america needs its lines of materiel to go through turkey so that it can continue massacring iraqis. if the us alienates turkey - as congress seems determined to - the us will only lose the war in baghdad.
or rather:- lose it even worse.
2007-10-11 17:28:31 · answer #6 · answered by synopsis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes because it isn't about his political gain it has to do with the success in Iraq. 70% of our supplies go through Turkey and if they no longer allow us to go through Turkey then it will greatly hamper our progress in Iraq. Which is why the democrats passed it.
2007-10-11 17:25:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The truth is it was not genocide!
2007-10-11 17:23:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you know????
Bush is right about everything.
He's the hand of God on earth!
2007-10-11 17:24:57 · answer #9 · answered by castledunrobin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would guess not. He hasn't been right about anything else.
2007-10-11 17:24:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋