2007-10-27 06:24:08 · 22 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Jeff m (below) Sure, just as with Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia. Thus far, the US has been the only nation to nuke anyone. Hmmmmm
2007-10-27 06:35:10 · update #1
redlegma (below) Cat scratch fever LOL
PNAC (below) LOLOLOLOLOL
AGREED!
2007-10-27 06:35:52 · update #2
Alpha Male (below) Understyandbale, however, Bush is not considered to be the "master mind", the people pulling his strings are the one's playing this nation like a flute. Bush is simply their conduit.
2007-10-27 06:37:44 · update #3
- OK! I butchered "understandable" - (above) oops!
2007-10-27 06:38:36 · update #4
Hillary will say "Bill, get off the waitress and tell me what to say".
Bill has the brains in the outfit.
2007-10-27 06:31:05 · answer #1 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I'll never understand the constant and unfathomable oxymoron that President Bush can simultaneously be this Evil Genius bent on world domination and destruction, a fabricator of massive plans of misinformation and diversion and the World's Dumbest Man at the same time.
Can someone explain that to me?
Hillary Clinton is a lying, deceiving, power hungry lunatic that will stop at nothing to get what she wants.
She must be stopped at any and all costs.
As a registered Republican, if I woke up tomorrow and the world has gone mad and Hillary is our nominee, I'd vote Democrat, regardless of who it is.
That's a statement right there.
2007-10-27 13:33:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Did they take a vote on letting Bush attack Iran? I don't think that has happened but I could be wrong. In Hillary's favor, nobody really expected a President of the United States to lie in order to start a war. It has never happened before. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me. I doubt Bush could win a vote to allow him to attack Iran. At least I hope he can't. He might not wait for a vote, though. Your life, my life...all of our lives will get incomprehensibly worse if he attacks Iran, it is so wrong...but then Hitler was crazy enough to attack the USSR while he was still fighting on the western front. History is made by idiots screwing up.
2007-10-27 13:29:25 · answer #3 · answered by jxt299 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't matter...no matter what happens in the future, President Bush will be blamed for it. The word blame has been replace with the word, "Bush"
I'm using it all the time now. I say don't "Bush" me for it!
Did you know Bush caused the San Francisco Earthquake?
Did you know Bush caused the Red Sox to win the first two games of the World Series?
2007-10-27 13:37:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course.
But hopefully Bush consults congress before attacking, that would give her the opportunity to vote against military action against Iran.
I also think Barack Obama should have been there for the vote to label Iran as terrorists. Then he could at least have gotten his vote on record. Senator Bidon and Senator Dodd voted against labeling Iran as terrorists.
2007-10-27 13:38:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush, Clinton, Rudy, all worthless. They don't know what they know, and will rewrite under oath whatever they've been quoted. My expectations for the scum running our country would have to be significantly improved to be low. The phrase "spiraling out of control with no accountability" applies equally to both sides.
2007-10-27 18:34:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are you liberals pushing a war with Iran? The President has been doing everything diplomatically possible to deal with the situation. Why aren't you supporting that effort instead of leading the drive towards a war.
2007-10-27 13:50:49 · answer #7 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hey jxt299 what evidence do YOU have that Bush lied?
Was it this evidence?
ESTABLISHING SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE UNITED STATES ROLE IN IRANIAN ARMS TRANSFERS TO CROATIA AND BOSNIA (House of Representatives - May 08, 1996)
Or was it this evidence?
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release
December 16, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Oval Office
6:00 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq, why we have acted now and
what we aim to accomplish.
2007-10-27 13:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by juandos 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is exactly why I can't bring myself to support her. I knew the impetus for war with Iraq was a outright lie and I knew exactly what would happen. She's not part of the solution, she's part of the problem. She might as well be a Republican. Shame Hillary! Shame!
2007-10-27 13:54:04 · answer #9 · answered by jersey girl in exile 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually I think she'll be more legalistic. If that were to happen, I think the Democrats will take the position that Bush took it upon himself to attack Iran when congress never intended to grant him the power to do so.
2007-10-27 13:27:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'll bet even Bush has said that under his breath a few times.
2007-10-27 13:36:02 · answer #11 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋