2007-10-31 04:25:07 · 16 answers · asked by Dirk von Pelvis 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
He listened to Rummy and Cheney
2007-10-31 04:28:23 · answer #1 · answered by Michael B 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush never had control over his administration or his White House. Unka Dick and David Addington of the Office of Legal Council played Bush like a hand puppet and made a mockery of the presidency.
2007-10-31 11:44:30 · answer #2 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Two reasons:
1. He had a terrible Cabinet. He surrounded himself with the wrong people and they gave him BAD advise. He is like a bull in a china shop. He didn't have the right handlers and he just went along with Cheney & Rumsfeld. They wanted to do what Bush Sr. wouldn't let them do and Bush Jr. didn't have the sense to know what not to do.
.
2. M-O-N-E-Y!!!! He and his affiliates will come away from his presidency really rich with taxpayers dollars.
2007-10-31 15:56:23 · answer #3 · answered by alurt_rekoob 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He certainly put paid to the idea that Republicans support smaller government and less taxes.
They have always been more bloodthirsty.
He did it partly in response to terrorist threats, but he refused to recognize that you have to pay for safety with money from taxes. It was childish and he encouraged the country to be equally childish, thinking they could have it and not pay for it.
Now we have Republicans who only think of themselves and no one else.
The foreign occupation was another example of his contempt for diplomacy and rush to 'solve' without considering consequences. He could have 'won' years ago, they killed Saddam and had elections, we could have left then, but the oil was now a sticking point and so now we are stuck.
Bush is incompetent.
2007-10-31 11:33:33 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. Judging from the low approval ratings of the Democratic Congress, Bush didn't destroy the Republicans. Granted, he hasn't done to help build them up, either, but I don't think I'd choose the word "destroy"
2. He has destroyed us with run-away spending. The deficit has ballooned up to almost $10 trillion under his watch, and he can't say that he's vetoed a lot of extra spending. I don't like the war in Iraq, but I can accept his rationale for going in. I can't accept any rationale for mounting up a $10 dollar deficit. It's completely unresponsible.
2007-10-31 11:30:39 · answer #5 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It woulda been nice if someone had bothered occupying Hitlers Germany before he invaded all of Europe don't you think? I ask this because the only difference between Hitler and Saddam was the scale of it. Saddam had only invaded one country, and had only committed genocide against a select group. So should we have just waited for Saddam to achieve more beofre going in?
2007-10-31 11:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anson W 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know, but splintering the Republican party and forcing the reasonable centrists to distance themselves from the chickenhawkish neo-cons and the wing-nuts (Religious Right) is probably the only good thing to come out of his presidency.
2007-10-31 11:38:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Idiocy
2007-10-31 11:34:36 · answer #8 · answered by Wounded Duck 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Two occupations, Afghanistan and Iraq and two more unsolved conflicts he got from Bill, Haiti and Kosovo.
2007-10-31 11:31:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
he didn't destroy the country with those things, but there is a chance he will destroy the country with illegal immagration,
Having all those mexicans comming into the country illegally is what will do us in.
2007-10-31 11:29:11 · answer #10 · answered by squishy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋