before people quit believing him?
2007-12-04 05:26:04 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
i"m starting to itch
2007-12-04 05:29:17 · update #1
Charles....two if Bush had his way.
2007-12-04 05:29:49 · update #2
At least once
2007-12-04 05:28:53 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Iran has wanted war with the US since way before Bush. Does anyone remember the hostage crisis when Jimmy Carter was president.
Come on, stop letting your political affiliation cloud your judgement.
That whole region is full of leaders who have nothing but hate and an internal need to destroy Freedom.
The only that keeps these morrons from blowing things up in the USA, and killing you and me is the Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier Parked on thier doorstep.
Thats why we are there. Get over it.
2007-12-04 05:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
When exactly was Bush wrong ?
I would say your question is in reference to the 2007 Iran NIE.
Which states that Iran halted nuclear weapon design in 2003.
But you are ignoring the 2005 Iran NIE, the last one,
Which stated that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
.
So do you want the President to make public policy based on the current NIE, or on some future NIE, which might be different ?
Bush's policy on Iran has been based on the 2005 Iran NIE.
What problems do you have with it ?
2007-12-04 05:37:14 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He hasn't been wrong.
How can he be wrong if his reasons are based on the bad intelligence given to him by the "Slam Dunk" Tenet-run CIA full of Valerie Plames?
The intelligence was proven to be incorrect afterward, but how was he supposed to know that? As for all the other reasons in the long list, they stand, undiminished.
Why are you people still carping about this, 5 years later? Can't you just Move On?
2007-12-04 05:43:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Top 10 reasons that George W. Bush invaded Iraq.
10 - Because Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11; I mean because the US was under imminent threat of attack from Iraq; I mean, Saddam had weapons of mass distraction, I mean destruction programs, that he was selling to the Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Oh, wait a minute, now it's coming to me. Because we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people against a ruthless and mean dictator. Yeah, that's it. Like we said all along, Bush just wanted to liberate the Iraqi people.
9 - What is our oil doing under their sand?
8 - Did we mention 9/11 yet? Not that there is any evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11 but we'll just keep mentioning it (but we won't talk about the oil).
7 - Just because you are a chicken hawk, doesn't mean you can't give out a serving of whoop *** (as long as you get others to do it for you).
6 - Bush thought, "What is the stupidest thing I can do to get the whole world's opinion against the United States?"
5 - His advisors thought it was a good way to get his mind off the red button.
4 - Because he heard that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan.
3 - It had absolutely nothing to do with oil. Repeat, absolutely nothing to do with oil.
2 - North Korea has the nuclear bomb and everybody knew that Iraq didn't.
And the #1 reason Bush Jr. invaded Iraq - Cheney made him do it.
2007-12-04 05:36:30 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If you are referring to the NIE report, don't you find it an interesting coincidence that Iran stopped making nuclear weapons shortly after we went in to Iraq? Assuming that the NIE report is correct...and I remind you that the same people have been wrong in the past...then Bush's policy of establishing a democratic beach head in the Middle East worked, at least in the case of Iran...didn't it?
2007-12-04 05:33:13 · answer #6 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ah what the heck lets forget what the NIE said that sancation stop Iran's nuclear program.
That there is more to investigate on Iran.
We should back off let Iran nuke New York city and than maybe you get this threat is real.
2007-12-04 05:33:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question is whether or not Hillary is going to support it again so she can later claim she was "tricked" again.
I wonder if this time when she is "tricked" if she will have a binder with all the dissenting intelligence in front of her, like she did last time.
2007-12-04 05:32:16 · answer #8 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Are we going to war again? No, while he said the option is on the table he is waiting until all other efforts are exhausted.
2007-12-04 05:34:34 · answer #9 · answered by Tip 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush chauvinists are scratching their heads and wondering if you are crazy. "George wrong? Huh? What's he talking about?"
Some people will never change their opinions (I wonder if like W they can't admit when they make mistakes). Fortunately the vast majority of us see it. Too bad it didn't happen when it counted.
2007-12-04 05:37:34 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The "reasons" for the war have all ready been debated and voted on.
2007-12-04 05:29:18 · answer #11 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋