I think It is time for a Democrait to fill the shoes of the leader of the USA now. Hopefully a top democrait canidate. Also should the White House be democraitic?
2007-12-29 15:43:00 · 20 answers · asked by Boomer Sooner#1 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No
2007-12-29 15:50:53 · answer #1 · answered by theanswerman 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I am a Democrat who doesn't like Bush's policies but I would rather have him than Cheney any day. I actually like Bush just not all of his policies.
Lily4 That is impressive information. I still Blame Bush for not sending in enough troops in the first place and not sealing the borders. It shouldn't have taken this long to see improvement. Also How will we ever pay for this war? There were many mistakes made. We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. We are only fighting terrorist in Iraq because of the US invasion. What about the billions of dollars we have wasted that are unaccounted for. You can't give a good report after years of failures and expect all of the failures to be erased. I do think that since we are there we have to finish what ever we are doing there. I agree with Powell, we broke it now we have to fix it.
2007-12-30 01:20:57 · answer #2 · answered by Just my opinion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he should not resign. He has been working far more seriously ( than ever before) after the campaigning has been started by the Presidential candidates and the Republicans found themselves in a very difficult situation of finding the failed Iraq war an albatross round their necks. After he got rid off of some of the hawks like Rumsfeld and Karl Rove he could concentrate more purposefully towards bringing a logical conclusion to Iraq, Afghanistan issues. However the terrorists are pressurizing him by throwing surprises.
Pakistan Democracy should have not been attempted in such hurry while tackling the hard core terrorists. Musharraf should have been allowed to pursue containing terrorism in his dual capacities of military chief and president (benevolent dictator) while secretly arranging for amity with the Judiciary / political parties .
Most importantly some thing to remove the major irritants of withdrawing of American forces from Persian Gulf & ensuring Israel to live in peace with its neighbours are to be attempted if permanent peace in the region is to be ushered in.
America was not comfortable with cuban missiles in the early 1960s and JF Kennedy threatened WWIII with the Soviets and Warshaw pact associates. Same logic is to be extended to America's deployment of its armies in the Arab/persian gulf region and in invasions of one after the other of the countries of the region. Then some other people making statements to attack more countries are irritanrs to prick the Islamic self respect and pride.
2007-12-30 01:26:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he should not resign, and no we do not need a democratic white house.
A top al-Qaida strategist killed, a carful of terrorists blasted by a U.S. copter and Democrat presidential hopefuls suddenly clammed up on Iraq.
In an announcement the day after Christmas, the U.S. military confirmed that the militant killed with an associate in an operation near the town of Samarra, north of Baghdad, on Nov. 8 was Abu Abdullah, alias Muhammad Sulayman Shunaythir al-Zubai.
A high-level leader within al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), Abdullah was described by the military as "an experienced bomb maker and attack planner who coordinated attacks on coalition forces over the past three years."
Last Sunday, meanwhile, after receiving a tip on location and movement from local Iraqis, a U.S. Apache helicopter used Hellfire missiles to send six AQI operatives to their eternal reward.
One of them was believed to be a cell leader who organized suicide bombings and attacked coalition forces on Thanksgiving. A video released by the military shows the choppers destroying the black sedan as Army communications are heard in the background.
Maj. Dave Fivecoat, an operations officer for the 3rd Infantry Division, told Fox News it was "an example of two surge brigades sharing information faster than the insurgents can react."
But it is also an example of how we are winning against Iraq's onetime elusive terrorists in a manner beyond the expectations of almost anyone just one short year ago.
For that we have our brave troops to thank at this year's end. We have their commander, Gen. David Petraeus, to thank for his capability and perseverance in handling what the "experts" in Washington were sure was an impossible situation. And we have their commander in chief, President Bush, who not surprisingly just topped the Gallup list of most admired men in America, to thank.
Last year, the conventional Beltway wisdom insisted that Bush had no choice but to accept the "soft surrender" recommended by the Iraq Study Group report.
The president refused, and time has proved him right.
The success is so obvious that Democrats running to replace Bush no longer want to talk about Iraq.
And no wonder: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John Edwards, all hold the same position — that ousting Saddam Hussein and liberating the Iraqi people was a mistake. So we should surrender to the terrorists, withdraw U.S. forces, and show terrorist states such as Iran and Syria how nice we are by talking with them and asking their advice on Iraq's future.
Soon those three and their confreres in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, won't even be able to make their bogus complaints about a lack of political progress in Iraq.
White House Iraq specialist Brett McGurk now expects a de-Baathification law to pass by March, when U.S. forces will have been reduced to a pre-surge level and Petraeus again appears before Congress. A law devolving powers to regional rule may also have passed by then. This after the regional sharing of oil revenues has already taken place on an informal basis.
With so much to be thankful for on Iraq, what a tragedy it would be for Americans and Iraqis alike if the president we elect next year undid our remarkable achievements there, and a Democrat would surely do just that.
2007-12-30 00:08:11 · answer #4 · answered by lilly4 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, the news tends to only be the bad things, he has done a good job, have we had another 9/11, NO, sure he has made a lot of mistakes but any president is going to do that, i think we need new face, republican preferably, but i don't think that bush is doing a terrible job, i think the public just doesn't know enough about all the decisions he has made
2007-12-30 00:27:08 · answer #5 · answered by Fashionista 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think bush is doing a pretty good job. He has been really poor on securing our borders, and supporting this stupid NAFTA that the dems shoved down our throats. But you may have a good idea. Chaney might put those stupid dems in their right place, in front of a firing squad for conspiracy, and treason.
2007-12-30 00:15:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Don't you see how bad the democrats are doing running the Congress? Is that how you want them to run the country?
2007-12-30 00:18:25 · answer #7 · answered by AmericanPatriot 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he resigns Cheney becomes president, not a Democrat.
Their is no reason for him to resign. He is doing his job admirably.
2007-12-29 23:48:30 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
As much as I'd like to see Cheney be President, I don't think Bush should resign.
2007-12-29 23:47:57 · answer #9 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I think a judge should assign a Guardian Ad Litem to ensure he isn't hurt and doesn't hurt anyone else
2007-12-29 23:59:30 · answer #10 · answered by mickbw 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul took it upon himself to name himself President. I don't believe it.
2007-12-30 00:07:27 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋