ANSWERS: 16
  • Because the real agenda for him and his neo-con cronies was never about 9/11 in the first place. 9/11 was convenient for Bush and Co. Their real agenda was to get Saddam Hussein and Iraqi oil. So he started to lie. Then the lies needed to get spun and compounded. It's hard to explain anything to anyone when your story needs to keep changing because it was never true in the first place. Remember, under Hussein there was no al-Quaeda power base in Iraq. That was one of Bush's self-fulfilling prophecies. U.S. intervention and bumbling in Iraq and the fall of our former buddy, Hussein, are what has allowed terrorists to gain such a strong foothold there. Instead of following through and decimating al-Quaeda and the murderer (bin Laden) who killed thousands of our citizens on our own soil, Bush and cronies decided to let their egoistic arrogance and greed rule the day.
  • isn't it funny how "these" types of question don't get all the attention they should? seems like people prefer fluffy easy to swallow ignorance than actually thinking about what is really happening. to answer your question, i feel like george bush is in way over his head. he doesn't even know what he is talking about. its all a farce and he just repeats the lines that are taught to him and improvises the only way he can, with stupidity. he can't explain who the enemy is because its all made up, the reasons we should go to war with them is a bit more complicated... this is as far as i am going at the moment.
  • I am not trying to defend GWB in any way, but you need to realise the situation he is in, he needed to act some way, he did it! He invaded Afghanistan and abolished the Taliban regime which was sheltering these terrorists, but the whole thing about terrorists that make them so hard to find and defeat is the fact they attack from nowhere! How can you attack something you can not see?
  • Because George Walker Bush's reason for going to war with Iraq were strictly personal, completely ego driven -- We are in Iraq today because of Bush's sick and twisted ego and for no other reason. Iraq war offers him and his Vietnam service evading administration many political positives from their perspective, including, but not limited to: The permanent war public relations strategy is, in large part, aimed at keeping any of the numerous Bush domestic disasters off of the political table. War supersedes even an economy down the tubes. Keeping the threat of terror simmering on the burner through ginned up and meaningless terror alerts scares Americans into supporting him, because they seemingly have no option, since they believe they are under a constant terrorist threat. This leads to a sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' for the nation as a whole. Most Americans look to their psychological tormentor for protection from an outside threat perceived as the more serious of two evils. A war in Iraq offers almost bottomless billion-dollar profiteering opportunities for George W. Bush Cartel campaign contributors and George W. Bush administration officials -- Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc. are all set to reap big financial benefits from the destruction of the Iraq infrastructure. Blow the country up with bombs paid for by taxpayers -- and then use taxpayer dollars to pay campaign contributors and companies with connections to administration officials to rebuild it -- A nice scam if you got a railroad car on the gravy train.
  • Don't you have the concept of Collective Cabinet Responsibility in the USA and is your President able to send his country to war because of a personal whim, or has he been involved in Cabinet discussions with specialist advice from military and intelligence advisors?
  • Because there were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument, the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil. That is pretty hard to explain to the Americans.
  • I'm not sure I agree with all the speculation about Bush's motives for starting the Iraq war. I think maybe he really did believe that Saddam had WMD's, and that he was a threat to destabilize the Middle East, with all the consequent oil implications of that. But it seems clear to me that invading Iraq was never the right strategy, and even worse -- once it became obvious that the original justification for the war was a phantom menace, to NOT step up and admit the mistake turned out to be completely crippling: now he seems permanently wired in to having to justify the original mistake by inflating the threat posed by Iraq, etc. As for the "war on terror" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), I think the threat is being exaggerated relative to other dangers: 1.5 million Americans die of heart disease each year, but we barely notice that. On what rational basis should we upset our entire economic and political system to fight an amorphous abstraction known as "terror"? That's just letting terrorists "win" -- they want to frighten us into irrational responses, and that's what we're doing by over-reacting. It does seem that there is political capital to be gained by exploiting this fear of terrorism.
  • Probably because it was not obvious. So little obvious that he is not necessarily right...
  • Because the Democrats have the mainstream media so wrapped around their little fingers that the truth is never allowed to see the light of day.
  • He will be restles for the rest of his life and thanks we got rid of him, now pray for Obama to fix his??????????????
  • Because he is an incompetent drone from the planet Zod. And would not know WMD if they were right in front of him.
  • I didn't see him struggle at all. I think the difficulty lies in the definitions. "Terrorists" are unfortunately identifiable as 'civilians' until they actually make an attack. - Now where it gets really sticky is the question of preemption: Do we hit them before we THINK they will hit us? If we do and they don't hit, we are culpable. If we don't strike early and they do, we are damned again. It is the perfect catch-22. And bear in mind that lives hang in the balance of this discussion. - Bearing all these factors in mind, I can not say that I would be able to do a better job than Bush did. (Note: I recognize Bush had blunders both many and serious as well as recognizing those things which he couldn't help or did well on, contrary to the popular condemnations of our time)
  • did you see the move George W?
  • He's too confused because he is the murdering bastard that committed the offenses on 9-11-01.
  • He was struggling because: 1] He could not admit the truth. 2] His sole interest was the Iraqi Oil and perhaps the Afghani natural gas. 3] He could not say who the enemy was because there was no such enemy reason why as an excuse he got Saddam killed. 4] Because he knew we would not demand an answer from him. 5] Go to war against them? Who? We had no reason for any war.
  • Well, I think he would've had to tell everyone that he was the enemy... His father was first to invade Iraq. He was just finishing the job. The Bush family has lots of $$$ coming from oil investments. You be the judge... The media is not controlled by democrats, it's controlled by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) you can see this documentary on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPlvdSQ6cAM He doesn't want America to go to war with his family, does he?

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy