A Simple Question
Within a short time he found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He also found out that prior to the invasion, there was little contact with Al-Qaida and in fact Osama bin Laden had offered to invade Iraq during its first incursion into Kuwait. The government of Saudi Arabia turned him down. This left him with only the third argument as a rational to invade a sovereign Country. This was to spread Democracy in that Country.
That must have been a very powerful reason for President Bush since it has lead to the death of over 3,700 American Soldiers so far.
So I have only one simple question. In the year 2000 George W. Bush became President. He was not elected President by the popular vote. Al Gore won that. Yet he used a technicality of the outdated Electoral College to grab Presidency. Even that was questionable because of the election tally in Florida, the State his Brother was Governor of. If George W. Bush thought Democracy was so important, why didn't he concede this election to Al Gore who clearly won the Democratic Election by winning the majority of votes?
Published by Stephen Joltin
I am a problem solver with 18+ years of Higher Education Credentials, last employed as the Information Systems Manager at Montgomery College in Maryland and a member of the Maryland Community College Data Pr... View profile
Why Al Gore Should be Deemed the Most Influential Person of 2006It is not often that a former Vice President who lost his bid to become President will be the most influential person of the year, but AL Gore is sure in the running- An Inconvient Truth: Global Warming According to Al GoreThis is a review of Al Gore's book and film, An Incoinvent Truth. It describes the state of the Earth and what we can do to make a difference for us and our children. We need to make some kind of change and Al Gore is...
- Election 2008: Al Gore - Movie Maker or Comeback Kid?Part II in my series about the 2008 election is about Al Gore and his new movie, An Inconveniant Truth
- Why Al Gore Should Be Deemed the Most Influential Person of 2006Everyone knows Al Gore is a loser. After all he lost the biggest election of them all and he has been mocked time and again on Saturday Night live. Yet here he is back again in 2001, but his time as a winner and some...
- Democracy AbroadHow the world witnesses Americans practicing their democracy now: a global and historical perspective.
- Al Gore is Running for President! They Just Haven't Told Us Yet
- Should the 2008 Democratic Convention Nominate Al Gore for Vice President?
- George W. Bush is NOT Hitler
- Former Vice President Al Gore Criticized for Global Warming Comments
- Top Ten Reasons George W. Bush Will Go Down as the Greatest President in U.S. Hist...
- George W. Bush is a Liberal
- The Day I Met President George W. Bush
14 Comments
Post a Commenti will be so glad when Bush is out of office. Don't know how much worse anyone else could be.
And now his approval rating is climbing; I'd like to know why?
Steve, I agree with you over %100 and I am sickened by bush and our government, I dont' see any hope for our country. I don't want the clintons back I dont' know what the answer is, but Bush is an idiot, a very very dangerous idiot!
Take comfort in the fact that he probably won't get reelected this time around.
(oops) manipulating data to get what he wanted: a war, and oil. And Cheney, the insane power behind the throne, wanted billions for Haliburton.
Excellent point. Another CP wrote that the US is not a democracy (one person, one vote), but a Republic - we elect people to represent us in government and act for us, so we don't make the laws. Apparently GWB doesn't know the difference, and neither do most of us. Rationalizations for the Electoral College abound - and I don't buy any of them. We have the ability to count individual votes, and it is completely unfair that if a candidate wins a state with a lot of EC votes by a few popular votes, he or she gets all those EC votes. And Tammy needs to stop knee-jerk reactions and think before she comments. OBVIOUSLY no WMDs were found, and none were there -- that doesn't mean that Iraq was incapable of making them, but they certainly hadn't at the time. Bush LIED to the US people and the Senate to justify the invasion, and he convinced enough Senators to get the funding he wanted. CIA leaks, and other information including some from his own people, make it clear that he was "manipulati
;-)
If Iraq had WOMD, why weren't they used? Did we find them and hide them from the world? If I were a terrorist with nukes and such, I'd use them and not rely on suicide bombers that only kill 20-30 people.
Yes Tammy, I have inside information that there were no WMD. First the UN Inspectors. I guess you might not believe them, so next the US Military. They looked everywhere and never found any WMD. Even GWB has given up that old myth and blames poor intelligence. So if you have inside information that they existed at the time of the second invasion now would be a good time to tell us about them.
Good point, I agree.