It boils down to the people searching and if they miss it he gets blamed, that doesn't seem very fair of accusing him.
Of course, he shouldn't be blamed entirely. However, like I said before, it was his job to protect us. Bush should have made sure that in the end, America wasn't in danger.
I remember when everybody was calling for retribution and going in and killing all the terrorists. He did just that. He eleminated a head of an orginization and forced the terrorists into retreat. It's not his fault that the people in Iraq HELPED the terrorists because they threatend their families. If not for the civillians getting in the way, there would have been far less casulties, quicker results and much less money spent. How can you predict people being angry at the person HELPING them instead of the person killing their families and loved ones?
Hmm, I think you're getting a bit confused here. At least, I know I am. We attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban was aiding Al-Qeaeda, the terrorist organization. I believe the Taliban in Afghanistan is what you're referring to as "the head of an organization." Iraq is also linked to terrorism, but that wasn't the original reason we entered. Bush suspected that there were weapons of mass destruction, but in the end that was proved false. I don't blame him for believing the CIA, but I do blame him for taking preemptive action against a potentially dangerous country. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking by this statement, however - "How can you predict people being angry at the person HELPING them instead of the person killing their families and loved ones?"
That's my point exactly. Everyone receives the same coverage, which means the same resources, which boils down to the doctor's time and supplies. They would not give you a new liver and a new heart ever beacause they would say, "everyone else needs one first before you can get another" while in the meantime that person dies.
Coverage will vary per person, it won't be the same for everyone. Doing that would be incredibly stupid for the government financially and politically. What I meant by the statement "everyone will receive a certain amount of coverage," is simply that everyone will receive coverage.
National requirements for health care will be the same as requirements for public schooling, you just have to be a citzen and not immidiately about to die.
Maybe under one proposed plan, but I doubt that Republicans will allow that to go through. I personally support a nationalized health care system, available to everyone, though. However, I'd also like there to be an option to get private health insurance (which would have many benefits). No matter what happens though, I highly doubt the private sector will go out of business anytime soon. If it does, it will be it's own fault for not offering competitive rates. The government health insurance plan will most likely be very basic, and if a person can afford private health insurance, they'll probably want it.
Why's that? More time to golf because of less problems? What happend to this statement.
Haha, it was an attempt at a joke xD Maybe I should have made that clearer. Most old people who spend their retirement golfing made a lot of money: that's how they're able to afford the golfing, vacationing, etc.
Has he fixed the "lethora" of other problems in 9 1/2 months? I don't think so. So, obviously, all that time golfing could have been spent arguing for the removal of troops as he promised, fixed the national debt and preventing further terrorist attacks.
Do you really expect the country to be fixed in 9 months? Obama's working on one campaign promise right now - reforming health care. Hopefully after that is achieved he will focus on another promise. If he bites off more than he can chew (again), then he's not going to get anything done. He can't just snap his fingers, and everything will be fixed. Months of negotiations have to happen, and I'm confident that he'll address each issue in due time.
so don't do the splatter all label of how republicans are corrupt politicians who are both hypocritical and greedy, all this shows is that you do not have an open mind to the other side because you are blinded by the political propoganda sent out by the democratic party in order to make themselves seem better, and vis-versa for the republicans.
I don't like either political party, as they're both in Washington for their own gain. All the time you hear of a politician getting in trouble with their party for not supporting the correct agenda. If the party leaders really cared about the normal citizens they'd stop threatening members who happen to disagree, and would instead support different opinions within the party. Not all Republicans are corrupt, and neither are all Democrats, but I believe that the vast majority in national politics are. The thought of power, fame, and money distract them from helping the people. The Republican party is never going to support Obama, and the Democratic party is never going to support a Republican; and if one or the other has a member who does support the opposition, I assure you, there will be punishments for them. Take for example Olympia Snowe (the only Republican to vote for the health care bill), if she votes for the bill again, I'm fairly confident that she is going to get in serious trouble with the GOP. Another example is Joe Lieberman, who supported a Republican candidate in the election, and almost lost his position within the Democratic party. Political parties are becoming much too important.
I thought that was one of the reasons that he got elected to be president, his promise to remove troops. So, obviously, not an extrodinary amount considering he won the popular and electoral votes.
Only about 55% of Americans voted in the last election. 52% of these voted for Obama - only 25% of the entire population. That's not a lot of support, considering how many people didn't vote but still debate politics. Of course, the polls right now show that most Americans (of voting age) favor pulling out of Iraq. Hopefully it will get done.
Since when was trillions of dollars in government debt a "surplus"? The national debt hasn't been paid off since Marshal sold off huge tracts of Federal land.
Clinton had balanced the budget, and created a yearly surplus. If continued, the national debt could have been continued to pay off, as oppose to sky rocket within the next 10 years.
Meh the socialists, communists, and welfare exploiters want it.
Death panels here we come.
Here we go throwing words around mindlessly, again.
Congress may have the power to declare war, but Bush was the Commander-in-chief back then, and so was able to take the matter into his own hands...which he did.
Fun fact: Congress hasn't issued a declaration of war since WWII.
The president always has the power to declare war, but he can't do it without congress's support. He can't do anything without being challenged, so the fact that he got so far into iraq showed that people supported him.
Only Congress can declare war, but the President can send troops wherever the hell he wants without any restrictions by Congress. The only power Congress has against the president in that case is economic power. If they deny the president funds for the war in Iraq, for example, he'd be virtually forced to pull them out.
