Powered by Yahoo Answers

I can only hope.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

nope

Powered by Yahoo Answers

2009 will find Obama and his fellow demonazis still blaming Bush for their own failures.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

NO

Powered by Yahoo Answers

yes, indeed

Powered by Yahoo Answers

I don't think Bush ever took credit for being smart....

Powered by Yahoo Answers

He will do the same as Bush and finally bring an end to the United States as we fall into massive debt and soldiers turn against the government because they can no longer be paid.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

When one tries to please everyone, he is incapable of doing anything. Such is the irony of American politics. There will be little difference between the two presidents.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

Of course not!

Powered by Yahoo Answers

I seriously doubt Bush did anything like that I hate people who hate Bush just because other people hate him...

Powered by Yahoo Answers

When was Bush ever smart? I don't believe he ever took credit for being smart because it is obvious by his speaking abilities and his actions that he is no where near being capable of being smart. Obama doesn't have to act, he is very intelligent.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

Um, if Obama does exactly what Bush has been doing then I don't think anyone will credit him with acting smart.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

Has there ever been anyone good in power ............. No

everyone going to end up hating him like every other president

Powered by Yahoo Answers

Well at least Obama can speak english.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

No.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

He can't fool the smart ones.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

I Hope theres a civil war the goverment took way to much control here i like what they do but they are tighter then a prison and they take billions of dollars and do a good job in presidentcy and then the public loves them but deosnt relized they have only gotton us more in dedt

Powered by Yahoo Answers

I think Bush is doing what Obama said he would do to try to appear as if he is smart instead. After vetoing a time line for withdraw from Iraq TWICE Bush has since signed just such an agreement. That is what he was there for when that reporter threw a shoe at him. The date for total withdraw now stands at 2011. Along the way the American Military is taking a step back, turning the military control over to the Iraq army.
Had McCain won, I have no doubt that there would not have been any such agreement signed by Bush. McCain was very clear about how he felt about any sort of withdraw time line.
McCain said a time line for withdraw was to "surrender" and he said:
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years
Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me
I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years."

What I said is "past tense" and provable. But what you said is speculation and prediction and TOTALLY unprovable. I think your crystal ball has a crack in it.
1991:
"April 29: Secretary of Defense **** Cheney tells a symposium audience at the Washington Institute, "I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad [to overthrow Saddam Hussein] is also fallacious. Gulf War
I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein, we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'a government or a Kurdish government or a Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once US forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit US military force. And it's my view that the president got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Prophetic words, and disturbing in light of Cheney's orchestration of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces. (Al Franken)"

If Obama is to bridge the gap between the right and the left, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican, he is going to have to facilitate compromise between the two. Neither will get everything they want. But if he can bring us together instead of dividing us further I can live with that. If it gets our economy on track I am more then alright with it. What we have now is nothing less then a tragedy.

As for the Gaza conflict: This is not a Liberal verses Conservative, Democrat verses Republican issue in any way.

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN: A STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE
SECURITY, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY OF ISRAEL
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security…I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran.… Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it.”
Source(s):
[Obama Speech at 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference, 6/4/08]

Powered by Yahoo Answers

It already started. Obama Husein found out that he cannot allow medicine to be bought via internet from other nations because the FDA will not allow it. (may not be safe) something Buch already stated could not be done. Was Husein not listening?

Powered by Yahoo Answers