Did Bush spend all those money into war because once he s***w it up, he wanted to s***w it good?

Question

since he would have not been reelected anyway?

Like when I play bowling, if I start to lose, I don't care to win anymore, and I begin acting like a clown and throw the ball in other lanes. or even toward my friends... lol

Answer 1

sounds about right

Answer 2

it's clear that bush wanted to make a statement of being one of the most greedy, blood sucking presidents of all time. he takes after his father, he supports the rich and kills the poor, it's how it's done in his family. and now he's made america proud by sending his brainwashed supporters into war with the impression that he's doing whats best for the country. how is fighting terrorism (aka invading iraq for oil, sending millions of troops on injustic comands, bombing homes of the poor, invading third world war countries and killing the survivors) with terrorism solving antything? or best yet, bombing for peace. how the **** can you show killing is wrong by killing more human beings.

Answer 3

Yep--that's what happened.  Good eye!

Answer 4

I believe that you are misinformed.  President Bush honestly did the best concerning the war.  As far as spending money, we have Congress to thank for allowing President Bush all the funds he needs to fight terrorism.

Answer 5

Yup! Throwing good money after bad.

Answer 6

Nah, I don't think that was it.  I wonder if the war cost as much as keeping 70,000 American troops in Germany for 60 years, or 30,000 in South Korea for 50 years, I don't know how many we have in Japan but I'd guess its at least another 30 to 50,000.

Where is the outrage on the cost of NATO.