Question:
Why did George W Bush get more votes in 2004 after misleading Americans on Iraqi WMD, terrorism etc?
Dr MK Khaishagi
2006-08-24 20:16:58 UTC
Does it not prove that ordinary Americans fully support such behavior from their leaders?
22 answers:
Darqblade
2006-08-24 20:28:37 UTC
No, it does not. The election was rigged, just like the first one was. Do you think that, after hearing the truth, We would condone what he has done? Unfortunately, our government is corrupt, and it is not easy to get rid of those who have lied. Like a dictatorship, the government spreads propaganda, lies and misinformation, causing widespread confusion, fear, and uncertainty. This puts the people here fighting each other, and takes every ones attention off of thosr responsible for the lies in the first place. The U.S. used to be a great country, now the government not only condones such behavior, but engages in it as well, despite the will of its' people. I must apologise for my country, and feel great shame at its actions of late. I am ex military, two different branches, and hope someday to see my country return to the ways of honor, respect, and truth.
2006-08-25 03:25:28 UTC
It is unwise for Americans and also a long standing tradition for the American people to stand behind there leader in times of war. The same was done when FDR was in office during WWII. I understand they were under different circumstances but changing leadership would only result in an unfinished conflict where America will just withdraw just as in Vietnam and the Spanish withdraw after the bombings.
Mr. Knowledgeable VI
2006-08-25 03:27:33 UTC
Because George W. Bush was more favored than John Kerry. He got more Electoral College Votes and Popular Votes too.
hellion210
2006-08-25 03:35:04 UTC
i seem to remember a lot of names registered as voters that turned out to be ppl that were legally dead for several years, felons allowed to vote if they registered as republicans, ppl registering in more than one state, voting machines that turned out to be "faulty" (think, tampered), the palm beach county machines with over 88000 more votes in themthan there were voters, etc.



but, its the electoral college that determines the president, so really, voting is pointless.



also, because he was the one preaching the most about god and the bible, he appealed to a lot of ppl that are willing to totally ignore his track record of faling at everything he touches, a record that remains unbroken today.



its amazing how ppl will choose a former cokehead over a war hero, just because he talks about what jesus wants. and for the record, i dont think kerry would have been some amazing president, but he was the one of the two men that was an alter boy, so if one of them knows about religion i'm guessing its the one who spent time in a catholic school.



also, just for fun, i seem to recall last year on the daily show, there was a vote being held by an all republican group (cant remember which one at the moment) that turned in more votes than it had members. brilliant.
2006-08-25 03:26:47 UTC
If I was not mistakne that was not happening.



We did good in Afghanistan and just started moving around in Iraq.



Bush had also just cut taxes.



He was running high on America succeeding against terroristm



It was AFTER the election things started to fall apart. First he tried to get rid of SS and then the WMD and Prison episodes started coming out and the ambushes got stronger.
battle-ax
2006-08-25 04:03:21 UTC
Whats really amazing is that Kerry far outspent the republicans, nearly all the media was suspecting a route by the fool from massachusettes. With all the Kings money (heinz family) and all the kings horses (the media) he could not get enough people to uproot the Bush.



I just laugh and laugh, and laugh....remember how Michael Moore was silent for nearly a week? How he was trying to sway the election in Ohio?
Arianna S
2006-08-25 05:49:49 UTC
Because the other candidates were not likeable enough to make people want to elect someone new in the middle of the war, plus, the American people have, throughout history, kept presidents formerly disliked in office because it was believed that they "already knew what was going on". Another thing, though, is that Bush was not yet THAT unpopular. People still wanted to see what he could do...

...and now they're kicking themselves in the head.
Shawn S
2006-08-25 03:26:01 UTC
The politics of fear,, For some reason old George who everyone says is not very brite, has ya all thinking he is the only one that can protect you . Well what he actually did was make matters 10 times worse and got thousands of troops killed in the process.
2006-08-25 03:21:05 UTC
Electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail, purging of voter rolls, inadequate number of voting machines in numerous democratic precincts, and dirty politics like the Swift Boaters and talking heads lying about politicians.

And scare tactics - Politicians using the terrorism issue to scare voters into supporting them. Remember all the color coded alerts leading up to the election, and how they subsided immediately after?



Fear is the ultimate tool of manipulation.
OzobTheMerciless
2006-08-25 03:23:33 UTC
It was the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, dontchya know?



Part of the reason was that John Kerry was an obvious lying surrender monkey flip flopper and another part of the reason is that the President did not intentionally mislead the country at all.



If you hate America so much, and you obviously do, why are you stll here?
Tammy C
2006-08-25 03:24:17 UTC
Well, probally for 1 because he was terrifying people into voting for him, and he was still missleading some people into thinking that he was actually going to do something over in Iraq, like kick their *** and take their oil, unfortunately, I guess that was never his plan
Madness_75
2006-08-25 04:57:10 UTC
over 500 chemical artillery rounds have been discovered so far. talk to the guys on the ground. Or try to catch that quick blip across cnn lol nobody wants to talk about it. Probably because they were U.S. made.
combscindy
2006-08-25 03:32:14 UTC
Simple Really, Partly, Stupidity. Smooth talker smiles a-lot, loves to wink. Uh-o,Was just wondering, and just crossed my mind, nothing intentional, but has any one heard of the Anti-Christ?
2006-08-25 03:24:04 UTC
Because he was successfully able to portray himself as strong on national defense so that people wouldn't give credence to the accusations that he misled the nation.



Let's not forget that the Democrats really bungled things.
2006-08-25 03:22:24 UTC
When people get afraid they vote for whoever they think will fix the problem. They made a mistake.
2006-08-25 03:23:41 UTC
just glad he's out in 2 years. I bet the gas will plummit!
Bantree
2006-08-25 03:25:28 UTC
No, it does not. He mislead "Extrimist Christians" into believing that he is one of them.
mighty_power7
2006-08-25 03:23:45 UTC
hitler totally misled half of europe, but that doesn't mean that the majority of germans at that time approved of what he did.



bush told us he could make it better, we believed him at that time, and he was wrong.
2006-08-25 03:20:50 UTC
It's amazing what enough money in the right places can do isn't it?
Matt
2006-08-25 04:24:28 UTC
I would say it is because American's trusted him more than the other canidates.
2006-08-25 03:24:08 UTC
Did they sound anything like these quotes?

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
2006-08-25 03:26:47 UTC
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...