Especially like how there’s no opposition party in America or anything. We just all came to a consensus on these very important issues and all.
Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq Through ‘08
President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in
Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. But defying critics and plunging polls, he declared, “I’m optimistic we’ll succeed. If not, I’d pull our troops out.”
Remember, major opposition party, don’t call out this crazy talk for the crazy talk it is… Karl Rove might say mean things.
God knows we wouldn’t want that.
How long were we in Haiti again? That turned out really well, too… [ not ].
…same as it ever was.
President Bush said Tuesday that American debt will skyrocket for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to figure it out.
Who else wants to play?
President Bush said Tuesday that he is optimistic that Osama bin Laden will be captured and brought to justice so the whole world can see how America deals with evildoers, but still it may happen that it will be a future president, not Bush himself, who finally ’smokes out’ the elusive alQaida leader.
Our boys are over there……..and the Idiot Bastard Son keeps
repeating the same tape loop, over and over and over…..
…..same as it ever was
1st verse
“And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful
Wife
And you may ask yourself-well…how did I get here? ‘
“Surrender movement” Dugger? Since you’re mischaracterizing, I guess stay the course would probably translate to victory to you. Man, your world must be so convenient.
He would have to be aware of his surroundings before he could be accused
of lying.
My BushHate compels me to credit him with delusional cluelessness.
I kinda like it. He’s the CinC. He can do that. Don’t like: get Murtha elected (or WFB). The terrorists/insurgents, who may have been hoping the Murtha/Sheehan surrender movement would influence Bush, now know that they won’t win via political pressure from the American left. That may shorten the post war insurgency and save lives and help in the Mideast.
Dugger
Let’s look at what Bush actually said:
And what plan does OW support?
Not “a complete withdrawal” by 2008? So OW supports keeping some troops in Iraq during 2008 whose eventual fate will be determined by a future president. You evil bastard!
Hooray!
We’re off the hook! Dugger says that all our leftist whining and complaining will no longer “embolden the enemy!”
Yaaay!!
You lefties know as well as I do, that if he had said anything else — Like “Out next year” — you would have said he was lying.
I’m sure a President who tells the truth is a mind - blower after eight years of the “Traveling Salesman in the White House” we had from 1992 to 2000, but try and get used to it. Because the next President will be a Republican, and she’ll be a truth - teller, too.
Yes LeGrande, there’s a lie so carefully buried in there I couldn’t even find it.
If you knew the numbers she has generated, you wouldn’t even be thinking about that “racist base.”
You may think that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Frank, I’m still waiting for a President who tells the truth.
As for Condi, wake up. A large portion of your base is racist and won’t vote for a black woman. You guys would have zero Presidents since 1968 without them. The Condi boosting is just playing to the white middle class so it doesn’t become too uncomfortable with the Southern racists. Team Bush, those truth-tellers, smeared John McCain with a lie about having a black love child. It worked. These folks sure as hell won’t actually elect a black woman if having sex with a black woman disqualifies someone.
A realistic Republican would realize that the party candidate is probably Frist or Giuliani (the smart pick) or Allen.
Speaking of Condi Rice and Bush’s mendacity, here’s a quick combination:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html
Alright, alright, it’s Rice’s mendacity, but almost assuredly endorsed by Bush. I can’t actually believe the White House keeps this on its site.
>>I kinda like it
I “kinda” think you should rush to the nearest U.S. Army recruitment station, and sign up.
You’re a waste of DNA.
JK
If we are building fixed, permanent military bases in Iraq, and it appears that we are, then Bush is being a tad disingenuous when he says that bringing the troops home is an objective. If we’re building permanent bases then it clearly isn’t a goal of this president to ever bring US troops home. The rest of his comment is so patently obvious it verges on the meaningless. Of course it will be up to future presidents and future Iraqi governments to determine the role of the US in Iraq after Bush leaves office. Duh! Future presidents will be responsible for future decisions on just about everything.
I thought John love peace?
There goes the name-calling again.
It’s not so much an insult to us, Frank_D, so much as a characterization of you.
What’s the mission in Iraq? What does it have to do with the “Long War” (previously known as the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, [previously known as the Global War on Terror])?
Honestly, sometimes I think the reason we keep making a big deal out of terrorists is that we keep making a big deal out of terrorists.
If John Lennon were alive, he’d be on Social Security…
I haven’t earned it, says the Mercedes driving, MIDI composing, mandolin player.
Hehe
And, LeGrande, if you think Giuliani’s the smart pick, you better tell the Republicans, because Rice gets betters numbers than he does.
Of course no one here wants to admit that Bush completely called the Democrats’ bluff:
Any takers out there?
That’s right, Mucker… I called you guys on the left — Lefties! What an insult!
Shall I repudiate myself?
Hey, isn’t 2008 an election year? Gee, you don’t suppose that’s a coincidence, do you? October surprise- Hey look! Our troops are all home! Ain’t Republicans grand? Pay no attention to the fact we’ve been feeding them into a damn meat grinder for five years, they’re home now! You know the media would eat it up like the lap dogs they are…
LB: You’ve just spoiled the surprise!
As if it might be possible to make any such move in 2008, without it being characterized as a political manipulation…
He was just telling it like it is…
BushHatred strikes deep — Into your heart it will creep
Funny…the Strategic Redeployment timeline endorsed by OW calls for most troops to be home by the end of 2007. I guess OW is trying to make Republicans look good?
Rounds,
Lets not mince words. Pulling out here on a fixed timetable is surrender. You can wishfully think in terms of ’strategic redeployment’ but the ‘troops’ on the ground on both sides will know it for what it is: surrender. And we have aleady ‘mission accomplished’ the big war, so victory now, IMO, would consist of a substantial reduction in the insurgency and an increased strong presence of the Iraqi military.
Quaker, “We re off the hook! Dugger says that all our leftist whining and complaining will no longer embolden the enemy!
You don’t like it when I point out criticism of the war, even when completely valid (or invalid), gives the enemy encouragement. But it does. And you have 2008 coming up and can support the Murtha/Sheehan option. The American people will decide.
LB,
Who told you?? Crap. We pulled off Bush senior jetting to Paris in that SR-71 frst time around - but now our (evil) plans are foiled. As Charlton Heston would have said: D*MN you!
Dugger, We Need a New ‘Surprise’ Fellow Bushbot Cultists
Mike
I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that s what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we re using to protect the American people shouldn t be used.
Of course, nobody in the Democratic Party wants to get rid of the program, they just want the Admin. to follow the law and circumvent the Bill of Rights, as they have been. So he isn’t calling their bluff, he, like so many of you here, is mischaracterizing what his opponents have said.
Bush will do what he has always done as a CEO; delegate someone else to clean up after him.
The economy, Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, Afghanistan, crippling diplomatic ties with the rest of the world and our credibility, the environment? Not gonna be my problem anymore.
Torturing prisoners gives the enemy encouragement.
Having no plan for Iraq gives the enemy encouragement.
Not ensuring that Iraq has power and water supplies gives the enemy encouragement.
Allowing our soldiers to serve without proper equipment gives the enemy encouragement.
Handing billions of $ to Bush cronies to rebuild Iraq, while Iraqis are without jobs, gives the enemy encouragement.
Somehow I think the right gives the enemy more encouragement than the left does.
You’re right. I don’t.
Because 1) you have no evidence to support your claim, 2) even if you did, it wouldn’t matter, and 3) citizens who oppose the war are guaranteed the right to say so.
Quaker (OK, no “timetable” but at least set some milestones a little more specific than “when they stand up, we’ll stand down”.)
duros–
I don’t think Mike and the other wingers here are able to distingush that there is a real difference between 1) adhering to the FISA about obtaining warrants, and 2) abolishing all surveillance of suspected terrorists.
Lets not mince words. Pulling out here on a fixed timetable is surrender.
Dugger, you sitting behind your keyboard typing inanities is surrender.
Seriously, shut up or sign up. Or fuck off.
How’s that for not mincing words? You prick.
mrC
Well, let’s put it this way. I think we all have used the terms “terrorist” or ‘Al Quaida” on this blog at some point or another. Does that make it all right for the NSA, FBI or whoever to break into our homes and seize our computers and search without a warrant or probable cause, tap our phones and go through our mail?
You guys on the right got no problem with that, right?
So if all the Anti-war people suddenly said the war is ok, then the insurgency would just dry up, right? They would no longer have an incentive to fight? Lose the will to try and drive the invaders from their homes?
Quaker
I have common sense, experience in the military (where morale is a key factor) and can cite anecdotal evidence. Keep in mind I don’t say one should not criticize war, but recognize what the impact of that criticism can be. Its ‘pricier’ criticism and should not be spent lightly - for it can encourage the other side.
Dugger
Encourage them to do what? Agree?
fight harder - hold out - perhaps an internal American political action will cause us to vacate the field
Don’t think the enemy tries to to take advangtage on internal domestic politics? Check out the Phillipines turn of the century.
And no duros it wouldn’t dry up. It might be just as long, but internal domestic strife over the war/any war could certainly encourage the enemy to fight longer and harder. Isn’t that just common sense?
Dugger
Duuger (was just a kid then)
Dugger, your definition of victory, i.e. “would consist of a substantial reduction in the insurgency and an increased strong presence of the Iraqi military” is, according to Bush, going to occur so long as we continue to “stay the course.” But after three years, that course hasn’t taken us one step closer to victory. Most would argue that Bush’s “course” is a failure and to continue down it would lead to even greater failure. Civil war looks pretty much like a heck of a failure.
On the subject of surrender. Surrender is to yield to the enemy. That’s not what Murtha and Sheehan want.
Murtha’s of the opinion that our continued presence/occupation is bad for Iraq. He believes it is in Iraq’s best interests if we leave as soon as we can. He says, and I paraphrase, that the best way to achieve victory in Iraq — as you describe and as most would agree — is to withdraw, not to surrender to the insurgents — the enemy. We need to relinquish control to those who should have it — the Iraqi’s.
Sheehan just thinks that we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place and that we should just get the hell out. To her, it’s like seeing a situation where someone invades someone else’s house, causes chaos in that house and nearly destroys it. She’s telling the invader, “You need to get out of the house that you entered illegally. You don’t belong there and you’re pissing the owners off.”
Invaders voluntarily packing up getting out at an owners request are not surrendering.
Two interesting points, Rounds:
Murtha s of the opinion that… it is in Iraq s best interests if we leave as soon as we can.
Invaders voluntarily packing up getting out at an owners request are not surrendering.
Even if staying the course were a complete failure up until this very moment, there is no evidence to support the idea that things are not getting better.
There is no evidence to support Murtha’s opinion, and there has not been an “owners’ request.” (Unless you consider the terrorists the owners — I don’t).
rounds,
Just don’t agree that packing up and leaving the battlefield to the enemy is not surrender. The enemy will interpret it that way. So will our troops. SO will Islamic extremists worldwide - and thus be emboldened.
Dugger, There’s no easy answer
q: will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective.
From today’s LA Times:
WASHINGTON Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.
Can we call him a liar yet?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective.
Maybe he meant to say an objective OPINION.
I don’t care if he is lying, I hope we do get some garrisons there, and some oil deals, and whatever else we can out of the deal.