BUSH--WILL NOT LEAVE IRAQ - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 05:44 AM

RIGA, Latvia - President George W. Bush, under pressure to change direction in Iraq, said Tuesday he will not be persuaded to withdraw American troops before the country is stabilized.

“There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in a speech setting the stage for meetings with the Iraqi prime minister later this week. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”

Love these words, apparently he does not have a speech writer; this crap is the same crap Nixon told the world about Vietnam. Same song just a different person.

Bush says U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until their mission is complete

It is a bogus statement.

CHUQ · #2 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 05:53 AM

Associated Press Writer
RIGA, LATVIA -- President Bush will ask the embattled Iraqi prime minister in Jordan on Wednesday how best to train Iraqi forces faster so they can shoulder more responsibility for securing the nation, yet a top White House adviser has doubts that Nouri al-Maliki will be able to halt escalating sectarian violence

This hole idea is crap! It did not work in Vietnam and it will mostly likely be a failure in Iraq. Try something new! Think outside the box!

Bush Focusing on Iraqi Troop Training : The Morning Call Online

CHUQ · #3 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 05:57 AM

(The following pre-war transcript of a conversation between Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld cannot be verified. But it passes the smell test; see what you think.

An intersting and sometimes humorous opinion piece about the war in Iraq.

Scoop: Chestnuts Roasting in an Iraqi Fire (A Fantasia)

Tumbleweed · #4 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 07:06 AM

Republicans are doomed in 2008 if they stay the course. Bush is being too stubborn. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.

lordoftheworld · #5 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 01:34 PM

Bush messed up by sending the troops there, but it'd be an even bigger mistake if we left now. No way can the US withdraw now. More troops need to be sent, and the Iraqi government needs to stricten up. They need to take charge in Iraq, not play defense. You can't play defense against an enemy on their own turf. If we want it to end, we need more troops and go after all of those who threaten the stability of the government. We also need to dialogue with local religous leaders. They are the ones that we need to win over, but not with riches or things like that. We need to help them realize that we want to help, and when the violence ends, we leave and they can live happily and continue on with their ways of their culture.

Tumbleweed · #6 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 02:49 PM

How can we go after the terrorist when they hide in areas the Iraq government says we can't enter?

CHUQ · #7 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 04:40 AM

The answer by some analysts is to 1) srap the democracy crap, for now.

2) Send enought troops to make the US position workable and 3) throw unlimited amounts of money at it. IMO this will do nothing but make things worse, some success at first, but those will be forgotten with the ensuing bloodbath.

A dialog, no matter how distasteful the Americans, will bring some of the crap to am halt.

CHUQ · #8 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 06:06 AM

Ok I have listened tpo all the bovine fecal matter from the Administration and yesterdays news conference when Homey said, We will stay in Iraq until the job is done. Now after all the comments and stuff, what is the job that we must complete? Is it democracy? Is it to end violence? Is it to fight terrorists? What is this f**king job we must complete? You tell me just what is the job?

CHUQ · #9 (**permalink**) 12-01-2006, 04:31 AM

AMMAN (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush strongly backed Iraq's prime minister on Thursday, saying Iraqi forces would be prepared more quickly to take over security and that Washington was not looking for a "graceful exit

Bush was nothing but supportive of Maliki, but is it legit?

Bush backs Iraq PM, says no U.S. "graceful exit"

CHUQ · #10 (**permalink**) 12-01-2006, 04:37 AM

CAIRO, Egypt - President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki both told an anxious world Thursday that they want to speed the handover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces as a way to calm the country. But neither gave a clue as to how they might accomplish that difficult task.

This tired scenario is about to come home to roost.

BostonHerald.com - International: From Bush and Maliki, few signs of hard plans to stop violence

Amman, Jordan - President Bush said today the United States will speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces but assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Washington is not looking for a "graceful exit" from a war well into its fourth violent year.

Under intensifying political pressure at home, the American and Iraqi leaders came together for a hastily arranged summit to explore how to stop escalating violence that is tearing Iraq apart and eroding support for Bush's war strategy.

THis lame attempt will work no better than the same policy that was tired and failed in Vietnam.

DenverPost.com - Bush to speed Iraq turnover