Well this is hard to believe George W Bush has no magical formula Surely this is contradiction to what he has been telling us all for the last 5 Years What sort of rhetoric is this latest :- There are "not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods" he said. Bush rejected ideas "to step back." At this time there are about 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/iraq.bush/index.html What have the DP Pundits got to say on the latest news:-
Defeat, retreat, pessimism? Just watched it myself. Lots of other points made. Iraq is expected to take control of their country by November. Iraq will determine direction on war on terror. Situation in Iraq is unacceptable. (seems acceptable to some, as they would prefer to leave it as it is) Responsibility for mistakes lies with him. (Bush haters will love this!) Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for US (perhaps this is what most hope for?) Failure would strengthen radical islamic extremists (something else many hope for?) Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence. Too many restrictions on troops. (no doubt!) Iraqi government will appoint military leaders for new plan. New General appointed over US Forces in Iraq authored the Army's new counter-insurgency book and supports more boots on the ground. Note to terrorists...your days are numbered Note to those that support the terrorists...your buds are not winning and are about to experience defeat as in Fallujah
Yeah November 4012 What an absolute disaster it is over there, the only good thing to come out of it GT is that your hero only stumbled once throughout his entire speech. I thought he coked it together very well, or should that be "kept it together?"
I agree AGS, it's a disaster for your buds. Got a whole bunch of them today Get more and more every day. And now, it will be even a bigger disaster for terrorists. Time to clean house!
AGS responses in bold type: Iraq is expected to take control of their country by November. See my previous post Iraq will determine direction on war on terror. Bullshit, that one is with P.N.A.C Situation in Iraq is unacceptable. (seems acceptable to some, as they would prefer to leave it as it is) It has been unacceptable since the illegal invasion began. Responsibility for mistakes lies with him. (Bush haters will love this!) He got that part of his speech right! Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for US (perhaps this is what most hope for?) Iraq is already a failure, time to get the troops out, admit it was a fuck up and stop lying to the sheeple to keep them paranoid. Failure would strengthen radical islamic extremists (something else many hope for?) Complete bullshit. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence. If Saddam was still in power there wouldn't be any sectarian violence, but then again the US wouldn't have access to all that oil. Too many restrictions on troops. (no doubt!) Should read "too many troops, and now another 20,000+ thrown into the danger zone." Iraqi government will appoint military leaders for new plan. US government will appoint military leaders for new plan. New General appointed over US Forces in Iraq authored the Army's new counter-insurgency book and supports more boots on the ground. Because the last one criticized Bush and was replaced.
I agree AGS but for that sort of performance was he not freebasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebase Was the music playing in the background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Nelson "Garden Party" Ricky Nelson Mr George W Bush Was fed that stuff in his youth right
LOL, in what year? Wasn't the mission already accomplished, how about after they had election? Does this mean that he is not following the path any more? No kidding, you don't say. Who else? You mean more than it already is? I thought he is already doing a good job on strengthening the extremists, forget about Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan are also talking about winning the war. Does this mean he has given up? Then why send more soldiers? What does that mean? More killing of civilian women and children? Didn't they have military leaders already? Now everybody can feel calm since he has written a book, the only thing which is needed to do now is to transport enough of these books to Iraq, so the soldiers can throw it at the terrorists.
Let the record show AGS' solution is always defeat on behalf of others. Surrender to the terrorists always! Your buds are losing AGS, and the ass whippin' is about to commence, just like in Fallujah.
gworld, I'd address yours, but you have a long history of hatred towards the US, Christians, Jews and soldiers. Oddly enough, never a bad word for terrorists though. Oh wait, one time you called them "pieces of shit" when cornered, didn't you?
What about this does it not look like Bush is orchestrating his presidential exit before the army exits Iraq Passing the quadmire over to the Dems in 2 years time
heck, they've had control of it...if they would have financed it before they didn't finance it, this thing would have been over two years ago.
Actually, Bush has taken care of it for the dems. The dems were calling for war with Iraq long before Bush ever got into office. He simply did what the democrats were asking for. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 If anything, the democrats used GWB for their own dirty work. And to think, if Al Gore had actually won, the democrats may very well have been going to war with Iraq. They knew saddam had WMD long before Bush was ever in office
So anyone that hates Bush... Tell me... What direction can be taken and what will be the real consequences of those actions? Forget Bush for a second, and please answer that.
I blame Kerry, if he would have won....we'd be fighting terroists on our own soil not way over there in Iraq
The Arab Media has improved out all recognition in the last few years and the articulate way they present their interpretation of world affairs can no longer be continually distorted and manipulated by Western Press and Media Here is a clip on their take on Bush prior to his speech last night ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush is yet to learn however, that the United States is not Rome, and strengths and weakness are no longer measured alone by a nation’s number of combatants. The last three and a half years of utter failure in Iraq should have been the sign any rational leader would need to change course; but few ever argued that the president is an icon of leadership or even headedness; thus the “new†Iraq strategy. Moreover, the president reportedly intends to endorse William Fallon to head the US Central Command. The choice of Fallon, according to the New York Times reporter in Washington, as the top military commander in the Middle East — to replace Gen. John Abizaid — came as a big surprise to the Pentagon for the former is a naval officer with little experience in that region. But things will fall neatly in place when one considers that Bush’s choice has more to do with Iran than repairing the damage done in Iraq: “Any mission against Tehran would rely heavily on carrier-based aircraft and missiles from the Persian Gulf,†according to the Times, and the expertise of Fallon is most needed in that type of military scenario. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=90792&d=10&m=1&y=2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now then what does this mean Does it mean that Bush has never heard of the influential Saudi English Daily Newspaper Does it mean that Bush is setting up William Fallon to switch course midstream after utter chaos and a political quagmire in which USA has lost the lives of over 3,000 soldiers and military personnel in Iraq Maybe this is an intellectual change of direction drop the q off the end of Iraq , replace the q with n , call on William Fallon to lead and engage the troops on Iran Is that what this is all about ? Is this another misleading tactic about to be implemented to mislead the American Electorate Once Again