The top allied leaders of the war in Iraq, President Bush and British Prime Minster Tony Blair, held White House talks Thursday and later Bush told reporters that "an Iraq that can govern itself is a noble goal." During opening statements, Bush again blamed continued violence in Iraq on a struggle between extremists and moderates, a day after a bipartisan report said Bush's war policies could lead to chaos in the nation and "time is running out." Bush said a key part of the report was "how do we empower [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri] al-Maliki to do the hard work necessary to achieve the objective." "We'll support the democratic government of al-Maliki as he makes difficult decisions," Bush said. Blair said, "the question is how do we find the right way forward." "It will require everybody to face up to their responsibility ... including the Iraqi government," Blair said, and other nations in the region. A key suggestion of the report included proposed outreach efforts to Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Bush said the Iraq report "talked about the regional -- the countries in the region and the responsibilities of the region to help this Iraqi government. And the idea of having an international group is an interesting idea." Before the news conference, Bush and Blair held their talks in the Oval Office after an unscheduled breakfast. Blair and Bush led the push to invade Iraq in 2003, which eventually toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and opened the door to free elections. Widespread sectarian violence that followed has claimed thousands of lives and nearly 3,000 U.S. military personnel have died in the war. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/07/bush.blair/index.html So what will happen next comments:-
I do think that a self governing Iraq is a noble goal, however I am begining to fear that we will not get there. The addition of Gates to the team, and his honesty over thinking that we are not wining the war has given me a bit more hope, however.
Didn't Gates note that we are not winning, nor losing? I believe it was Graham who asked him that, as I was watching it live while posting here, yesterday. It would be like if I said "Gates said we are not losing the war in Iraq" without also noting he agreed we are not winning. Interestingly enough, the Iraq panel didn't define this. Their recommendations (79) were all based on how to retreat and defeat. That had to have made democrats very happy. When I see democrats actually working on a win attitude, I'll retract that statement, but I honestly believe democrats hate Bush so much, they are willing to claim a win for our enemies (defeat for America) no matter what. I hope they prove me wrong.
I have to agree in general to your comments, and I think you know that I support neither of the main stream parties..........(for any number of reasons that are not relevant in regard to this thread).............and I dont like Bush or Blair but that aside The real point is neither Rep or Dem nor Bi-Partisan or Blair or anyone other country or political party have said Look lets cut out all the politics, take 'the gloves off' get the job done raise the extremists to the ground and then all the brave soldiers can come home safe in the knowledge that have completed their objectives Objective is a Win attitude It will take a hell of a political change to make that happen because what appears to be developing is a Lose attitude And that is no good to anyone regardless of their political leanings
Yes, he noted that in his opinion we are neither winning nor loosing. These were separate statements though. I am sorry if it appeared I was being deceptive in implying that he did not say that we are also not loosing. In some things neither victory nor defeat, nor one's progress towards either can be clear. However because he disagrees with the president on some things, while he also believes that this struggle can be won, I have hope. I have hope because of a new perspective that seems to be neither blindly optimistic, nor pessimistic enough to think that we cannot win. Oh, and to be clear on my political leanings, I am an Independent, because I try to vote based on the individual and what they want to do in office, rather than their party, since my political opinions don't support either of the major parties all that well. I voted for Bush both times. The first because he had the potential to Appoint 3 supreme court Justices, and the second because I didn’t think we should put a man more concerned with how soon he could get us out of a difficult situation in office. I felt that since we already were in Iraq, we should try to leave the region more stable than we left it. However, if Presidents were allowed to take a 3rd term in office, I would not vote for him a 3rd time unless I VERY much disliked the opposition and their politics.
BritishGuy, I could not agree more. I believe you've captured the essence of my position. Very well said!