President Bush's speech - The troops are going home

Finally the troops are going home

Bush stated: I have accepted Gen. Petraeus's recommendations on troop reductions

CNN has the whole speech transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/13/bush.text/index.html#cnnSTCText

 

Big announcement, NOT!

Bush HAD to bring the troops home because it was a matter of logistics everyone understood when the surge was initiated. This is simple process, not some benevolence or measure of success on the part of Bush.

However, his war has been such a disaster, this is the sort of stuff he will claim to make it sound like things are improving.

There are approx. 70,000 Mercenaries in Iraq fighting for the US. They have better pay, better equipment, and better benefits than our troops.

All of this hoopla about the American Military (god bless them) is strictly for show. Iraq for the most part is being policed by a corporate army.

 

He doesn't have to bring them home...the fact that the surge has been working is the reason for the graduate scale down in troops...but somehow I am not surprised that you made this good news seem so bad....

 

Can you find us one substantive piece of evidence to prove the surge is working outside the Petraeus report?

Don't drink the kool-aid. Wake up.

 

i Dont Think It SO.I never Trust On Him.He Is A Liar

 

There was like 130 before the surge... Now like 160k... He wants to bring home 30k... To me, it doesn't seem like we got anywhere...

 

Bush will just bring in more mercenaries. The difference is, we'll be funding a war conducted by foreign troops at a greater cost.

What horrible disrespect Bush must have for our military when he sends our boys to the front, and gives the security jobs to Blackwater and other private armies.

 

Why would you not believe the report of the main guy on the ground in Iraq? Would you just assume that he is automatically a liar? I don't need other evidence, I am not the one over there...therefore I will trust in the leadership that is over there and listen to what they have to say...they know better than I do. But obviously you know it all, don't you??

 

Many other reports contradict him.

I didn't automatically assume. Did you automatically assume he was telling the truth? Or did you do some research?

So you take everything the government says as truth?

I'm not the one burying my head in the sand, refusing to hear multiple opinions and follow more than one report. I don't have all of the answers, but you claim that I am incorrect. Do you have any corroborating evidence to back up your position? Or is this just more of the Nixon Gang, "he said, she said" nonsense, where you dilute the topic and dumb down the information by attacking me personally?

 

what reports? got sources?

exactly, you don't trust him...I do trust the top military person on the ground...its called patriotism, which is something you obviously lack (except for the terrorists, right?)

I never said anything about the govt. I said the top military commander....typical liberal response though, you try and change the subject to fit your agenda.

I'm not burying my head in the sand either...what I am doing is trusting the one report that actually counts, as opposed to liberals who want the (made up) reports that fit their agenda.

 

National Intelligence Estimate, United States Government Accountability Office, Iraq Study Group (Bipartisan), Associated Press, Iraqi Government reports...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html

This is offtopic, but ain't it great that they won't release the number of innocent people being killed in this "war"?

Trusting the top military person on the ground is not patriotism. I suggest you make use of a dictionary.

Could we get clarification on this please? You are saying you believe everything the top military commander tells you. Correct, yes or no?

Why does this one report count more than the others that debunk it? The GAO is not liberal. The Iraqi government is not liberal. Rudy Giuliani was a member of the Iraq Study Group. Where is this liberal conspiracy against the truth? Got sources?

It's hilarious that you call me a liberal, when I am more conservative than you. You are a neo-conservative, which if you get that dictionary, will know that you are a liberal democrat hiding in the Republican party. True Conservatives are not pro-war. Neo-cons and Democrats generally are.

The "terrorists" bit is old btw. Your little Nixon Gang lost the debate in P&R recently, and thankfully, some sound minded people with a compass for high ground have began posting here.

Please don't ruin that with your tendency to dumb down issues and information with personal attacks and questions about the poster's character.

 

There's been quite a bit of coverage on this. Of course, you've never said anything positive about America, so why should we believe you would say anything now?

Funny, when Ron Paul has suggested this, you praise him. Who are the mercenaries? The mall security guards?

Only a moron would see disrespect in bringing in people to provide assistance and service. Both are in front line situations. You praise RP for suggesting he'd do the same, but then with the flavor of usual partisanship, turn the tables because of your blind hatred. Be sensible for once, even if it hurts.

What other reports? Reports by the liberal media that AGS always says is controlled by Bush? Heh!

Actually, you did. You always assume the worse. Pessimism is what drives you. You'd bitch about a free lunch!

Ah, the ol' alex jones cue. By using this line, it puts the opponent on the defensive, because no one wants to believe in the government. Oddly enough, you seem to believe everything (and then make up some to boot) about RP.

Actually, this is projectionism at it's finest. You are the one refusing to hear other opinions and refusing to follow up on ANY report. Your mind is closed. If it's not the American soldiers you care about, and definitely not the Iraqi people you care about...just who is it that you care about?

 

I see the Grand Dragon of the Nixon Gang has made his appearance. Since I have him on ignore (likely until Ron Paul gets elected), did he say anything interesting or was it the usual misdirection and accusations of treason?

 

You seem to only put those who stand up for America on ignore. Those that tear down America, as you do, seem to be the comments you want to see most.

Good setup for AGS. He'll be along to take the bait soon.

Thanks for the honor

 

It's the usual tripe mate. Nothing new there unfortunately.

 

Yes! Troops are coming home - I knew they would be coming home soon. Glad its sooner than latter.

 

Anyone need lottery numbers? So predictable!

 

Not responding to the personal attack.

Ron Paul has never suggested paying mercenaries to fight our war. He has suggested using Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which authorizes individuals to do what is beyond the scope of a full scale military assault (going after terrorists groups not fighting on the battlefield, but from caves).

I also believe a key difference between mercenaries and Dr. Paul's suggestion is we use governmental funding for mercenaries, whereas with Letters of Marque, the private citizen is authorized to attack those groups, and gets financial support from whatever it can gain from said enemies of the state.

What he is suggesting is using our military for military jobs, building infrastructure, security, etc. He is saying let private organizations who finance themselves do the far riskier jobs of fighting on the battlefront in a guerilla tactics type of war like this one. Our military simply isn't designed to fight this way, look at Vietnam.

Not responding to this also as he has already eluded to which reports and findings already.

Not responding to personal attack #2.

All I have to say is a healthy examination of the facts and being a bit hesitant to believe everything I'm told is just the mark of someone who seeks truth. The bottom line is not just the government, but any organization, has their own agenda to fill and can put their own spin on things to fit their interests. As such, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of someone's interests and being sure you are being the told the truth.

We listen to Ron Paul because he has the exact mindset many other people in this country does. He believes the Constitution to be the most important thing that drives this country and sees no temporary problem or issue as being fit to change the rules of the Constitution. If you want to change it, amend it. We also can trust Ron Paul more because he has a 20 year voting record in Congress to back up everything he says. No politician has a voting record consistent with his promises and beliefs in either party in the Senate or the House that can rival Ron Paul. That is why we are a bit more forgiving in giving him more of our trust.

Not responding to the strawman attack.

 

Thanks AGS! If GTech ever gets sober, please let me know. I like the man, but his vices and insecurities have destroyed any opportunity for an honest debate without name calling and finger pointing.

Btw, if you mark him ignore, I will understand. The forum has been a lot more fun to read without the Nixon Gang personal attacks.

 

Christ almighty GT you are still in a hurry to catch up with anthonycea before he gets back at the end of the year by posting any old sh*t for a post.

GTech anthonycea race

GTech 13,119
anthonycea 13,957

Less than a thousand to go dude!!