President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16275638/ Now we just have to wait for the normal apologists like Gtech to come and claim that anybody who says US is not winning is a terrorist supporter.
I supported the war a year ago, but now it has gone on way too long and there is no clear objective. I don;t really care about the iraqi people that much (and neither do most americans). It is a big drain on human lives and monetary resources.
I'm sure he (GTech) will come up with some pointless rhetoric guys. Anyone with even half a brain can see it has been nothing short of an absolute disaster, still he (Bush) seems hell bent on sending even more turkeys over there. I don't understand his thinking. Get them out is the best course of action as it is unwinnable over there, no point in any more brave troops being killed.
Uh oh, not the "anybody who says {insert something semi-rational here} is a {insert something that doesn't quite add up here}" shield to portray victimhood. Ferret does this all the time, as do many other limp wristed liberals here Let's try it with some reality, shall we? "anyone who starts a thread seeking sympathy and support for a terrorists is a terrorist supporter." That's realistic, right, gworld?
yeah. I'd like a confirmation on that. Now that Bush used the words "We are not winning in Iraq" what does that mean. Is he a terrorist supporter? I wonder. He also said, we are not losing. Do you think Bush goes to bed at night thinking I'm gonna kill some terrorists...and wakes up in the morning thinking ....I'm gonna get me a world trade center today. Poor guy. He must be going nuts. On the other hand he keeps saying he sleeps well at night.
According to the news conference I saw this morning, he said "we are neither winning or losing." Which indicates the liberal press used for the story is as dishonest as some of the people here. Noting that he was disappointed with the rate of success. This is probably what EP means when a democrat is under fire and says it's BS, works to divide the country and doesn't help move it forward. Oh, wait, but this is just Bush
LOL, your cracking me up I still think he is happy enough that people were dumb enough to vote him in. And im sure he is very happy he is not on the front line.
Additionally, in response to this question, Bush responded as follows: That question and answer indicate an openness to pulling out of Iraq. Identifying the most charged statement within his speech is fair game for the press. Fair press will equally acknowledge any qualifications on statements by anyone. After the bipartisan group came out w/ its report, the Washington Times, one of the more conservative newspapers in the nation, headlined its report with an emphasis on the most negative factual statements. Its headlines were amazingly similar to those of the NY Times and Washington Post (accused of being theliberal press). On the other hand the New York Post (conservative newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox) had a front page with pictures of Baker and Hamilton (the co-chairs) in monkey suits. Talk about the press actively skewing the news with sensationalism....only in this case it was the Conservative press. Frankly, I think Bush has been worse than horrible. But I am glad to see he is changing. I agree with Bush that the ground troops of the US military need to be increased. I'm glad to see he is seeing the light. In 2004 Kerry reccomended that the US ground forces be increased by about 40,000 troops and the Bush administration attacked the idea and said it was unnecessary. Things weren't as bad in 2004 as they are now. It is astonishing to see military leaders repeatedly make the comment that the ground troops (primarily the army) are near broke. Bush acknowledged the idea but used the term "stressed". In any case increasing the size of the ground troops is another 180 degree turn from Bush policy since the war started. Its very critical for the press to continue to report the news. For instance this week the Pentagon reported average number of Iraqi attacks on civilians and the US military at almost 1,000 per week. The Iraq study group stated that the US administration and government were seriously underreporting these numbers to the public. If not for the press much of what is going on in Iraq would not have been reported. Frankly, since the elections, Democrats have shown a willingness to work together with Republicans on many issues. Dems in the House have acknowledged to Repubs that they will pursue committee actions with input from both sides. For the last 5 years the House has essentially kept Dems from any contribution on governing. Dems will also probably aggressively engage in congressional oversight of the administration. This has been sorely lacking for the last 5 years. I do agree with Powell, in that I believe the US is weaker now, rather than stronger because of this war in Iraq. I hope Bush makes moves to remedy the situtation.
did bush really need to tell us that? I think had he fired rummy two weeks before the election, the GOP would still be in control...as much as a conservative as I am, the GOP has turned into democrats, i.e. the big government party.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush has maintained he will follow a path to victory. Much to the dismay of yourself and democrats, who want nothing but surrender. It's getting harder to tell what drives that desire for surrender. There are two camps: 1) The typical liberal camp, the self-loathers with low self-esteem who have a lifetime of mental problems and generally hate America. 2) The liberal/democrat (not much of a difference anymore) who hates Bush so much, they are willing to call for surrender at all cost because they believe a victory in Iraq is a victory for Bush (nevermind America). The Iraq Surrender Group? Really? Given your position when a democrat is in the news about how it's not helping the country move forward, etc, I would have never guessed. You can't agree with someone who hasn't made up his mind on the issue yet. This was very clear in this morning's briefing. He has not decided to, or not to send more troops. He's gathering information to make a decision. And rightfully so. Many military commanders have noted this was not necessary. Given Kerry's years of denigrating troops, he's not qualified to lead them anyway. Source? And in usual democrat style, regardless of what he does, democrats will attack him. You mean "report the bad news." That is all they report and that's all fine with democrats. They are on your side here, they want America to lose and are setting the tone using the power they have. If not for the press, we'd get a well-rounded view of what takes place. If not for the press, they wouldn't make up stories and promote enemy propaganda. But, that's exactly what some want. Incorrect. Since the elections, democrats have called for and reinforced their desire to "cut and run." Democrats have called for victory for our enemies. Whitewashing their actions doesn't serve anyone. We are not weaker in the least bit. Although it is clear by not only this post, but the general climate of democrats, that they want to be weaker, want surrender and want to be spanked. Fortunately, Bush will not give democrats what they want.
It's hard to believe but even Bush is smarter than the radical neocons who didn't learn after the election that most Americans are too smart for the administration policy that has been going nowhere but downhill for America's welfare. so Bush is willing to reconsider. spouting off a snappy retort without substance on every comment is a great way to show attitude but no depth of knowledge. Want to know who said the army is BROKE? Check this excerpt from a week ago that speaks to the financial part of the equation. This one deals with the financial side....yep the army is broke in more ways than one It comes from the WSJ, an extremely conservative paper that has strongly supported Bush:
Yes, because you offered: and I knew you were not being truthful. And with your followup post, you proved conclusively you were not being truthful. In fact, this "report" is by Gregg Jaffe and not the military leaders you asserted had made such statements. This is dishonesty at it's finest. It's a shame you had to resort to such. Hatred of Bush does not justify making misleading and untruthful statements. Being honest does not mean one endorses Bush. I just wished there was a way to convince liberals of this.
Wow I am really shocked and astonished by this piece of information. It was kinda evident even though it is right that we cannot say he is losing the war, he just has a very bad plan.
USA got stuck in Iraq as cars stuck in Christmas snow they can't leave Iraq either as winners or losers they underestimated Iraq and that Iraq had many struggles that Saddam was taking control of while USA can't USA couldn't handle managing Iraq thus they are falling