Bush - No withdrawl until mission "complete", al qaeda blamed for violence

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Own Goal Hat-Trick, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. Own Goal Hat-Trick

    Jul 28, 1999
    ColoRADo
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/28/bush.ap/index.html


    It really figures. I do like how he didnt use the word accomplished. I am also curious to know how complete (or victory, or accomplished) would be defined, and if said definition would be concrete or, as it seemingly has been, remain fluid.

    And a nice tip of the hat to al qaeda who is apparently to blame for the rising violence over there. Im surprised bush didnt also blame the democrats victory at the polls a couple of weeks ago - it wouldve been just as credible.
     
  2. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca

    Don't worry, when we leave and the thing becomes an absolute disaster, they will blame the Dems. That's easier to predict than another bizarre Tom Cruise incident.
     
  3. Northcal19

    Northcal19 New Member

    Feb 18, 2000
    Celtic Tavern LODO (
    I am trying to remember the name of the General in Iraq whom I saw on television last week mentioning that a-q wasn't much of a presence in the insurgency. Course he's just a General on the ground; what would he know.

    Really, at this point, is there ANY subject that Dubya could weigh in on that would seem believable? What a complete fool...
     
  4. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Becomes"? :rolleyes:

    Do people blame Nixon for Vietnam? No. They rightly blame Kennedy. Iraq is now a no-win situation for Bush. It was his war from the get-go and he not only got played like a sucka by Iran to go blundering in but then completely botched almost every aspect of the occupation. If we do the Nixon thing again and declare victory while fleeing with our tail between our legs, Bush will rightly get the blame. Even if we somehow miraculously "win" (whatever that means), Bush will still be remembered as the guy who bungled it and made someone else a hero for pulling our asses out of the mess Bush created.
     
  5. TeamUSA

    TeamUSA Member

    Nov 24, 1999
    Tianjin, China
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So then you must be blaming junior for getting us involved in the first place?
     
  6. CrewDust

    CrewDust Member

    May 6, 1999
    Columbus, Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bush will not withdraw while he is still the president, let the next one do it so they can be the one blamed for the final defeat.
     
  7. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Without getting into a long discussion about the Vietnam War, I believe that LBJ gets most of the blame, at least in popular culture.
     
  8. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Ratdog misunderstood me, I meant that 'they' (Bush and his apologists) will blame the Dems. But nobody will fall for it. This is dubya's fiasco, nobody else's.

    And when we leave, it will be a much bigger disaster than it is now. And 'they' should have had the foresight to have known it.
     
  9. eric_appleby

    eric_appleby Member+

    Jun 11, 1999
    Down East
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I'm beginning to wonder about that. The one thing that unites all the factions is a desire to see the US leave. If US troops were removed I think the various Iraqi armed groups would eliminate any foreign Al Qazeda presence rather quickly.
     
  10. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And if al Qaeda was the main problem in Iraq....that'd be great. But it's not.
     
  11. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  12. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Probably. And he deserves plenty of blame--JFK got us there, but LBJ got us in deep. And letting Nixon off the hook because he finally threw up his hands is stupid (that's not what ratdog said, I'm just making a point). He kept us there for years, had Kissinger sabotage peace talks to help the '68 campaign, and that's without considering the secret bombing, taking the war into Cambodia and Laos, etc. Nixon "got us out," yeah--after half a decade of inflicting a great deal of death and carnage on the people of southeast Asia.
     
  13. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They didn't even have the foresight to plan for the occupation, as it turns out.

    I have a good friend who lives and works in Iraq, first as a civilian contractor and now as a State Department employee. He's done a lot of good work there; there are villages in Iraq with a better standard of living now than they had under the twin oppressive regimes of Saddam and the sanctions. There are a lot of good, smart, competent people like my friend over there doing their very best to help ordinary Iraqis rebuild their country from years of Baathist mismanagement, psychopathic one-man rule, war, and severe economic restrictions.

    And, sadly, it's probably going to be for naught. Because while most of the specialists and engineers and urban planners and grant writers and so forth on the ground are serious and committed and capable, they were operating under the twin handicaps of incompetent or even buffoonish leadership (Paul Bremer, take a bow) and an unnecessarily dangerous security situation.

    History will record that the insurgency, and the violence in Iraq during the occupation, started out slow and built as the insurgents gathered strength and systematically eroded the Iraqi public's trust in our ability to safeguard them while the physical and civic infrastructure of their nation was being rebuilt.

    We blew it, because the Bush team were cocksure of their ability to massage reality to fit their rhetoric, and the president himself is constitutionally incapable of asking basic questions of the people around him.

    Any attempts by Bush supporters to shift the blame must be vigorously opposed.
     
  14. art

    art Member

    Jul 2, 2000
    Portland OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thats pretty naive, we elected the guy twice afterall.

    Personally I don't see how anyone except the hardcore %30 that still suppot him and always will even if he were to personally rape and murder a baby on a primetime national television show can take anything Bush says seriously anymore.
     
  15. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Yeah, you got a point there. The Dems are always capable of going off the deep end and making even dubya's lame spin seem reasonable.
     
  16. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What if it was a terrorist baby?
     
  17. Roel

    Roel Member

    Jan 15, 2000
    Santa Cruz mountains
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    During the build-up to the invasion, the Dems were pretty much in line with Bush. There was no oversight and no accountability. Dianne Feinstein, a San Francisco democrat, supported the invasion. Generals that dissented with Rummy's strategy of smaller forces were dismissed. Case in point was Shinseki's removal. The New York Times and NPR, as well as other media outlets, repeated the administration's justifications for invading Iraq. Plenty went wrong.
     
  18. KevTheGooner

    KevTheGooner Help that poor man!

    Dec 10, 1999
    THOF
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Andorra
    Don't forget Hillary. Friggin' enabler...
     
  19. Roel

    Roel Member

    Jan 15, 2000
    Santa Cruz mountains
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Yeah, the list goes on and on. Supposedly the democrats are looney anti-war types, but most democrats did exactly nothing to prevent the invasion or provide oversight on the occupation. Now we are in debt and fighting a stupid pointless war that is creating more, better trained terrorists.
     
  20. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    The Dems were just caving because they didn't want to look like cheerleaders for Saddam and wmd. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz were living in a fool's paradise, paying stooges like Chalabi to tell them what they wanted to hear and clobbering Powell when he advised caution.

    Dubya should be impeached for such wanton negligence, but then we'd get Cheney if dubya got the boot. Big upgrade, huh?

    Besides, if the Dems impeached dubya, they'd probably screw it up by making Cindy Sheehan the lead prosecutor or something.
     
  21. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  22. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this is a very, very significant story.

    IMO, BigMedia has really changed the way it reports on the Bush administration in the last year, and at an ever-accelerating pace. They're about ready to go into full attack mode, they're just waiting for the signal. And if Bush slaps down BigMedia's Great Wise Men, that'll be it. BigMedia will come after Bush like he's Clinton and it's 1993, or 1998. And unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't have the list of accomplishments to withstand it. To pick a key example of how this will matter, BigMedia will cover the Dems' panoply of hearings with a very sympathetic, probably, frankly, biased, eye. The pressure on Bush will be immense. Given his (in my view) fragile psyche, I wonder how he'll stand up to it. It wouldn't shock me if he cracked. I'm dead serious.
     
  23. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    My concern is that Bush will feel the need to do something drastic before his term ends to save his legacy. Even he must realize that he's not going into history as a great president (to make the understatement of the year).
     
  24. ratdog

    ratdog Member+

    Mar 22, 2004
    In the doghouse
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True, but my point was that people normally blame those who start the war, not those who end it.

    Well, that makes more sense then.

    Well, that depends on how we leave it. I we try to insist on saving the fiction of "Iraq" when there is no such thing, then yeah, the FUBAR will get even more FUBARed. If we "Balkanize" the place and give the three main warring parties their own territories, then we might, emphasis on "might", be albe to limit the carnage and also limit Iran's influence in the region.
     
  25. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Jul 21, 2000
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    I'm with him as long as he can define the "mission." However, since the "mission" appears to be fluid, he's not really saying anything.
     

Share This Page