Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bush: Stupid Asshole.

jack

jack

The Legendary Troll King
Updated: 3:04 p.m. ET Dec. 18, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush is seizing on Iraq’s elections to claim significant progress as he faces an uproar in Congress over whether he exceeded his powers in conducting the war on terror.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush was addressing the nation following Dick Cheney’s surprise visit to Baghdad where the vice president asserted that Iraq’s emerging political structure ultimately will take responsibility for its own security.

The Pentagon hopes to be able to reduce U.S. troop levels as Iraqi security forces become more capable of defending their own country, but it is unclear when that point will be reached. The usual U.S. troop level this year of about 138,000 was strengthened to about 160,000 this fall out of concern for a potential rise in violence during voting in October and December.

Bush’s address followed a string of weekend attacks by insurgents in Iraq that pierced three days of relative calm. Nineteen people died, including two relatives of a senior Kurdish official.

The president’s embrace of the Iraqi political process comes amid revelations that the National Security Agency has engaged in domestic surveillance without court warrants for the past four years.

House and Senate Democratic leaders, and at least two Senate Republicans, called for congressional hearings and investigations. Bush said the eavesdropping was critical to saving American lives in the war against al-Qaida and consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,†said it is “extremely dangerous†for the president to wrap himself in the law and then refuse to identify a law or a constitutional provision which justifies a wiretap on American citizens without court approval.

Sunday night’s speech is the president’s fifth in less than three weeks on Iraq, as Bush describes the path he wants to take in 2006.

A new poll shows that a strong majority of Americans oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. The AP-Ipsos poll found 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized.

“This is a remarkable couple of days for the Iraqi people,†said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also appearing on NBC. “They went out and voted in huge numbers. ... I’ve heard a number of leaders — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — say that their goal is to find people across lines with whom they can work.â€

There is skepticism on Capitol Hill about the U.S. military’s ability to sustain forces in Iraq indefinitely and about the ability of Iraqis to carry the load.

“We failed to expand the Army and Marine Corps as many of us wanted to happen a long time ago,†said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,†McCain said that even though militias control some parts of the Iraqi military and there is still corruption, there now are certain towns where the Iraqi military has been able to take over from U.S. troops.

Regarding a turnover to Iraqi troops, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Bush “has to tell us how we’re going to get there. The people on the ground said there is one battalion that can fight alone.

“The last speech he gave, he used the word ‘victory’ 14 times. What does that mean?†asked Reid, appearing on “Fox News Sunday.â€

Levin said Iraqis must be told the United States will reconsider its presence unless the new constitution is revised to give the Sunni-Arab community a bigger stake in running the country.

“That’s the club, that’s the leverage which we must exercise,†said Levin. “They’ve got to unify in order to beat the insurgency.â€

A disabled Iraq war veteran who is running for Congress in Illinois said she thinks going into Iraq was a mistake.

“We should have been fighting the enemies that attacked us at home on 9/11,†sa Major Tammy Duckworth, appearing on ABC’s “This Week.†“We should have been out there trying to catch Osama bin Laden.â€
 
Geedis said:
He didn't say he hated America; I said he hates America.
Click to expand...

on what basis? since you're a dual of a dual, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on...
 
Cloudscum said:
on what basis? since you're a dual of a dual, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on...
Click to expand...

That's not a problem at the present moment, since I'm sitting down.
 
Shut up, asshole.
Since you don't know how to accuse someone based on evidence, you've no credibility.
 
It's a poorly written article.

I also detest the idea that catching Osama Bin Laden would have solved all the problems. It would actually have caused MORE problems if he had been caught. I think America let him get away. He works better as a boogie man.
 
Yeah that's the point for me, without boogiemen we're missionless, or something. We've got to save the world from itself?

It's pretty creepy to see this moron try to play it this way though.
 
jack said:
It's pretty creepy to see this moron try to play it this way though.
Click to expand...

I like it when you refer to yourself in the third person like that, Jack.
 
Updated: 7:51 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans applauded President Bush for acknowledging mistakes in Iraq and taking responsibility for failures, but critics said he still has not given Americans a realistic plan that will lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Bush asserted Sunday night the United States is winning the war in Iraq and issued a plea to Americans divided by doubt: “Do not give in to despair and do not give up on this fight for freedom.”

In a prime-time address, the president acknowledged setbacks and sacrifice and cautioned there would be more violence and death in the months ahead. “Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day,” he said.

Struggling to build confidence in his policy, the president held out hopes for withdrawing American forces as Iraqi troops gain strength and experience.

But the language was not specific enough for Bush’s critics.

“While I appreciate the president’s increased candor, too much of the substance remains the same and the American people have still not heard what benchmarks we must meet along the way to know that progress is being made” and when the troops “can begin to come home,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

After the address, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said it was wrong for Bush “to attempt to silence his critics by calling them defeatists.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., commended Bush for his “increased candor.” But he said Bush still had not told the nation exactly what had to be accomplished before U.S. troops could begin returning home.

'An ally of growing strength'
The president spoke from the Oval Office, where in March 2003, he announced the U.S.-led invasion. Nearly three years later, more than 2,150 U.S. soldiers have died, Bush’s popularity has plummeted and about half of Americans think the war was a mistake. Yet a strong majority oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

The address came on the heels of four major speeches in which Bush acknowledged setbacks and surprises in the war and took responsibility for ordering the invasion on the basis of inaccurate intelligence. The admissions were part of a White House effort to address complaints that Bush lacked a solid strategy for the war and has been oblivious to the violence that Americans plainly see on television.

“I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly,” he said. “I know that this war is controversial, yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences.”

Bush said last week’s voting for parliament will not bring an end to the violence in Iraq, where he has estimated that 30,000 civilians have died. But he said Iraq’s election, 6,000 miles away, “means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.”

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., Armed Services Committee chairman, said Bush’s speech “was a high-water mark in his acknowledgment that mistakes have been made and that he has to accept his share of the blame.

“But he remains resolute, as he should, in continuing our help to the Iraqi people so that they can achieve a self-sufficient government and become a truly sovereign nation,” Warner added.

Domestic spying controversy
His speech came amid an uproar in Congress over whether he exceeded his powers in conducting the war on terror with a secret eavesdropping program and on a day that Vice President Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Baghdad and faced questions from U.S. soldiers about their mission.

Democrats were scornful even before the president spoke. Regarding a turnover to Iraqi troops, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Bush “has to tell us how we’re going to get there. The people on the ground said there is one battalion that can fight alone.

“The last speech he gave, he used the word ‘victory’ 14 times. What does that mean?” asked Reid.
 
‘Act of recklessness’
Arguing against withdrawal, Bush said that “to retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow.”

As he has in the past three weeks, Bush acknowledged missteps and took responsibility for ordering the invasion based on faulty intelligence.

But, he said, “Not only can we win the war in Iraq — we are winning the war in Iraq.”

He said there were only two options for the United States — victory or defeat.

“And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair and do not give up on this fight for freedom.”

The Pentagon hopes to be able to reduce U.S. troop levels as Iraqi security forces become more capable of defending their own country, but it is unclear when that point will be reached. The usual U.S. troop level this year of about 138,000 was strengthened to about 160,000 this fall out of concern for a potential rise in violence during voting in October and December.

“It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done,” Bush said. “We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. ... We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before.”

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has said the United States should redeploy all troops as quickly as possible because more than half of the Iraqis people “want us out and almost half of them think we’re the enemy.”

A new poll shows that a strong majority of Americans oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. The AP-Ipsos poll found 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized.

Burden on military
There is skepticism on Capitol Hill about the U.S. military’s ability to sustain forces in Iraq indefinitely and about the ability of Iraqis to carry the load.

“We failed to expand the Army and Marine Corps as many of us wanted to happen a long time ago,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” McCain said that even though militias control some parts of the Iraqi military and there is still corruption, there now are certain towns where the Iraqi military has been able to take over from U.S. troops.

Despite the faulty intelligence behind his war decision, Bush said the United States was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power, calling him “a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant — only now without a throne.”

Bush said the grim news that Americans see on television about the violence and bloodshed “proves that the war is difficult. It does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.”
 
All of this is clearly just a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that he's been using the Patriot Act to spy on Americans illegally.
 
Did anyone happen to catch C-Span over the weekend? Now, I'm by no means a regular watcher of C-Span, but I do occasionally "stop by" as I'm channel surfing.

Anyway, they had a program about media perceptions of Iraq vs. the reality of soldiers who had fought there. I believe there were five soilders on the panel, a couple were active duty (there was one Lt. Col. who was in full uniform) as well as some Reservists who had been cycled back to the United States. One woman had been back for two years (and hadn't been called up, or forced to stay Gee, I thought every reservist was "forced" to say in Iraq. :roll:). All of the soldiers were very intelligent and extremely articulate.

Guess what? To a man, they all said that the media overreports the bad things that happen, and doesn't report any of the good. This being 2005, the soldiers were "plugged in", so to speak, with CNN, the internet, and online newspapers. Again, to a man, they said they'd actually laugh about how dire the press made things out. Yet, none of the good things were ever reported. The kids who continually run out to greet the American soldiers as they drive through in their Bradleys and Humvees. (One soldier, a black Lance Corporal, said that it was akin to being in a parade every day). The elderly men and women who, through gestures and broken English, thank them for helping to ensure that their grandchildren may be able to experience peace and democracy. The Lance Corporal stated that it was his belief that the average Iraqi didn't have the sophistication to understand free elections, but they do understand democracy.

Why, then, are these stories not reported? As the Lt. Col. said, "It's the old truism: Dog bites man isn't a story. Man bites dog is a story." That is, death and mayhem and car bombings sell papers. Stories of hope and a return to normalcy don't.

IF the soldiers had all been "career" military, and IF they were all active duty, I may have taken their stories with more of a grain of salt. But three of the five were completely free of any and all military obligations, and they all agreed that the media coverage is completely skewed to make the war seem unwinnable. They also all said that they believed in what they were fighting for, and that the sacrifices made by them and their fellow soldiers would help ensure the safety of all Americans.

You may not have agreed with the causes for going to war with Iraq (even though your "savior", John Kerry DID), but you cannot dispute that the outcome is encouraging. Fully 70% of Iraqis voted in the election, including an incredibly large number of Sunnis.

jack, your continued sniping at the President, despite the fact that we're beginning to see that he and his administration were mostly right, smacks of sour grapes. Frankly, when you title a thread, "Bush: Stupid Asshole", you expose both your lack of intelligence, and the fact that you're a tremendous crybaby. Wahhh.
 
The one thing that gets me about the imposing of Democracy on Iraq is that it is ultimatley blind luck thats going to pull it off.

The fact is that we don't have a perfect Democracy ourselves in the Western World. And that Bush (of which I am a supporter) should never have declared victory after five minutes when so much needed to be done.

They were taken by suprise, no matter what anyone says. It was expected that insurgents would eventually die down with the toppling of Saddam and the Bath party. This hasn't really happened and I can't turn on the news without hearing day in day out about another car bomb, suicide attack ect. It is volitile to say the least.

I still agree with the war, I still agree with the reasons. But it's no picnic out there. We are still a long way off from an acceptable state of stability.
 
^^I agree with you. The problem is, we live in a society of instant gratification. "What, you mean the Iraqi war still isn't over? ABORT!! ABORT!!"

Jesus Christ, some people think that going to war is like playing Medal of Honor on the PS2!
 
Say, has anyone ever bothered to do a average of number servicemen killed per day, and compare that with one of say, Vietnam or Korea?

It might be interesting to see the similarities/differences.
 
Well, we've just hit 3,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, and the war is approximately 4 years old, or 1,460 days. That's 2 soldiers per day killed in Iraq. That's an incredibly low figure for an active war. I can only assume that the totals for Viet Nam and Korea will be much, much higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top