George Bush wont set foot in Iraq

[Tyguy]

After over four years of fighting in Iraq, the United States President still wont set foot in Iraq to meet with the Prime Minister...He finds the need to meet in JORDAN.What does this tell you about our progress? We are not going to win this war, we are not making any difference except forcing a country into civil war. George Bush doesnt have the balls to admit his mistake and now we might send another 140,000 trpoops overseas to politically secure his position.

Im sick of it, impeach him and lets get out.

Apologize for the rant, i had a tough day and after hearing how much of a pussy our president is, i couldnt help it.

 

[clarky003]

No no don't apologise, even the most hardened of bush supporters probably have the same thoughts pounding away in their heads somewhere.

I'm sorry for anyone who truely believes this was 100% about Iraq from the get go or 'weapons of mass destruction' or Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden. It's not just about creating a stable region as now is the case, it's about controlling the region for oil distribution as the dozens of American bases built clearly are in key distribution regions and are quite obviously not temporary, but I say believe what you must even though it is patently obvious that this is driven more so by economic factors than purely political reasons.

 

[Slacker]

That'd be great if a President could be impeached soley for being a total ass, but sadly, he'd have to break the law for that to ever happen.

But yeah, Bush and this war sucks.

 

[ChiChi]

I hate Bush too, but I don't blame him for not going to Iraq.

 

[Ome_Vince]

"Gooood! use your aggressive feelings boy, let the hate flow through you!"

 

[CptStern]

not rwally that surprising ...probably cant look at iraqis straight in the face ..too much guilt

but it sends a very bad message to the troops ..specifically that their comander in chief couldnt be bothered to visit them


Tyguy ..why hasnt he been impeached? He outright lied to congress and the american public that in itself should be grounds for impeachment ..personally I'd prefer the 3 of them stood trial for war crimes but impeachment would be good too

 

[<RJMC>]

you americans should do something about him

 

[Tyguy]

he should be, he should be the second elected president to be impeached. And besides lying, how about sending american troops to their deaths solely for keeping his stance and not admitting he was wrong.

 

[CptStern]

well he wasnt wrong ..he knew all along saddam didnt have anything ..watch the video and notice the date
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm

in fact congress knew as well ..as early as 1993 and again in 1998 ..the same year Scott ritter, chief weapons inspector made his report in front of congress

 

[Glirk Dient]

That'd be great if a President could be impeached soley for being a total ass, but sadly, he'd have to break the law for that to ever happen.

But yeah, Bush and this war sucks.

He did...illegally incading a country without approval from the U.N.

However impeaching him and pulling out(no pun intended) isn't the best solution. Doing that can make things worse even though it sounds like a great idea at first. Once you get going you don't wan't to pull out and sometime you time it wrong and pull out too soon or too late which could ruin your(Bush's) fun or leave you worrying about being too late for a few months until you find out.

It would be better to avoid the whole situation all together and protect yourself from that risk in the first place.

 

[staticprimer]

I read today that Bush is vehemetly denying that Iraq is degrading into civil war.

Here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_eu/bush

How can you deal with someone who blatently ignores facts placed in front of them, someone who just lives in another reality? Its like trying to debate with someone that doesn't know how... You just end up wanting to smash your head into a table, which is what I wanted to do while reading that article. My prediction for how this will end is (assuming a democrat is elected president in 2008) we won't get out while Bush is in office, there is simply no way, but the next president will get us well on our way out (if not completely) during his or her first term. If a republican is elected, they might try to stick it out even longer.

 

[Stigmata]

I read today that Bush is vehemetly denying that Iraq is degrading into civil war.

Here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_eu/bush

How can you deal with someone who blatently ignores facts placed in front of them, someone who just lives in another reality? Its like trying to debate with someone that doesn't know how... You just end up wanting to smash your head into a table, which is what I wanted to do while reading that article. My prediction for how this will end is (assuming a democrat is elected president in 2008) we won't get out while Bush is in office, there is simply no way, but the next president will get us well on our way out (if not completely) during his or her first term. If a republican is elected, they might try to stick it out even longer.

I predict a Democrat is elected President in 2008, and then the Democrats are blamed for the poor state of the country due to actions made by the Republicans in 2000-2008, and then a Republican is elected in 2012.

 

[Tagaziel]

Where's Oswald when you need him?

 

[Hapless]

uhhhhhh.....

 

[15357]

Bush should just conscript from the vast majority of the poor and illiterate.... wait..

 

[el Chi]

That'd be great if a President could be impeached soley for being a total ass, but sadly, he'd have to break the law for that to ever happen.

What about, you know, international law?

Iraq is an utter disaster in practically every sense and now we, as invading and occupying forces must ask ourselves some genuiinely tough questions and come to brutally honest answers.

• Was it really worth all the bloodshed during the invasion, both military and civilian, to topple Hussein's regime?
• Can we honestly say that things are better without Hussein?
• How much longer can we stay there and what effect will our absence have?
• Do we really think that things will get better and if so, how long will it take? More importantly, what will it take? How many lives? How much trauma?
• Will we ever be able to morally justify what Iraq is now and what we have helped it become?
• How will history judge us? The academics who document and comment are the ones who write the books and will be the ones with the last say. Their nationality is little-to-no restraint on how blunt they may be, which is by no means a bad thing, even if it does mean some uncomfortable and embarrassing conclusions.

I won't give my personal answers to these questions, suffice to say they're not positive.
It's more than likely that this invasion of Iraq and the disastrous state it's in now will remain a stain on the history of the US and the UK for a long time to come.

I predict a Democrat is elected President in 2008, and then the Democrats are blamed for the poor state of the country due to actions made by the Republicans in 2000-2008, and then a Republican is elected in 2012.

Alas, that's usually the way these things usually work.

 

[CptStern]

What about, you know, international law?

Iraq is an utter disaster in practically every sense and now we, as invading and occupying forces must ask ourselves some genuiinely tough questions and come to brutally honest answers.

• Was it really worth all the bloodshed during the invasion, both military and civilian, to topple Hussein's regime?
• Can we honestly say that things are better without Hussein?
• How much longer can we stay there and what effect will our absence have?
• Do we really think that things will get better and if so, how long will it take? More importantly, what will it take? How many lives? How much trauma?
• Will we ever be able to morally justify what Iraq is now and what we have helped it become?
• How will history judge us? The academics who document and comment are the ones who write the books and will be the ones with the last say. Their nationality is little-to-no restraint on how blunt they may be, which is by no means a bad thing, even if it does mean some uncomfortable and embarrassing conclusions.

I won't give my personal answers to these questions, suffice to say they're not positive.
It's more than likely that this invasion of Iraq and the disastrous state it's in now will remain a stain on the history of the US and the UK for a long time to come.

Alas, that's usually the way these things usually work.

oh but saddam had Nukes aimed at london and he could strike at any time!

WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!?!


oh wait ...never mind

 

[Asknoone]

Tyguy ..why hasnt he been impeached? He outright lied to congress and the american public that in itself should be grounds for impeachment ..personally I'd prefer the 3 of them stood trial for war crimes but impeachment would be good too

Absolutely.

 

[Tyguy]

The problem is it wont happen. The democrats dont have the balls to put it into motion and the republicans....well, we know thats never going to happen.

 

[CptStern]

the american public doesnt know or want to know about the lies of GW bush ...here's an article (by media watchdog group FAIR) on how the story of the Downingstreet memos was completely ignored by american media or worse yet downplayed ..despite being extreemly incriminating

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2556

 

[Glirk Dient]

the american public doesnt know or want to know about the lies of GW bush ...here's an article (by media watchdog group FAIR) on how the story of the Downingstreet memos was completely ignored by american media or worse yet downplayed ..despite being extreemly incriminating

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2556

That could be because last I heard it's source is shaky at best. The American media has had trouble with sources in the past and doesn't want to waste time on anything too risky. Bush has done enough stupid things without that shedding any more light on it. That memo isn't going to change much because the people who still believe he is god aren't going to change.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

you americans should do something about him

Indeed they should.

 

[15357]

You vastly underestimate the power of the Bush/Cheney, my dear.

 

[99.vikram]

You vastly underestimate the power of the Bush/Cheney, my dear.

One shoots people directly, the other sends soldiers to do it for him

 

[CptStern]

That could be because last I heard it's source is shaky at best.

you dont seem to understand what the memos are; they're official government documents authenticated by Tony blair

The American media has had trouble with sources in the past and doesn't want to waste time on anything too risky.

you mean like on WMD? nuclear weapons in nigeria? 45 minutes to nuke london? al qaeda working with saddam?

again there is no disputing the authenticity of the documents ..key people like British foreign intelligence service director Richard Dearlove were quoted:

"the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the US] around the policy" [of removing Saddam Hussein from power]

Bush has done enough stupid things without that shedding any more light on it. That memo isn't going to change much because the people who still believe he is god aren't going to change.

they wont listen because they dont want to or take steps to ensure that other people dont

Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions. Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")

...I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of americans have never heard of the downingstreet memos




there is no disputing it's authenticity; the US purposefully fixed intelligence around the justification behind the war: they KNEW saddam had nothing