WASHINGTON - President Bush, freshly home from a visit to Iraq, acknowledged on Wednesday that violence in Iraq would never be completely eliminated. "That's not going to happen," he told a Rose Garden news conference. He said an expectation of "zero violence" was unreasonable. "Obviously we would like violence to go down," Bush said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614...CqH_rqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
mark, come on. seriously. that's ridiculous. we can't stop violence here. it's the condition of man. our violent crime rate is tracking up....we have domestic terrorism....we have family violence. and it's been like that throughout recorded history all around the world.
its because kids are playing Grand Theft Auto. and the government must enforce laws so kids cant play that game. Kids need to play streetfighter, where you have to beat up other kids with hurricane kicks and fireballs. that would reduce violence.
To be fair, the context that Bush was speaking in was violence from insurgents, rather than regular crime. Essentially,the goal has changed from "eliminating the insurgents" to "minimizing them" - which I also think was the goal in the first place, although Bush has always spoken about defeating the insurgency (implying that it would be gone). Just like we're not trying to (or shouldn't be) eliminate all terrorism in the war on terror. I found this quote much more interesting: <I>"I'd like to close Guantanamo. I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous," he said. "Eventually, these people will have trials and they will have counsel."</I> On the serious side - they are going to have trials? I'm curious when that would be. When the war on terror ends? Since terrorism will never end, how does that work? On the more fun side, did he really say "darn dangerous"?
On NPR this morning there was a discussion how violent crime rates tend to correlate and spike during war. What was truly interesting about the discussion was how the violent crime rate spikes were coinciding with red states compared to blue states in that the highest spikes were happening in areas that were mostly aligned with the administration in their support of the war. Anyway, I know I was being a bit inflammatory with the premise of the thread, but with Bush saying that the end of the war would be left to other presidents and now saying that violence will never really be stopped in Iraq, it just seems odd, that's all.
If you don't think that was big you don't follow politics. This is a clear change in direction. This is laying the ground work for a "Yea! win won now we can leave" statement with violence still raging. Sounds like a cut and run statement to me!
Bush is obvisously a slow learner. Either that or Laura Bush finally knocked him upside the head with a rolling pin and said he was an embarrassment to her.
I think that what MadMax said pretty much covers it. May I suggest that you not hold your leader to completely unreasonable standards when it suits you?
As apposed to giving them mindless carte blanche as you do? No thank you. BTW your little smilies are very condescending.
Max follows politics. I don't think Max deserves a comment like that at all. He just thinks the statement Bush made isn't a line strong enough to hang your laundry on. I would have to agree. If it's the beginning of a series of statements of the same ilk, attempting to give the impression that, "Hey, bad things happen, violence happens, and all this violence here in Iraq is incidental to the US presence there, so we're not needed anymore," then I definitely agree with the premise that a Vietnam-like political troop pullout, one unrelated to success on the ground worthy of a pullout, is in play. In other words, I get the point, but it's too early to make the conclusion you guys are making. Max is giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, taking a more literal view of what he said. Lets see how this plays out (if these statements continue with a clear agenda of laying the groundwork for a pullout, based on unrealities on the ground, instead of a realistic assessment of progress), before jumping too quickly to conclusions. Personally, I think it's not Bush's way of saying, "**** happens!" In other words, I think mc mark is on target, in that the ground work for a Vietnam-style pullout is being laid, with this high-profile visit (only his second) the venue for beginning that process, but giving Bush the benefit of the doubt due to lack of enough evidence to the contrary is fair. Was that too convoluted?? Keep D&D Civil.
Sorry didn't mean it that way... just using them to take the edge off... didn't realize that it was putting one on...
Okay there is obviously some coordinated effort going on here today... Rice: No guarantees on Iraq, Afghanistan GREENSBORO, N.C. - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not assure those countries will become successful democracies. But she said the chance for success is worth the price. "We have given more than 55 million people an opportunity to flourish in freedom," Rice said. "Not a guarantee of success, but a chance." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice
