1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Bush] Bringing troops home is future pres' problem

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by nyquil82, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1635983.php

    Troops to be in Iraq after he leaves office, Bush says

    By Terence Hunt
    Associated Press

    President Bush listens to a question at a news conference at the White House on Tuesday Bush said Tuesday there will be “more tough fighting ahead” in Iraq, but denied claims that the nation is in the grips of a civil war three years after the U.S.-led invasion.

    President Bush says American forces will remain in Iraq for years, and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. Defying critics and plunging poll numbers, he declared: “I’m optimistic we’ll succeed. If not, I’d pull our troops out.”

    The president rejected suggestions that he should ask for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, chief architect of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy,” Bush said. He acknowledged mistakes as the United States was forced to switch tactics and change a reconstruction strategy that offered targets for insurgents.

    He also rejected assertions by Iraq’s former interim prime minister that the country had fallen into civil war amid sectarian violence that has left more than 1,000 Iraqis dead since the bombing last month of a Shiite Muslim shrine.

    “This is a moment the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they didn’t,” Bush said, crediting religious and political leaders for the restraint.

    The president spoke for almost an hour Tuesday at a White House news conference, part of a new offensive to ease Americans’ unhappiness with the war and fellow Republicans’ anxiety about fall elections. He faced skeptical questions about Iraq during an appearance Monday in Cleveland, Ohio, and plans another address soon on Iraq.

    Public support for the war and for Bush himself has fallen precipitously in recent months, jeopardizing the political capital he claimed from his 2004 re-election victory. “I’d say I’m spending that capital on the war,” Bush said.


    The White House believes that people appreciate Bush’s plainspoken approach even if they disagree with his decisions.

    “I understand war creates concerns,” the president said. “Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country.”

    Bush adamantly has refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more U.S. forces in the Middle Eastern country, Bush said: “That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”

    Pressed whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, “I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.”

    White House officials worried that Bush’s remarks would be read as saying there would not be significant troop reductions during his presidency. They pointed to comments Sunday by Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who said he expected a substantial troop reduction “certainly over the course of 2006 and into 2007.”

    The Pentagon announced in December that U.S. force levels would be reduced from the baseline figure of about 138,000 to about 131,000 by the end of March. The total currently is 133,000. In late February the Pentagon told Congress that “it will be possible to consider” additional reductions as the political process moves forward and as Iraqi security forces gain experience. No timetable has been set for deciding additional cuts.

    More than 2,300 American troops have died in Iraq. At home, nearly four of five people, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll.

    “I am confident — I believe, I’m optimistic we’ll succeed,” the president said. “If not, I’d pull our troops out. If I didn’t believe we had a plan for victory, I wouldn’t leave our people in harm’s way.”

    Bush said U.S. forces were essential for the stability of Iraq and restraining al-Qaida in the Middle East.

    “Their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States,” he said.

    Bush defended his administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program whose legality has been questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike. Putting his remarks in a political context, he said, “Nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the of the terrorist surveillance program.”

    On the economy, Bush sidestepped a direct answer when asked whether he was concerned about rising interest rates. He simply said the U.S. economy was very strong. He expressed disappointment that Congress shelved his Social Security overhaul and said the system won’t be changed without the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans together.
     
  2. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,335
    Likes Received:
    33,047
    someone gotta clean it up

    Rocket River
     
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,240
    This finally got a thread? I was wondering when it would. This is huge news. HUGE news, and bad news for Republicans running this Fall. Bush has acted helpless attempting to get a grip on the war in Iraq. He's changed his "plans" so often it's hard to keep track of what the latest talking points are. Now he's as much as admitted that he's given up trying to find a solution to his war.

    He wanted it. He got it. Now he's running away from it.
    As far as George W. Bush is concerned, someone else can clean up the mess.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  4. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,938
    Likes Received:
    20,736
    Making all of those budget cuts to match the tax cuts is also some future Presdient's problem.
     
  5. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Well, unfortunately, George W. Bush is used to people cleaning up after him. He may talk tough and act cowboyish, but he always waits for someone to clean up after he makes a mess.

    Anyways, bad news for Democrats as well, because if they win the 2008 presidential election, the blame will be shifted to them in dealing with the mess we got ourselves into in Iraq.

    This country desperately needs an FDR-like president to come and save us once more...
     
  6. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,603
    Likes Received:
    9,118
    these guys have flipped flopped so much on this that its hard to keep it straight anymore. one day president cheney says the insurgency is in its last throwes, the next day rummy says it could be 10-12 years than they say we could be out by the end of the year than junior tells us he plans to leave it to the next guy.

    FLIP FLOPPERS
    FLIP FLOPPERS
     
    #6 jo mama, Mar 22, 2006
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2006
  7. Lance Berkman

    Lance Berkman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did yall expect?

    He go re-elected, so he doesn't give a s**t about anything now.
     
  8. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051
    The Bush Exit Strategy: Term Limits
     
  9. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,096
    Likes Received:
    3,608
    How about the companion threads?

    Bringing down deficit is future president's problem

    Protecting the environment is future president's problem

    Moving toward alternative energy is future president's problem

    Reviving New Orleans is future president's problem

    Reconstructing the military is future president's problem

    Having affordable precription drugs is future president's problem

    Getting health insurance for tens of millions is future president's problem

    etc.
     
  10. krosfyah

    krosfyah Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,823
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    cherp cherp cherp
     
  11. oomp

    oomp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2000
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    86
    We all knew that would be the case. Nothing this president does or says surprises me anymore. With W, you can just predict the worse case scenario and wait for it to come to fruition.

    [​IMG]
     
    #11 oomp, Mar 23, 2006
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2006
  12. real_egal

    real_egal Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    247
    I have to disagree. He will always top your wildest imagination about the worst case scenario.
     
  13. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,096
    Likes Received:
    3,608
    I don't even think Basso, TJ and Bigtexx think the man is competent. They just have to suck it up and back him anyway.
     
  14. user

    user Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't care. George W. Bush was elected by the American as the president of the United State TWICE. It's called Democracy. As George once said:

    And there is a video to prove that:
    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushfoolme.htm
     
  15. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes and some voters are finally waking up and experiencing buyers remorse. The next three years should be chaos.
     
  16. KaiSeR SoZe

    KaiSeR SoZe Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    8,395
    Likes Received:
    39
    We're doomed!! we got screwed in the ass just like adam morrison!
     
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Incompetent Design

    By William Rivers Pitt

    Last week, George W. Bush got up before a gaggle of reporters and washed his hands of the mess in Iraq. The question of how long an American presence will remain in that country "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," said Bush. To be fair, he isn't the only one. The entire administration appears to have become bored with the whole process.

    Take Daniel Speckhard, for example. Speckhard is Director of the US Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, which is in charge of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure ravaged by war and depredation lo these last three years. Speckhard is quoted in a report in last week's USA Today: "The Iraqi government can no longer count on U.S. funds and must rely on its own revenues and other foreign aid, particularly from Persian Gulf nations. 'The Iraqi government needs to build up its capability to do its own capital budget investment,' said Speckhard."

    Really. They have no police or military to speak of, the hospitals are trashed, the lights won't stay on, the flow of potable water is screwed, roads and bridges are bombed out, hundreds of buildings are wrecked, the so-called "elected" government is totally powerless to contain or control the chaos within the country, headless bodies are popping up left and right, a dozen people die every day from bombings and executions, the entire country is careening towards civil war ... and somewhere in all this, Bush and his people expect the Iraqi government to "do its own capital budget investment."

    I am going to find a china shop somewhere in the city and walk in with a free-swinging baseball bat. My goal, which will be clearly stated, will be to improve upon the place. I will spend the next three years meticulously destroying everything I see inside, from the cash registers to the display cases to the nice Royal Albert tea sets in the corner. Along the way, I will batter the brains out of any poor sod unfortunate enough to get in my way. When I am done, I will claim with as much self-righteousness as I can muster that none of the mess is my responsibility. I will then, of course, refuse to leave.

    Hey, if the president can do it, it must be legal, right? Unfortunately, the difference between my china shop analogy and what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq is that I won't get anything out of it except an arrest record and a chance to enjoy my state's municipal accommodations. Bush and crew are reaping far better benefits from the mayhem they have caused.

    Here's the deal, in case anyone is wondering: none of this, not one bit of it, can be or should be chalked up to "incompetence" on the part of Bush or anyone else within his administration. This was not a mishandled situation. Bush and the boys have gotten exactly, precisely what they wanted out of Iraq, and are now looking forward to fobbing it off on the next poor dupe who staggers into the Oval Office. They got what they came for, and have quit.

    Consider the facts. For two elections in a row, 2002 and 2004, the GOP was able to successfully demagogue the rafters off the roof about supporting the troops and being patriotic, placing anyone who questioned the merits of the invasion squarely into the category of "traitor." Meanwhile, military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration have cashed in to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The same goes for the petroleum industries; did you know there are gas lines today in oil-rich Iraq? It's true. The oil infrastructure is fine; indeed, it is the most well-guarded point of pressure in Iraq. There are gas lines because companies like Halliburton are not pumping the oil. They are sitting on it, keeping it as a nice little nest egg.

    One would think this administration would be worried about the violence and chaos in Iraq. They aren't, because the violence has become the justification for "staying the course." Bush will mouth platitudes about bringing democracy to the region, but that is merely the billboard. What he and his friends from the Project for the New American Century wanted in the first place, and what they have now, is a permanent military presence over there. There was never any consideration of a timetable for withdrawal, because there was never any intention to withdraw. The violence today is a self-perpetuating justification, a perfect circle lubricated by blood, oil and currency.

    Keeping our attention on Iraq has allowed this administration to do what it came to do under cover of darkness. They have managed to eviscerate dozens of federal regulations designed to make sure our children aren't born with gills or seventeen eyes thanks to the pollution in the air, water and food. The Clean Air Act is pretty much gone now, as are requirements for food safety labeling. GOP "pension reform" means growing old in America amounts to growing poor, just like in the good old days of the Depression. Millions of elderly people have been fed to the wolves by way of the new Medicare Plan D calamity. There are now tens of millions more poor people in America, the middle class is evaporating, but top incomes are up 497% according to the Federal Reserve.

    The administration has also used Iraq to accomplish a goal the GOP has been pining for since 1934. Since the advent of FDR and the creation of federally-funded safety nets for the neediest Americans, the Goldwater wing of the Republican party has been lusting after an opportunity to savage the government's ability to serve its citizens in this fashion. Their argument has been that it cost too much to do this, required too much taxation, and was harmful to business interests.

    This fight raged until the very end of the 20th century. When Bill Clinton stood up during his 1998 State of the Union speech and said "Save Social Security first!" he was actually firing a directed salvo at this wing of the GOP. Look, Clinton was saying, we have trillions of dollars in the bank and the economy is going great guns. We can provide for the neediest among us without bankrupting the government or killing business. In short, he was rendering fiscal conservatives obsolete. He won the argument. Remember this, by the way, the next time someone asks you why he was attacked so viciously.

    The Grover Norquist drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub crew, however, had no interest in going gently into that good night. One busted election gave them the chance to do exactly what they have done with Iraq. They have rendered it almost completely impossible for the federal government to pay for programs designed to care for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the needy. The war, the war, we have to pay for the war, to the tune of what will be one to two trillion dollars before all is said and done. Oh, and tax cuts that go to families making more than $200,000 a year, of course.

    Bush has also, in the process, managed to put himself even farther above the rule of law. Not long ago, he signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Getting the document to his desk had been a laborious process for Congress; arguments and debates raged across the ideological spectrum as to exactly what kind of firewalls against executive abuse should be put into the bill to protect civil liberties.

    Among these additions were a number of oversight provisions to keep the FBI from abusing their power to search homes and seize papers without notifying the resident or presenting a warrant. Other provisions required that officials within the Justice Department maintain tight scrutiny over where, when and how the FBI put these powers to use. One new part of the bill required the administration brief Congress now and again on these specific matters. Congress finally came to an agreement, and on March 9th, Bush signed the Patriot Act reauthorization into law with much fanfare.

    After all the worthies had left the room, however, and after all the cameras had gone, Bush quietly put his signature to a "signing statement" that, basically, says anything in the aforementioned law which applies to the president shall be considered null and void. The Boston Globe reported on March 24 that, "In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used. Bush wrote: 'The executive branch shall construe the provisions ... that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch ... in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information.'"

    This was the third time Bush dropped a "signing statement" into an issue of signal importance. When it was revealed that the administration had bypassed the FISA laws in order to conduct surveillance on American citizens, Bush claimed his "wartime powers" gave him the ability to ignore the laws of the land. When Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush issued a signing statement stating that he could bypass the law at his pleasure and torture anyone he damned well pleased.

    So, to recap, the "incompetence" thing is nonsense. The Bush boys got paid, got an issue to run on in two elections, put themselves completely and totally above the law on picayune issues like torture and the unauthorized surveillance of American citizens, obliterated the central function of the federal government, and ripped up any and all regulations that would keep their corporate friends from dumping mercury into the river so as to save a few precious pennies on the dollar.

    Can anyone still think this was all by accident?

    The poll numbers say that nearly 70% of the country believes we are heading in the wrong direction in Iraq and here at home. This is edifying, to say the least. It means that people like me can stop trying to point out all the things that have gone wrong, because at long last a huge majority of the country has come to see things for how they actually are. But it also means that we as a nation are required now to move past what is actually happening, and ask why it is happening.

    Batting down the "incompetence" argument is easy; all one has to do is see what this administration and its friends have gained in the last five years. The rest of the answer is more difficult, because it has to do with us, with we the people, and the staggering degree to which we take our rights and freedoms for granted.

    When we hear about our government spying on American citizens without warrants or due process of law, when we hear the president say he does not have to tell Congress anything if he doesn't want to, when we hear the president claim the right to torture, all too often the response is, "Well, I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't have to worry about it."

    But we do have to worry about it. Patriots from Lexington to Gettysburg to Bastogne lie cold in their graves because they died to defend the freedoms we would so casually cast aside. Could we stand before the endless ranks of the fallen and say the rights they died to protect have no bearing on us, because we are "not doing anything wrong?" Is that not the most selfish, conceited, lazy answer we could possibly offer in the face of their sacrifice?

    George W. Bush quit on us last week. He quit because he has accomplished everything he came to do. He will get away with it because, for the most part, the American people have also quit. We take what we have for granted, and assume the difficult tasks will be handled by someone else. Rest assured, they will be. They will be handled by other craven opportunists like Bush, by corporations looking to turn a profit off our indifference, by those among us who couldn't care less about you and yours.

    The American people have come to see that things have gone wrong. Imagine what would happen if we decided to do something about it.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032706J.shtml
     
  18. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,814
    Likes Received:
    20,475
    Great analogy.
     
  19. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    The only thing I would add to that analogy is that while I was busy swinging the bat in the china shop, I would hire my best friends and pay them exorbitant fees to repair the damage I was doing just so that I could smash the recently fixed dishes anew.
     
  20. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,162
    Likes Received:
    10,274
    Not quite...

    You also have to take kickbacks from your friends so that you can buy shades to put in the windows. This way, nobody can really tell what you are doing and if someone questions you, you can say, "What are you, a Traitor? Why do you care so much about China? You'd rather break America than break China, you Liberal-Commie Loser."
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now