excerpts from bush's address to the nation...

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the White House to lay out his plan for a new way forward in Iraq.

On the new strategy:

Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror ? and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America?s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

On the role of the Iraqis:

Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

On securing Baghdad:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work?and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

On what Iraq must do:

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq?s other leaders that America?s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people ? and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

On the economic component:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

On protecting the American people:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time?In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy ? by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

On what victory in Iraq will look like:

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security?The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will?Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship?A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them ? and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

On bringing our troops home:

[To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government?Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
W said:
. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them

This country never f*cking harbored terrorists. 'Terrorists' are not the problem in Iraq, even now, even though some have drifted there due to this 'war.'.

For Christs sake, the great majority of the problem is religious, sectarian internal violence that has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or any other outside terrorist organization. Nor any 'inside' terrorist organization.

He STILL is trying to connect Iraq to 'terrorists.'

My God.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,484
1,549
113
51
Earth
www.ffrf.org
This country never f*cking harbored terrorists. 'Terrorists' are not the problem in Iraq, even now, even though some have drifted there due to this 'war.'.

For Christs sake, the great majority of the problem is religious, sectarian internal violence that has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or any other outside terrorist organization. Nor any 'inside' terrorist organization.

He STILL is trying to connect Iraq to 'terrorists.'

My God.


You can stop trying to make sense whenever you're ready Kosar. The numbnuts that follow this jerkoff don't understand that they are being played for fools.

Let's have DTB step in and tell us why the Democrats are to blame and how we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for Bill Clinton. I get more and more pissed about the people that make excuses for Bush every day.

Bush defenders: Are your religious beliefs so strong that you will ignore the truth in favor of siding with your Christian brother? I can't see any reason (outside of people running huge companies looking for less government interference) why anyone would stand behind this guy.

I wonder if Hannity goes home at night and drinks himself to sleep. Defending a complete idiot for hours every day must be stressful as hell.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
Strange Zarchawi was # 3 and we took him out there Matt--also strange all the Al-queda websites there--also strange UBL and his 2nd in command keep calling commenting on it--granted wasn't so at the start--but appears central area now--

Buckwheat--Per your--
"Democrats are to blame and how we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for Bill Clinton."

You couldn't be more wrong--
If Clinton or any other Dem with exception of a few had been in power last 8 years--Saddam would still be defying resolutions--Afgan would probably still be under Taliban--lybia would still be developing nukes--Pakistan-Saudi's ect would have not be our allies in defeating them in either place--UBL would still be training openly--with his get out of jail card--The hundreds of top Al queda echelon now dead--would still be high-fiving-
list--
http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/

and you and other liberals would have had to find other theme than--pullout-surrender-retreat-cut and run--ect

--back to topic
Can't say I agree with sending more troops-
80% of our casualties in Iraq have come from 30 miles radius of Baghdad--
Adamantly oppose the Dems or Rebs wanting to pull out--but agree with the Dems and Rebs demanding Iraqi's pull more weight NOW and not in the future.
IMO The 30 mile radius will contiune to see brunt of violence--and don't think putting more of our troops in line of fire and upping casualties is answer. Would rather see them confined to arial support and a few imbeded units with iraqi army and let iraq's deal with the fantics--and if it develops to civil war in the triangle let it be--Would rather our troops secure the 90% of country that wants peace--and let em fight it out in the triangle among themselves.

Will be curious in weeks that follow to see if there is indeed a change in strategy or if just more talk--I think determining factor will be if Iraqi's take it to Sadr militia or continue to let him dictate terms.
We'll see
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,484
1,549
113
51
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Buckwheat--Per your--
"Democrats are to blame and how we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for Bill Clinton."

You couldn't be more wrong--
If Clinton or any other Dem with exception of a few had been in power last 8 years--Saddam would still be defying resolutions--Afgan would probably still be under Taliban--lybia would still be developing nukes--Pakistan-Saudi's ect would have not be our allies in defeating them in either place--UBL would still be training openly--with his get out of jail card--The hundreds of top Al queda echelon now dead--would still be high-fiving-
list--

and you and other liberals would have had to find other theme than--pullout-surrender-retreat-cut and run--ect

Saddam would still be in charge: No issues here. Guy was scum of the earth, but we didn't have a real reason to turn the region upside down and mortgage our homeland security.

There are awful groups of people all over the world that we'd like to see gone, but this war is a smoke screen for another agenda. Unfortunately, we'll be paying for Bush's actions for decades.

My theme can't be surrender, since we're not exactly at war with anyone you can surrender to. We are at war with a bunch of Iraqi citizens that are pissed we invaded their country and turned their lives/families upside down. My strategy is abandon the abortion before it hurts us even more.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
My theme can't be surrender, since we're not exactly at war with anyone you can surrender to. We are at war with a bunch of Iraqi citizens that are pissed we invaded their country and turned their lives/families upside down. My strategy is abandon the abortion before it hurts us even more.


that's defintely the wrong thing to do.....but you will probably get your wish.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
that's defintely the wrong thing to do.....but you will probably get your wish.

The wrong thing to do was to start a war that we cannot win. If 20,000 more troops would make a difference then why didn't Bush send them in earlier, he had both houses of Congress behind him?

Get out. Cut the loses. Keep an eye on them and if they get out of line Shock and Awe them. No need for boots on the ground. JMHO.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
The wrong thing to do was to start a war that we cannot win. If 20,000 more troops would make a difference then why didn't Bush send them in earlier, he had both houses of Congress behind him?

Get out. Cut the loses. Keep an eye on them and if they get out of line Shock and Awe them. No need for boots on the ground. JMHO.

stevie...

i agree...i don't think 20,000 is enough. but then i'm not there so i'm not sure.

oh...i defintely think we can win this war....provided that it's fought to win...which it's not.once the suits (rumsfeld & cheney) stop thinking that they are field generals, this war will be won.

i'm not going to debate whether iraq should have been invaded in the first place....there are too many posts about that....but once the go ahead for the war was given there should have been at least 400,000 troops involved....the borders should have been sealed off & the oil fields protected...& then fight from within...i believe there wouldn't have been as high a casulaty rate as there is now.

now as far as where we are now & again not knowing first hand.....i think about 100,000 troops should be sent...with half of them being sent to the borders...& the rest to seal off the baghdad area...& go from there.

i think leaving iraq will cause a major catastrophy in the whole middle east area for years to come...
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
stevie...

i agree...i don't think 20,000 is enough. but then i'm not there so i'm not sure.

oh...i defintely think we can win this war....provided that it's fought to win...which it's not.once the suits (rumsfeld & cheney) stop thinking that they are field generals, this war will be won.

i'm not going to debate whether iraq should have been invaded in the first place....there are too many posts about that....but once the go ahead for the war was given there should have been at least 400,000 troops involved....the borders should have been sealed off & the oil fields protected...& then fight from within...i believe there wouldn't have been as high a casulaty rate as there is now.

now as far as where we are now & again not knowing first hand.....i think about 100,000 troops should be sent...with half of them being sent to the borders...& the rest to seal off the baghdad area...& go from there.

i think leaving iraq will cause a major catastrophe in the whole middle east area for years to come...
I can't disagree with much of what you say Al. But that is not what happened. The way this was handled, although good for Halliburten, created catastrophe in the ME, and not necessarily in our favor.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
that's defintely the wrong thing to do.....but you will probably get your wish.

AR, how much longer should we give it? We can't afford to fight it forever. So how long do you think we should continue spending at this rate and losing lives at this rate? What is your recommended timeline? ....And what is the goal again, exactly?
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
AR, how much longer should we give it? We can't afford to fight it forever. So how long do you think we should continue spending at this rate and losing lives at this rate? What is your recommended timeline? ....And what is the goal again, exactly?

murph...

you give it until the job is done..which the field generals should be able to answer.

i suggest that you ask the other questions to soembody in the bush administration.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
Believe I stated that murphy--

Stevie on --
"The wrong thing to do was to start a war that we cannot win"

Who are you referring to as "we" other than speaking for mindset of liberals I would say you are wrong.

--how do you we figure we can lose?--are they going over run us--shoot our planes out of air--will our soilders retreat????

I think we all know the answer to that--and once again there is only one road to defeat and its not via our miltary
UBL told the world the way to victory--I'll spare myself the time looking up his Zarchawi's and others quotes but your getting 100% of the effort he required from liberals on hill now and many in this thread.

As far as time frame--Depends apon our capacity--if we get to point of over see'er status as in korea and europe I would hope we remained in that much more stragetic area for years to come.

on the "we" can not win again--matter of how you look at it--we defeated their army in days--put them in democracy--got rid of their dictators--we won all the battles--only way I see defeat is denying troops to finish job they are re-uping at unprecedented rates to do.

--however on new tactics-will agree on premis of trying to solve issue--we shouldn't have waited this long to play hardball with iraq and that critism is warrented.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Well, if we are supposed to continue at the same rate we've done, then we really should admit we are in a war and start making sacrifices at home.

Oil rationing and a war tax should be taking place if we actually are willing to endure a longer conflict. I mean, we've got to think ahead in terms of resources and fiscal stability.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
Will let you know tomorrow--I took pre-emptive means quite a while back which has worked well on some but not others--Got the initial screen with --Americans blah blal--but account still looks in tact--will drop by to see if I can still make wager and report back.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Well, if we are supposed to continue at the same rate we've done, then we really should admit we are in a war and start making sacrifices at home.

Oil rationing and a war tax should be taking place if we actually are willing to endure a longer conflict. I mean, we've got to think ahead in terms of resources and fiscal stability.

bush has been saying that we are at war since 9/11.

i'll make sacrefices when i'm asked to make sacrefices. but be my guest if you want to get a head start.
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
I already have. I bought a Hybrid 2 weeks after we invaded. It's not a chick magnet. But I did it because I care.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I already have. I bought a Hybrid 2 weeks after we invaded. It's not a chick magnet. But I did it because I care.

murphy my firend....you don't need a chick magnet...your presence alone should attract all of the chicks that you need.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top