Bush: troop pullout from Iraq decided in future (after his presidency)

he's definitely not planning to remove any troops! :grr:

--- During the 2000 presidential debates - he repeatedly stated he wasn't going to leave "messes" for someone else to clean up

--- During the 2000 presidential debates - he stated that troops should have clear objectives, a plan and a TIMELINE for any conflict they engage

now he's saying he's leaving the mess to be decided by future presidents... The implication (in the current republican controlled congress) is he will be in office until January of 2009 and our troops will be in Iraq and Afghanistan (probably Iran and Syria too) until after January 2009.

I say why wait for a future president in January 2009 - impeach smirk-boy now and get in a new "future" president

Has Howard Dean had anything to say about this yet?

We all said this in 2003.

Like permafrost.

Maybe there is. If the permafrost can melt...

Unless the people of Iraq kill or wound every US soldier in Iraq.

And yeah, the people of Iraq know that, too.

Is * now considered the USA's absolute RULER?

Doesn't The Congress have a role?

Now we have The Unitary Executive.

Yes I know, that was Hitler's thing. Well so was The Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

Some people say bush is The URINARY Executive.

I just say he's a motherfucking war criminal ignorant fuck.


Sorry, back to your question... "the Congress" who???

That "he's a motherfucking war criminal ignorant fuck"

How ever most Motherfuckers would disavow being compared to him

:D

Don't you know the Bush administration has declared the Constitution "quaint"? Balance of powers, etc... all part of our glorious past.

We are a pseudo Democracy now.

to clean up your own fuckin' mess ??!!!

oh that's right... you had a maids and nannies to do that for you.
nevermind.

and finesse it will take to end this war. Senator Kerry is at the top of my list to be able to do this.

I already cashed out, suckers!

I will steal from you, then shit in your bed, and you can lick it up with your tongue.

this country has ever seen. FAILURE.

Goodbye, SaiBaghdad.

This is an old story.

1) Get in
2) F*ck things up
3) Get out why the gettin's good

In this case, just ahead of the impeachment noose.

Why anyone would believe that Bush would do differently in "public life" than he did in corporate life is beyond me...

ground dictate troop levels, then he has abandoned the role of the civilian leadership dictating the political goals of military action. The military's role does not include decisons such as is maintaining this occupation the right thing to do. That's the civilian leaderships job.

decides to turn on the source of its torment, e.g., the 82nd Airborne airdrops and encircles Washington, D.C., suspends the Constitution, arrests constitutional officers and declares martial law.

If such were to happen, would you

a) support the military

or

b) support * b/c you support the Constitution?

supporting Bush and not supporting the troops. It's a sticky ethical wicket, and I still haven't decided how I would come down, if push came to shove.

We have to stay the course with another 8 years of Bushco

<>

Bush who about rants on about deomcracy makes me sick. The reality is that the US and UK have directly contributed to a deeply de-stabilised country with a crumbling infrastructure, woeful security & political and ethnic infighting.


But Oh wait, it's OK because the Iraqis got to vote in democratic elections.

Perhaps when the situation in Iraq moved past the point where you have to reduce cities to rubble to 'deal with an insurgency'

they(bush and GOP'ers) can tell the American and Iraqi people that they have improved the lives of Iraqis.

Isn't it like his entire life?
He always had a handler or a friend of Poppy Bush to take care of his messes.

I doubt prince Charles of the UK had a more privileged life than this guy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060321/pl_nm/bush_dc_8

>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush held out the possibility on Tuesday of a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for many years, saying a full withdrawal would depend on decisions by future U.S. presidents and Iraqi governments.

Bush, struggling to rebound from low job approval ratings that he blamed largely on the war, was asked at a news conference if there would come a time when no U.S. troops are in Iraq.

"That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," said Bush, who will be president until January 2009.<<

Translation: He is keeping us there no matter what.

The silver lining is that his numbers will remain low.

With no end in sight.

Worst. Alleged. President. Ever.

after he's impeached.

going to cost $50 - $100 MILLION (not $400+ BILLION) and we would be "greeted as liberators" and have "flowers and sweets" thrown at us and Dimson would get a square and a statue bigger than any of Saddam's in "Freedom Square" within a few hours of entering Baghdad in March of 2003!

:sarcasm: but not really as all of this is the crap that was spewed from every lying freak of nature in this maladministation.

:nuke:

as the worst President in the history of the nation. I used to think he'd be listed as one of the worst but now, with his little war in Iraq and the immense national debt and deficit, I don't think even conservatives will be able to hold their noses and say he wasn't too bad.

What a self-serving moronic POS. I've been around for awhile and I honestly don't remember ever hating someone with the passion that I hate that cocksucker and his little band of neo-con cronies with. They should all be in jail.

it will take years of continued military presence and unrepentant torture of innocents to subdue the Iraqi people."

Asshole.



I suspect that THAT is an objective he will not be able to fulfill, and likely the reason he's putting off the pull-out decision on future Presidents. He KNOWS he's toast and KNOWS he won't have to make that decision (not that he could anyway, but you know what I mean...).

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush0322,0,3154066.story?coll=ny-top-headlines&vote22542820=1

Bush spending 'political capital' on war


By Mark Silva
Washington Bureau

March 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- In his first press conference after reelection, President Bush boldly proclaimed: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.''

In the ninth press conference of his second term today, with Bush's public approval ratings resting at the lowest point of his presidency, the president conceded: "I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war.''

The pace at which Bush is spending that capital—with the president aggressively pursuing public support for a war that has lost the support of a majority of Americans surveyed—can be measured in this week of unrelenting presidential messages as the war enters its fourth year:

With his radio address to the nation on Saturday. With a personal statement delivered on the South Lawn of the White House on Sunday. With a speech on Monday in Cleveland. With this press conference announced last-minute today. With another speech Wednesday in West Virginia.
.......

you've spent your capital and gone over your limit.You owe us BIG TIME and we intend to collect. WITH INTEREST!

spectacular failure. Every time he opens his lying, alcohol-scented mouth, he drops another point.

Stay the course, Georgie!

So now W_rong admits he is bankrupting himself of political capital at the same rate he's bankrupting the country? Not too hard to do, I admit, since his political capital was mostly in his head, but you'd think he'd get a clue from this...

...and Social Security were a major drain on (or cause of) our national debt? (paraphrased)

(Guess that also was on his "Be Sure To Mention" list. He's NOT going to give up on his "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" imaginary mandate.)

idiot just handed us a landslide during this morning's..uh..press conference/nationally televised meltdown.
Wonder if this is posted (verbatim) on the White House website, or has been 'scrubbed'?

of the troops want to be out of Iraq by end of 2006.

If Zogby's poll has captured troop sentiment accurately, I'd expect to see the incidence of "fraggings" and "insubordination" start to creep up in the next few months.

i've yet to see him take responsibility for anything.

>Feet stomp and his face is red with rage.< (Now, do we have ANYONE that will call bullshit and stop the little boy from getting whatever he wants..I'm still waiting...and waiting...)

another day in short attention span theater.

Have I said today how much I truly hate that fucking pig*?

Over 70% of U.S. troops surveyed said that we should get out of Iraq within a year. Junior is determined to keep them in harm's way indefinitely. He's a cheerleader for a game that the players no longer want to play. Congress should pass a law that the Bush Twins should be drafted to go to Iraq immediately.

f***ing incompentent little bastard

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

We're there, folks--1984 is becoming reality as we sit back and watch.

( I wish George H Bush had "pulled out") .--Kevin


Bush sees no pullout before '09
By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006
WASHINGTON At a time of mounting public uncertainty about Iraq, President George W. Bush insisted at a news conference Tuesday that the violence there had not evolved into a civil war, but he acknowledged that the war would not end during his tenure and that a decision on complete American troop withdrawal would fall to "future presidents."

He also expressed full confidence in his top advisers, despite calls even from senior Republicans for an injection of fresh blood to help deal with surprises in Bush's second term that have undermined his standing in opinion polls and sapped his political capital. But the president did not rule out changes in the White House.

Bush has repeatedly refused to set any timetable for a complete pullout, saying that to do so would encourage insurgents. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - whose work Bush defended Tuesday - has said that wars on insurgencies often last a dozen years or more.

More: http://tinyurl.com/lfwgg

It's odd actually, one might suspect some sort of game is afoot.

Yes Halliburton is up 10 points today

and that is ASAP!!! How many thousands more must DIE? HOW MANY MORE!!!

:dem: :kick: :kick:

At least until all the pesky Liberals are rounded up into Haliburton Homeland Detention Camps.

hell bush is god..he can do whatever he wants apparently!!

A democrat with a spine gets in there, they'll be home in a year. Good God, didn't he say a few months ago something about them coming home in June? WTF?!
Duckie

It was 2006, then 2007. I think they have skipped 2008. I didn't hear that one. Now, it's 2009.

In summary, not during Geo. Bush's reign.

Oh well...

Why, 8 months before election, would he dash hopes of the public that troops will be coming home? It may be true that they aren't coming home soon, but truth has never been a reason for this administration to say something like this. I would have expected something like "we anticipate a draw-down by year's end" or "we'll stand down when Iraqii's stand up" or "our bombing campaign has been so successful that we expect less need for troops on the ground by the end of summer" or "I listen to what the generals tell me, and as soon as the they say troops can come home, troops will be home."

But no.

He says troops will be there at least three more years. That's out of character for this administration. Since this makes no political sense on its face, I'm looking for another reason for the statement.

It could be that he is lowering expectations purposely so that when 10% of the troops come home before the November elections because "of recent successes in Iraq", the PR impact will be greater than if 10% came home under duress and chaos. Iraq spin is going to get very heavy soon (maybe even starting this week with Cheney and with reports of heavy air campaigns starting) in front of the campaigning for elections and this may be part of it.

As long as we are there, they will resist. As long as they resist, oil production and transmission will be targeted by rebels.


Bush knows this, and Bush knows the more money his oil rich father makes from the inflated price of oil, the larger his tax free share of his father's estate.