Bush slams Howard Dean's comments on Iraq

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06361054.htm

WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush criticized Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Tuesday for saying it is wrong to think the United States will win in Iraq, calling him a pessimist trying to score political points.

"I know we're going to win, and our troops need to hear not only that they are supported but that we have got a strategy that will win," said Bush, who is trying to restore American confidence in his Iraq plan amid waning support for the war.

Dean stirred Republican wrath by telling San Antonio, Texas, radio station WOAI that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

He predicted the Democratic Party would come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all U.S. forces within two years.

We can't win in guerrilla warfare. Didn't Vietnam teach anything?

He should talk to the leader of the former occupying country about that little incident next time he sees Blair.

Only a relatively small portion of the Revolutionary War was fought guerilla style. All of Washington's battles, for example, were fought in the traditional European style. Even our only real long "guerilla" campaign, that in the south by Greene, was fought in large, set-piece battles like you would see on the fields of Europe at the same time.

Vietnam on the other hand was much more like what we are seeing in Iraq and the Russian experience in Afghanistan is even closer still.

He was too busy drinking and smoking pot to worry about Vietnam and thus didn't learn anything. And yes this is why Bush has loyalist's around him who only tell him what he wants to hear. Quite dangerous if you ask me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then we can continue this conversation.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Where any opposition to the pResident is met with calls of "traitor", Anti-American, Blame America First, the Hate Crowd? Or perhaps paying journalists to write propaganda pieces for the government? Or perhaps voting machines that are so flawed as to be easily manipulated so therefore no free elections. You mean the kind of capitalizim which allows a company like Halliburton to take over the oil companies in Iraq and blackmail other countries. You mean, a democracy where an obvious conflict of interest - where your pResident's family is heavily involved in weapons and arms and your vice president is heavily involved in an oil company and then they lie to the American people to get them into a war for profit based on lies and using other people's children to do the killing and be killed. That kind of democracy?

Then my answer is no, we will not win, especially not by staying the course. You can't force a Democracy at gun point. Do I want us to win? Sure, if winning means what you say; a nice, safe Democracy, that would be dandy. I also want to win the lottery. That would be nice too, and just as likely.

Unfortunately, bringing Democracy was NEVER the point or goal of Chimpy's filthy war, so, that type of victory is not even close to being possible, because that's not what they want nor was it ever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's the definition YOU gave, regardless of where you got it. So, it is YOUR definition too, at least in the context of this discussion and in the context of the questions YOU asked.

Now, since I was nice enough to answer YOUR questions, how about YOU answer mine?

What is the point of your questions?

What is YOUR position on the war?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Questions are good. So answer mine like I answered yours. *sigh*, indeed.

So your point was to get an overview, but what's your position on the war?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are worth tens of thousands of Iraqi's lives and thousands of our soldiers? Not to say anything of the destabilization of the region, the thousands of new terrorists being born and the complete and utter collapse of any and all goodwill the US once had from the rest of the world.

Wow, that's some trial. So, when do you think we should start invading North Korea?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I DO know about all those other things, and not a DAMNED one is worth having this man on trial. So what. It's not justice, and no one will be avenged by a conviction.

So what if they execute the bastard. Will that exonerate us for having invaded a country which posed no real threat to our country?

Stop with the bubble-headed nonsense and look at the facts... please!!!

ON EDIT: Just love your "disabled" profile... got something to hide? x(

He rivals saddam in the torture ,rape rooms, and mass killings in Iraq. Not to mention the continued air assaults on villages and the long term painful deaths from Depleted Uranium and White Phosphorous. I would say the USA has its very own crazed, vile madman.

The price was worth it so you could watch his trial on TV from the safety of your comfy home?

Why aren't you in Iraq tracking down the terrorists?

I'd rather have him back in power and all the lives of our soldiers back and all the thousands of lives of all the dead Iraqi children back.

I guess you like lot's of dead Iraqi children, as long as you get to see Saddam on TV. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you'll probably come up with about 20 or 30 tinpot dictatorships around the world at present, some worse in their treatment of their citizens than Saddam was. How many of these do you want to see toppled, how many more young warrior lives squandered, how many more innocent civilians slaughtered to make you feel "very glad that gone....."?
Remember that Saddam, when it suited, was a 'good buddy' to US interests. This war has NOTHING to do with 'ridding the world of an evil dictator' or 'bringing the gift of democracy to the freedom-loving Iraqi people', etc, etc. It's just that it's the ONLY card that the Chimp and his puppet-meisters have left to play in this sordid game........

Sorry, but you're pathetic if you're just glad because the TV told you how evil he was. You should get off your fat ass and volunteer.

"...At the same time, after listening to what Saddam did--the plastics/human shredder, the Room 62? meat grinder, the 5 businessmen who had their hands chopped off for disagreeing with Saddam, or not meeting some goal of his, the 10 people in a 1 meter square room, dragging athletes through excrement with open wounds--"

Blah blah blah. Am I supposed to be impressed? There are worse people than Saddam running the US. Again, so when do you suggest we invade North Korea?

Pathetic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Taking out Saddam was a WAR OF CHOICE. An UNNECESSARY war. He was NOT a threat.

A fire is a direct and immediate threat and the Fire Dept. was created to deal w/ the direct and immediate threat.

If you are so gung ho about sending our boys to die for an unnecessary war of choice to take out Saddam cuz he was so evil, then YOU should have the COURAGE of your convictions to go an join them.

You don't, so you are pathetic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and basing your bullshit on it. No one said that the courage of a conviction means risking your life for it, although, that would be ONE way to measure it. If you risk your life for it, then obviously you DO believe in it.

However, in the case of an unnecessary war it IS the ONLY measure. If you're not willing die for a cause that you are more than willing to have OTHERS die for, then you are a coward.

I may believe in many things, none of which I'm willing to have OTHERS die for instead of me. If there is dying (or risk of it) to be done for a cause I believe in, then I WOULD, most assuredly risk my life instead of having others do so on my behalf. Absolutely. You however are a coward of the worst order. You say you believe in a cause that people ARE giving their lives for, yet you are not willing. You are a despicable coward.

But isn't interesting that the charges they are trying him on occurred in *1982*? In other words, before Rummy and Cheney and Saint Ronnie made him our bestest friend? We know he was vile, but the Rethuglicans snuggled up to him anyway.

Saddam has to be sitting there a bit baffled. After all, everything he did back then was just fine and dandy to the very same people that now took him out of power.

Iraq will break up into three segments given the Kurds, Sunni's and Shite's. Iran will be happy as hell and no, the Americans will not be able to prevent it. Democracy? Don't make me laugh. Democracy is a verb. One crummy vote does not a democracy make. Oil, corrupation and more death is Iraq's future.

If that's your idea of winning, I guess you'll be happy. If not, that's too bad. Trying to compare the current or future state of affairs to the reign of Saddam is pointless and just another very tired republican argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1). Do YOU think we will win the war in Iraq?

- We've already lost Iraq. since they live there and we don't when we leave they will still be there; they win. It will take decades of support nad perseverence for any other outcome. The american people don't have the patience for it (and unfortunately bush doesn't have the courage to be honest about the commitment required).


2). Do you WANT us to win the war in Iraq?

- I want us to win in Afghanistan, take out osama, stop them from becoming the opium capital of the planet. I want us to defend this country from attack and plan effective response in case of attack, disaster, or other catastrophe. Iraq is (and saddam was) a minor nuisance in comparison.

1. No, I don't think we will win.

2. Yes, I want us to win.


Another poster challenged you to post YOUR definition of winning. I say NO because of MY definition of winning: less terrorism and improved human rights. I believe conquering Iraq will increase terrorism in the long run (in the short run that is a given) and make human rights worse. Yes, Saddam brutalized rebels. But he certainly treated women (not in rebellion) better than any Fundamentalist Islamic government.

More importantly, Saddam was not ideologically opposed to the United States and liberal western values. The Islamic republicanism movement *is* opposed to us, and this war will almost certainly result in at least a portion of Iraq becoming an Islamic Republic dedicated to the destruction of all things non-Islamic.

I'll admit it. I am a hawk. I happen to believe that war sometimes IS the answer. My primary reason for opposing this war isn't because of all the Iraqis or Americans who happen to get killed/injured. I oppose it for the simple reason that it was unbelievably fucking stupid! At least, from a "what is good for the United States" perspective, it was.

I am getting so sick of these fascist attacks on people's patriotism when they speak out and speak the truth! We need to FIGHT!

preemptive war

You can set your watch by it.

a recording.

to use the term, "delusional" instead of just wrong. *bush and company are practicing "delusional thinking" when they say that we are going to have a victory and win the war in Iraq. :rant:

smear the messenger.

Bush, Georgie, just shut yer pie hole. We can't win. If we could we would have already.

Remember, it was a just another dusty desert ay-rab country yearning for the freedoms of democracy laboring under the yoke of having all that oil and once we popped the head off all the good little america loving ay-rabs there were going to line the avenues like the liberation of Paris for a great photo op.

Sounds like the ravings of a loon, but that is, in a nutshell what you said would happen. Well it can't, and it's clear to a five year old, so bashing Dean just makes you look like a four year old.

And that also means that we can't have a "clear victory" or a real democracy as long as any minority group in Iraq has to be artificially suppressed, politically oppressed, or propped up by our military.

We can't win. What's not adding up here georgie?

You can scream all you want Howard. I want you for president in 2008.

and say this so they could pounce on it. IT'S THE TRUTH! Ask MURTHA you idiot!

They don't think we can 'win' either and they think we should get out in six months time. Anyway, it's not about winning with George, it's about war and oil profits for bushco and all their bidness pards.

And everyone knows it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that he is just a arrogant richboy asshole is just way too out of touch to be taken seriously.

Fascists play lose-lose. Zero-sum thinkers can't comprehend the real world outside of their cartoonish myths and false beliefs. They're myopically going to war against their own noses and being angered at the pain their face experiences.

Can we? We have yet to win a war of this type in a long while and you know how people like Bush feel about Vietnam and I bet Korea. If the terrorist stayed or were in one place and we got them to stay there I guess we could call it a win but this belief is world wide so hard to get to. I also think that every time we kill one two pop up. It is not that I really think Iraq has much to do with it. If they are made to leave that country they will pop up in other. Even the DOD tells us that these people come from other country. I also think Iraq would like to rule them self. Every one does but for the zealots that want to rule us all from what ever religion they hatch from.

An unjust war is unwinnable.

There can be no better mitigation than for us to get out quickly, and plead with the UN for peacekeeping forces.

The unilateral US invasion was never meant to succeed. It was launched by the corporate cabal to make billions for the super-rich. It has succeeded in that way and the cabal will not give up their ill-gotten prize easily. There is still much fighting to do by us to end this illegal war.

that we would before they invaded but we were only the "fringe group".

leaders, we might need to be tested for diseases!

:silly:

:rofl:

hate the Western World and, if causing the destruction of some of the artifacts from the cradle of civilization and, if killing 2100 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis and, if making shills out of our intelligence services for political gain, is "winning," then I guess we've "won."

Otherwise, Bush is full of horse puckey.

Bush will leave the military languishing in Iraq for decades unless the grown-ups take charge. Stay the Course is not a strategy, it's a cop-out.

From Aug 30 interview w/Matt Lauer.

More like a whimper, if you ask me...

I'm surprised Bush only called Dean a pessimist rather than a traitor. If they had their way, BushCo would imprison people who speak out in opposition. And if there's another major terror attack on U.S. soil, watch how fast that prison option becomes reality after they declare martial law.

attacking Dean. Bush doesn't know how to think for himself.

and take your creepy fiends with you!

the plan for victory? No really Mr pResident, what is the plan for victory? How mr bush, how are you going to succeed when history and your own people are against you?

Even non-Democrats and Republicans have come to regard everything that comes out of his mouth as nonsense.

He is essentially confirming the truth of Dean's comment simply by contradicting it.

words to hit him back with, if I am not mistaken, he issued the same statement not too long ago..

Ummmm, sometimes simplicity has it's moments.

We will crush them all.

This nation needs more truth, less lies. Go Dean.

The truth really gets to George W. Bush; and that's because he's so good at telling lies on a daily basis. Two years have gone by, and we haven't gained that much. :dunce: :hangover:

He elevated Dean to equal status for debating this point. Dean has every right to respond now -- and get his second volley splashed all over the media.

Bush does not need a pissing contest with Dean. But he has blundered into one...

Let the Bombast Ensue !!!

Spiralhawk! Thanks for stating it so eloquently }(