Bush Claimed Iraqis Oppose Timetable the Day After Iraq’s VP Personally Asked Him for One
Bush Claimed Iraqis Oppose Timetable the Day After Iraq’s VP Personally Asked Him for One
After Bush returned from his trip to Iraq this week, President Bush attacked those calling for a timetable for withdrawal. He said Iraqis had “concerns” that a timetable would disrupt their strategy to create a secure and democratic Iraq:
And the willingness of some to say that if we’re in power we’ll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq, because they understand our coalition forces provide a sense of stability, so they can address old wrongs and develop their strategy and plan to move forward. They need our help and they recognize that. And so they are concerned about that.
Today, the AP reports that Iraq’s Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi, personally asked President Bush to set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces the day before. Iraq’s President, Jalal Talabani, said he supported the request:
Iraq’s vice president has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the Iraqi president’s office said. Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday, when the U.S. president made a surprise visit to Iraq.
“I supported him in this,” President Jalal Talabani said in a statement released Wednesday. Al-Hashimi’s representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
Separately, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that Iraqi security forces should be completely in charge of the nation’s security in 18 months.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
with Bush:
black = white
yes=no
up= down
wrong =right
law abiding = law breaking
so is this any supprise?
June 16th, 2006 at 10:45 amWell. It looks like they want their country back, now, so, that means we’ll leave, right? No strings attached? Right, guys?
June 16th, 2006 at 10:49 amI support the Islamic Republic of Iraq.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:52 amThis is what we’re fighting for.
This is why we send our soldiers to battle.
Republicans and Hillary support the troops.
Once again proof that the war is going VERY WELL. The President and Vie President of Iraq are both saying that they are confident that they won’t need America by the end of Next year. This is a very good sign for Iraq and America. Sadly, this can only hurt Democrats.
Bush is a moron. Why did he not publicly point out the confidence the President of Iraq has. I mean, when the leader of Iraq says the war is going very well and is confident that Iraq’s very own security will be able to handle any minor problems outside of 08, it is BIG news. Bush comes out and lies for no reason. He hid something that would yet put one more nail in the Democrat armor. Too FUNNY!!!
June 16th, 2006 at 10:53 amDidn’t this same thing happen in Afghanistan a couple years back? We said we’ll leave when they wanted us to, Afghanis asked for a timetable, and then well, we’re still there. I searched but couldn’t find a link for this. Anyone else remember this?
June 16th, 2006 at 10:54 amBush: “but that’s what a sovereign nation is. One that does what we want, right? It says so right here in my AEI issued dictionary….
You know, we broke it, we are buying, it and now we’ll dictate.”
June 16th, 2006 at 10:55 am[Moderated by admin.]
June 16th, 2006 at 10:55 amThey don’t call him dumbya for nothing….
June 16th, 2006 at 11:02 amYou teach people how to treat you by tolerating their behavior. Bush has been a bold faced liar since day one and people not only continued to support him, but continued to vote for him, while no one with any power to do so has done a single thing to reprimand or stop him. After 5.5 years, he’s been taught how to treat the American people by a lack of repurcussion for his lies.
We should expect him to lie. It’s what he’s been taught.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:04 amLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 16th, 2006 at 11:05 amWait, so you mean like, the President LIED to us? NO WAY!
June 16th, 2006 at 11:14 amIs there any doubt they’re trying to stay there until the next presidential election, because they still think they can paint the Dems as “living in a pre-9/11 world?” through Iraq?!?!
June 16th, 2006 at 11:21 am#4 Jerad,
June 16th, 2006 at 11:21 amHow does this hurt the Democrats? Democrats like Murtha have been saying for a long time that we should redeploy to the periphery so that the Iraqis can deal with the insugency on their own. For months, Murtha’s been saying our troops are only inlfaming the situation. But in the end, you’re probably right, cuz whatever news comes out, it’s always spun as ‘bad for the Democrats.’ Heads they win, tails we lose.
Murtha said what he said because he believes we are losing. This news story is just further proof that we are in fact winning. That should be good for everyone except those that paint themselves as against Iraq freedom and democracy. Murtha also said his comments before he knew the feelings of the Iraqi President. He made it look like he wanted to desert them in their time of need.
Bush is a lier, but at least he hasn’t been impeached for it, cough cough.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:34 amSince when does Bush or his administration care what the Iraqis want?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:42 amJerad,
Tell us all here – are you any older than 13? Surely not older than 17.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:43 amBush – “Times Table? We don’t need a Times Table. You-all know how good I am with multiplicity. Besides, I’m a uniter not a dividerer. So, no, I don’t think the Iraqis need a times table.
And, I want you to think about this: if we gave the Iraqis a Times Table, then everybody would want one. The whole world would be up in arms against the United States of America demanding we give them a Times Table. And we just can’t go around giving away our precious natural resources to every third world country that somehow feels we owe them a Times Table.
I mean, if we gave away all of our Times Tables, what would happen to our children? They would go to school without Times Tables. Then they would flunk math. I know about math. Math is hard. It’s hard. All those numbers. Without a Times Table you’d be dead in math. So there you’d have all these kids dying in their math class and their poor teacher unable to resucitate them, all because she didn’t have a Times Table.
And then I’d have to tell those mothers that their child died because of 9/11. The terrorists killed over 3000 Americans on 9/11 and I’m not going to help them kill any more Americans by giving them a Times Table.
Next question?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:43 am#14 Jerad
Are you saying that Murtha and other Dems calling for a pull-out or redeployment – which is what Murtha is calling for – are against Iraqi “freedom and democracy”? If so you’re drinking kool-aid pal.
So this is proof that we are winning? I’ll let that remain. So, now, Bush is forcing our troops to stay in Iraq when – as you are claiming – they are not needed nor are they wanted indefinitely? And somehow you turn that around as a vice for the Dems? Come on…
June 16th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhile it would be fun to be 17 and back in High School, I regret to inform you that I am 26 years old, married, and just had my first child.
Now just stop getting your panties in a bunch. Everyone is so ready to call Bush a Liar like no politican before even lied. While it is a horrible thing to lie, I think most of us middle of the road types have come to accept that our leaders lie and lie Often. Clinten lied all the time, the guy got impeached for it and later admitted to lying. Bush lies all the time as well. They both did it for political gain. Nothing is new and reporting that a leader lied is just old news IMO.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:47 amMurtha said what he said because he believes we are losing.
We aren’t really losing. And we aren’t really winning. We’re just… there.
This news story is just further proof that we are in fact winning.
How do you judge ‘winning’ when there is no clear goal set? ‘Stay the course’ and ‘We will stand down when they stand up’ are not objective goals that can be measured.
That should be good for everyone except those that paint themselves as against Iraq freedom and democracy.
Democracy, eh? So that’s why we’re there? We went in under the pretense of searching for WMDs. That didn’t fly. Then the administration shifted to the ‘Iraq supported al Queda. Except they didn’t. Then we shifted to the ’spreading democracy to Iraq.’ Except we’re doing it with guns and force, not ideas and information.
Murtha also said his comments before he knew the feelings of the Iraqi President.
Yea, and Bush made his AFTER he knew the feelings of the Iraqi President:
Iraqi leadership: “Sooo… when you guys leaving?”
Bush: “When we feel like it. Hey, look at our cool new base we built in your country!”
He made it look like he wanted to desert them in their time of need.
Question for you: How do you keep from choking as you swallow this many GOP talking points?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:47 amThe Iraqi president didn’t say he wanted them gone today, thus they are still needed today. So for anyone to say they want a withdrawel right now, is saying they don’t support Iraqi freedom and democracy. The Iraqi president himself said he wants the troops to remain in Iraq currently and he also said that we are close to not needing them.
It sounds like we are winning as the new government is already making plans to remove the troops. On the flip side, they aren’t saying “Go home today”, so anyone that says things like that are not supporting Iraqi Freedom and Demecracy. Why can’t we leave when the Iraqi’s ask us? Why ask Bush for a time table before asking what the Iraqi government thinks about the situation? Ask them for a date.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am#19 – Jerad,
June 16th, 2006 at 11:52 amI believe that DrSinker was inquiring about your age, not your IQ.
#19,
So Jerad,
We’re supposed to just accept it, then? Yea, good approach.
Our leaders are liars, oh well. Guess I’ll just keep watching Entertainment Tonight and pretend that it isn’t my civic duty to pay attention to issues.
In your post you point out that Clinton was impeached for lying. But now that Bush does it, we’re supposed to just get over it?
For a 26 year old, your arguments sure are shallow.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am#14. True, Bush has not been impeached. Of course, his party controls the Senate. Oh, and instead of consensual sex, his lies have led to 2,500+ dead American military. But, at least no impeachment. He’s a true hero.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amJerad,
This isn’t about being “bad for the Democrats” or Republicans or anyone, but for the Iraqi people and our soldiers. That assertion is just plain insulting. While people are over here splitting hairs over policy, literally countless people are dying because of it over there.
Not to mention: when did this stop being about what the Iraqi people want? Wasn’t the third or fourth (I’ve lost count) reason for us being there to “Liberate Iraqis” and bring them Democracy?
A poll taken quite some time ago stated that 80% of Iraqis wanted the US out of Iraq. The Prime Minister has asked for a time-table for us to leave on a number of occasions in the past and apparently again this week. What is the mission in Iraq now that it is not for a Democratic Iraq? A Democratic Iraq would produce what the people want and they want us out.
What excuse for the war are we on now or have we just given up making them up at this point? Is it simply for security? They had that until we arrived.
This isn’t a game. If this war is “bad” for anyone, it is bad for EVERYONE.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amClinten lied all the time, the guy got impeached for it and later admitted to lying. Bush lies all the time as well. They both did it for political gain. Nothing is new and reporting that a leader lied is just old news IMO.
Comment by Jerad — June 16, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Clinton lied all the time? Name them.
Clinton lied about a blow job for political gain? Explain. Also, while we are on the subject, did you support his impeachment? If so, please explain how lying about a sexual act was such a threat to this nation.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:55 amWinning in Iraq as it stands today:
We win when the Iraqi government says that they can handle the security of there country by themselves.
Seems like a very straight forward goal and a benchmark we can easily watch for. To go running for the past about why we invaded Iraq is fruitless. I 100% agree that invading Iraq was wrong. I agree that the intelligence community got it wrong and the whole thing cost alot of cash and blood. To just sit here and scream about the problems and failures of the past whill never get us any closer to fixing the problem today.
Having the benchmark for success in Iraq be when the Iraqi government says they are “good to go” and “don’t need us anymore” are good goals. They are visable and something we can work towards. Is that such a bad goal and plan?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:57 amWhy can’t we leave when the Iraqi’s ask us? Why ask Bush for a time table before asking what the Iraqi government thinks about the situation? Ask them for a date.
Oh dear goodness. Did you actually read what the Iraqi leadership said?
Iraq is asking for a timetable to withdraw US troops. THEY want to know. And since you are so concerned with ‘Iraqi Freedom and Democracy,’ shouldn’t we respect their wishes and give them an answer other than, “We know what’s best for you?”
June 16th, 2006 at 11:57 amNothing is new and reporting that a leader lied is just old news IMO.
Comment by Jerad — June 16, 2006 @ 11:47 am
You are kidding, right?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amThe best part of Jerad’s argument is that he ignores the other 15 goals Bush has posited for our war against Iraq. Number one was finding the weapons of mass destruction . . . clearly another success for Bush.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amIn itself, lying about a sexual act won’t hurt our security. He lied for political gain because he knew sexual acts outside of marriage would be viewed in a bad light in middle America, thus political gain. I also DID NOT support his impeachment. I have come to except that our leaders will lie, both republican and democrat. To argue against that is ridiculas, as we both have proof of millions of lies by both sides. I am just pointing out that bush is not alone when it comes to lying. The fact that our leaders lie is no new news. It is as old as the first president we have I would bet.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWe win when the Iraqi government says that they can handle the security of there country by themselves.
you promise?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pmJerad:
You assume that Bush wants to leave Iraq. Interesting then that they are building a permanent US military base in Iraq. Interesting that GOP leadership removed language forbidding funding the builiding of permanent US military structures in Iraq.
Bush hasn’t ever given firm answers as to when to leave Iraq, just ambiguous statements about “Standing down when they stand up.”
Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney went to extraordinary lengths to get us into Iraq (the lies and mistruths you don’t feel are important). They’re not leaving anytime soon.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:02 pmJerad,
You are an idiot!!
June 16th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI was struggling for the proper phrase to describe Jerad’s view. I think I nailed it:
Well-intentioned but optimistically naive.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pmIf Junior Bush’s pie-hole is moving, he’s either sucking the corporate world’s behind, or lieing to gain access to more money that he either steals from the U.S. Taxpayer with the help of his butt-hole buddies in Congress, or borrows while shoving the bill off on the U.S. Taxpayer.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pmHe’s a slimey pig among pig’s . . . . a pampered boob who’s never worked a day in his worthless life.
Give that man a pretzle and a medical helmet.
bush is not alone when it comes to lying. The fact that our leaders lie is no new news.
How can you say that lies which result in people’s deaths is not news? Have presidents lied for war and more war throughout our history? Are you kidding or just that cynical and apathetic? I’m not intentionally trying to be insulting; however, I just find it really sad because your attitude is not your own. It most likely represents the majority of America today.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pmIf the Iraqi president asked us for a timetable (which he did), I would respond simply by saying this:
“We will leave whenever you personally ask us to. Please give us a time table that suits you so we can plan accordingly.”
I think it would be shallow to think “we” know best about when to leave Iraq. Wouldn’t their government be better equipped to handle such a question?
As far as pre-war intelligence:
If Bush in fact knew that the intelligence was wrong and still invaded Iraq, we should impeach him. But to sit here and grandstand about the failed reason for invading and try to blame them on Bush personally is maybe misguided without proof. From what I can tell through some research, is that out intelligence community combined with other countries intelligence groups presented evidence to the congress and the president indicting what they found. From what I can gather, the Senate, including Kerry, was giving all the same evidence that the President was presented with. Kerry, just like Bush, believed the evidence. Isn’t the prewar intelligence problems really the fault of the intelligence community? Afterall, both parties voted to go to war on the same evidence.
Of course if anyone would be kind enough to share evidence to the contrary that points out that Bush truly knew the intelligence was wrong and them somehow got congress to still beleive it, I AM ALL EARS. Of course you own party would have more then presented such evidence (if it esisted) for political gain (I would do the same thing) and to get a corrupt politican out of office.
To date, I just don’t see why you blame Bush for bad evidence. He wasn’t part of the intelligence community.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pmAnd I agree with you. If the Iraqi’s one day ask us to leave and Bush says no, I will stand with you in protest. Currently, the Iraqi government has not asked us to leave, they have merely asked for our “time table”. Like I said before, they need to give us one if they choose. Certainly some people would think that type of information would remain private as setting a date simply gives the terrorists (that came to Iraq after we invaded) a date to wait for to invade Iraq themselves.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pm38 – have you turned a blind eye to the Downing Street Memos?
The bottom line is, it is a serious question, and one that would necessarily have to be answered in an impeachment proceeding. It took a $40 million dollar investigation into every aspect of Clinton’s life to come up with something that the Republicans could institute impeachment proceedings. Yet there has been no similar investigation into Bush’s actions: no special prosecutor is looking into Bush’s life, and the Congressional investigations to date appear designed to obfuscate the truth rather than to reveal it.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pmBy the way,
Here is more news showing that we may be drawing down troops earlier then any of us realize. This link shows how Iraqi officials are already asking certain countries forces to step down in the coming weeks and it sounds like they will listen:
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA24921251150436545A00?source=PA%20Feed
June 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pmFor Jerad:
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pmTo date, I just don’t see why you blame Bush for bad evidence.
The Downing Street Memo, the policy of the Project For A New American Century, and all of the CIA analysts who advised the Administration that the intelligence was flawed and were silenced and brushed aside before the invasion could, perhaps, be the proof you are looking for.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#17 – Briseadh na Faire, is channeling the Chimperor.
Studying for the bar getting to you? ;)
June 16th, 2006 at 12:32 pmAnd to think yesterday I thought Jerad had a brain cell or two.
Listen, I respect middle of the road types (but strongly disagree with their views, being that I am soooooo far left — moreso than most on this board even). I have very few conservative friends, but many middle-of-the-roader friends. One thing is universal amongst my middle-roader friends. They want the repugs OUT right now. I am thinking you are actually right-wing and not middle-road. You may or may not actually realize this. Yes, you may be more centrist than O’Reilly, but still heavily right-wing. Despite what you think about all politicians lying, etc… You cannot possibly question the need for governmental balance right now, can you? Even a “bad” democrat is better than a “good” republican if we can finally get some real debate on topics in the house and senate. It’s not as if any real left agenda you disagree with will take form with Bush’s veto power. You have to think about it in larger terms.
A true centrist realizes this and strives for the left and right balance in government bodies. Voting repub in November will change nothing, no matter how “bad” you think the more liberal opposing candidate is.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pmZookeeper – Studying for the bar getting to you? ;)
hey, a guy’s gotta have fun every once in awhile!
but thanks, I guess I did get a good take on His style, didn’t I?
I know, I know….back to my studies. I’ll check back in a few hours…..
June 16th, 2006 at 12:47 pmOur dyslexic leader, also suffering from attention deficit disorder, doesn’t hear what he doesn’t want to hear. Doesn’t see what he doesn’t want to see. It’s been like that his whole life – and now he has an entire congress and White house staff to see to it that his delusions continue. To hell with everyone else.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#17 BnF
June 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pmThat is great! LOL.
In Mr. Bush’s defense, I must point out that he is, in fact, quite stupid.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pmBush: They need our help and they recognize that
Why dont Iraq votes to decide that? Is not a democracy what US introduced there?
Bush: they understand our coalition forces provide a sense of stability
If you mean by stability three year old killed point blank, suicide bombings and a 5 hour stance in that country…then it is stable.
Iraq’s vice president has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq
June 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pmDont be naive, buddy. Not until your oil keeps Nascar going for 30 more years.
But Bush is more concerned about what the Iraqi people want, not some politician, right? Sarcasm off now.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pmJerqad you keep trying to clarify your remarks to make them seem more logical, but you are failing. Your assumptions and assertions are way off the mark; perhaps you need to review where you get your info, and how it is slanted and what misinformation and misimpressions you are garnering because you really have some distorted views.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:05 pm#19 Nobody got killed when Clinton lied. And how dare you compare getting a blow job with starting a war?
June 16th, 2006 at 1:08 pmBy your reasoning, since robbers always were, then robbery isn’t so bad. Bribery of government officials always happened, so let the pols take the bribe money, so what? Murder is an ancient ritual, let the poor murderers go, it’s such an old tradition.
That’s not logic, son, that’s called a “lame excuse”. I don’t think you’re going to get any buy-in from this site on that idea.
Here’s what the Iraqi VP and Prez need to do. Go on national tv, world tv, and say in ENGLISH, “WE WANT A TIMETABLE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF US FORCES FROM IRAQ.”
In about 6 months, after the election, the MSM will show it. Better late than never!
#52 should read JARED
June 16th, 2006 at 1:08 pmHey Jared, you’re all about the democratic process in Iraq, right?
Is 80% of the Iraqi public enough of a majority for you?
New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq
June 16th, 2006 at 1:15 pmMe thinks Judd was just on Al Franken. I caught the tail end. Was that him?
June 16th, 2006 at 1:17 pmBush said: “Iraqis had “concerns†that a timetable would disrupt their strategy to create a secure and democratic Iraq”
WTF? Secure? Democratic? What the hell does Bush have to do with those ideals and why would Iraqis ever associate them with the US staying indefinitely?
Our undemocratically elected president is on crack.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pmSo the President, Vice-president and Prime Minister don’t agree with the people at-large. What do you think this is, a democracy?
Looks like the wrong guys won the election again.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:39 pmAsking us for a timetable is NOT asking us to leave right this second. The Iraqi President could easily approach the world media and announce that he wants Americans out right now. He has not done that.
Furthermore, I am still seeing you guys act like Bush lied about prewar intelligence. I have not seen one thread of proof to that claim yet. While the Niger Uranium thing is interesting, it doesn’t show proof that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD’s, it was simply information that said Iraq was trying to buy more Uranium. Again, Bush’s main point for invading Iraq (initially) was that they had WMD and were a threat to America. The world’s intelligence agencies all seemed to agree at the time that Iraq did in fact have such weapons. What really strikes me as odd is that the Democrats saw all the same intelligence and voted for this war. Lastly, didn’t 97 out of 100 Senators just vote like yesterday to back the president’s plan?
Now, as a middle of the road type of guy I will answer your question from Parrotlover. I 100% agree that it is bad for The House, Senate, and the Presidency to all be run by 1 party (Democrat or Republican). I cannot agree with you that I should blindly go vote for whatever democrat is running this fall to fix it however. I would like to believe that people what for a canidate on there ideals and the issues they have plans for. BTW, I voted for Clinton in both of the elections. At this point the campaign season has just started and I haven’t done enough research on the canidates running. Being from Minnesota I can at least tell you this. I don’t care much for our Republican in the House. I also cannot stand Dayton in the Senate as him comes off as a bit crazy as well. Outside of those to offices, I need to do a bit more research.
As far as the 08′ election. I would never vote for Kerry or Hilary, but there are a number of Democrats I do like (Liberman, New Mexico’s Governer, and Obama). The republicans party is a bit more interesting. Will they go with a solid canidate I could “potentially” suuport like McCain or will they go with a far right guy like Frist which I find hard to support?
Not everyone in America is a little soldier voting straight across party lines regardless of the canidate or the party. Not all of us are far right or left extremists.
If we get a canidate that can back off social issues that don’t matter (flag burning, gay marriage, abortion “it doesn’t matter because neither party will actually do anything about it either way”) and proclaim to not increase government spending (probably my biggest issue), I could even go alone with taking back the tax cut we got. Basically, I want a rational person that looks to the future, speaks to the current problems we face, and has a specific plan (that they actually share with us) to combat them. It isn’t that hard to grasp and it doesn’t make me a republican.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe Iraqis want a timetable as to when we are goingto leave their country (and their oil)? That is no way to honor your liberator. Perhaps they will throw a ticker-tape parade for Supreme Leader Bush in gratitude. I hear there is a mad rush for Iraqi couples to name their first born child George.
This story is perfect proof that the fourth estate is dead. Can anyone imagine Bush getting away with this silliness if the mainstream media bothered to cover the story of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi asking for a timetable for withdrawal? Of course, vice presidents have a way of going off half cocked.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThe Bush Regime will never pull the troops out of Iraq and they also claim that Sen. Hillary Clinton, their paid stooge apparently, will not pull the troops out of Iraq for her 8 bogus years in the presidency!
June 16th, 2006 at 2:00 pmBush does not want to leave Iraq because in the Iraqi Constitution the US will get part of Iraq OIL.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:04 pmGod help us all if Hilary runs. I honestly want a true canidate that actually has a chance of winning to run for the Democrats. As it stands, the democrats better sweep both houses and the presidency or they just need to re-evaluate themselves. It is all ripe for the taking but HIlary will not get it done IMO.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:06 pmHilary is not running for president. Why do you Republican nut bring this up all the time?
I think Senator Russ Feingold will be our next President. GO RUSS GO!!!!!
He is the only one that cares about the American people.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:12 pmSKYNET will never give up control of Iraq. Skynet will be coming to a country near you soon!
June 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pm#67 If SkyNet takes control of the world, we would teleport a Terminator modelled after the Governor Schwarzenegger from the future to destroy the whole foundation of Skynet.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#67 What is SKYNET please?
June 16th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#46 – Briseadh na Faire
hey, a guy’s gotta have fun every once in awhile!
but thanks, I guess I did get a good take on His style, didn’t I?
You really did catch his style! Sorry, didn’t mean to be the taskmaster. ;)
June 16th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#69 – That’s a Terminator reference, Mary Poppin.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:24 pmjared –
And you won’t! Not without an investigation!
Apparently it is ok with you if your government commits all kinds of atrocities behind closed doors. As long as the crimes are covered up and you see no proof, you can dismiss all allegations.
Tell me, have you seen any proof that Osama bin Laden commited the acts on 9/11? Have you seen any proof that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda? Have you seen any proof that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s?
If you are going to commit killing and maiming civilians in the most horrific act of destruction mankind ever engages in, war, would you require proof? Or is is ok to kill people without proof of their guilt?
Your position sickens me. You support the Commander in Chief because there is no proof admitted into the public eye that he committed international war crimes. Yet is somehow ok to kill thousands of innocent people without proof that they had anything to do with terrorists.
Wake up! Bush STARTED a war! He is the aggressor. It is up to him to prove his actions were justified. And his proffered justifications are under a serious cloud of doubt.
Without a tribunal, there will never be any proof, of either guilt or innocence. If you demand proof, then you should be demanding an impeachment inquiry. Are you? Have you signed any petitions to that effect? Or are you content to let things be and remain complacent in your ignorance?
June 16th, 2006 at 2:26 pmIf the Iraqi’s one day ask us to leave and Bush says no, I will stand with you in protest. Currently, the Iraqi government has not asked us to leave, they have merely asked for our “time tableâ€.
Why do you think they asked us for a time table? I’m sure they are realistic enough to not to demand us to leave tomorrow. Its just not logistically possible. That is why they want us to show them that we are at least on our way out, but you can see how Bush responded. He tried to make it sound like they do not want the time table that they specifically asked for which is even worse than just saying “no”.
What part are you not understanding about the Iraqis wanting us to leave? In fact, I would like to ask you for proof that they ever wanted us to be there in the first place and that they now want us to stay.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:26 pmIf the Iraqi’s one day ask us to leave and Bush says no, I will stand with you in protest. Currently, the Iraqi government has not asked us to leave, they have merely asked for our “time tableâ€.
Okay, fine. Then let’s give them a damn time table. Do you think the time table they want is just 2006-2008: USA stays in Iraq. 2008-When We Are Done: USA still stays in Iraq. NO, they want to know when we are going to leave: a DATE to work towards. (A hell of a lot of them want us to leave now.) So instead of arguing “a time table doesnt mean they want us out now” then okay, fine. Bushy, go make a time table about WHEN we are going to leave in the future. Where is that even?
June 16th, 2006 at 2:33 pmAsking us for a timetable is NOT asking us to leave right this second.
Nobody is saying the Iraqi leaders are asking us to leave RIGHT NOW.
If asking Bush for a timeline for withdrawal is not a request (or even a HINT of a request) to leave, even by a future date, then what is it? Maybe Tariq al-Hashimi just likes to hear the sound of his own voice.
If your one week visit to Aunt Minnie in California turns into a 6 month stay, and today at the dinner table she says “I need to know when you are leaving,” then you don’t take that as a request to leave, or even a hint?
While the Niger Uranium thing is interesting, it doesn’t show proof that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD’s, it was simply information that said Iraq was trying to buy more Uranium.
“Interesting”? Bush was advised not to make the uranium claim in his speech, does so anyway, and you find it interesting? Maybe you see Bush’s inclusion of this information as a choice, instead of a lie. Regardless, this incident raises no red flag for you. Amazing.
In the end, the point is this: Bush knowingly passed along information that he knew was not accurate, but decided to do so anyway because he knew that it was one more reason he could use to convince America to support him in his quest to take out Saddam. It is my opinion that he also likely knew that if the public ever found out the truth, it would be too late because the invasion would already be complete.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:38 pmOh, and one more thing…
While the Niger Uranium thing is interesting, it doesn’t show proof that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD’s, it was simply information that said Iraq was trying to buy more Uranium.
And what did Bush further claim with this information? That Saddam wanted to reconstitute his nuclear weapon program. And remind us how nuclear weapons are classified? What kind of weapons? Huh? Huh?
June 16th, 2006 at 2:46 pmPerhaps the “time table” schreechers were weaned too soon. Patience, never a hallmark of the “MEEEEE” generation, is collectively exposed. They NEED “date certain” info – - NOW!! (throw temper tantrum to make point)
When my active duty brother and I spoke last night, he remarked how the Iraqis need to know we’ll not be in Iraq forever, but in no way shape or form should we allow the insurgents a time-table for organizational operations. He noted the great strides of Iraqis getting their security forces up and running. I wonder what the 42 Dems who voted FOR the re-affirmation resolution today know about their congressional districts that progs don’t…..Hmmmm…..
June 16th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThe Bush Regime will never pull the troops out of Iraq, nor Hillary Clinton if she gets into the presidency, but someday the people of Iraq will swarm over the walls of the fortress embassy, that Bush is building, and force the US out! Someday we will watch as a helicopter whisks the ambassador off the roof as Iraqis shoot at him! By then America will have lost a couple trillion down the rat hole of Iraq, but the Oil Cartels will have made off like bandits!
June 16th, 2006 at 3:23 pmWe are such terrible people wanting needless suffering and death to cease immediately. So immoral, we are.
Just to reaffirm what I said before: I don’t want no steenking timetable; I want us out now. (But that’s just me.) I also want the W tax breaks reversed and a socialized health care system for everybody — even those who cannot afford health care today. Just thinking of myself again! Silly selfish me!
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
I’m so selfish it hurts.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pmParrotlover, will you be voting for Hilary in 08? See doesn’t want to leave Iraq and doesn’t even want to set a timetable. What will the far left do with this women I wonder.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:30 pmTell you what, Parrot – I am a HUGE believer in volunteerism and charities. If you and your “compassionate” friends will jump out of my purse and wallet and donate YOUR $$$ to the poor and downtrodden and the “vile” wealthy can fund the charities and projects we support, think of how much good could be accomplished. When you wish to discuss “universal health care”, do take the time to talk to health care professionals in Detroit and Seattle. Living across the border from Windsor Ontario and Victoria BC, they see some of the problems with rationed government health dollars. But you are so busy taking OTHER PEOPLES MONEY and patting yourself on the back….not uncommon prog behaviour….
June 16th, 2006 at 3:40 pmHillary won the Democratic primaries for 2008 already? Weird, I don’t remember voting in them.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:02 pmDont forget this is the second time Bush has been asked to leave
Bush Will be asked again very publically at the next Arab-League which been posponed till August now and dont forget the UN mandate for occupation runs out in DEC 2006
READ THIS ONE
Nov 2005
The surprising degree of consensus reached by the main Iraqi factions at the Arab-League orchestrated Reconciliation Conference in Cairo last weekend sharply undercuts the unilateral, guns-and-puppets approach of the Bush administration to the deteriorating situation in Iraq. The common demand, by Shia and Kurds as well as Sunnis, for a timetable for withdrawal of occupation forces demolishes the administration’s argument that setting such a timetable would be a huge mistake. Who would know better—the Iraqis or the ideologues advising Bush?
The communiqué’s feisty tone was facilitated by the conspicuous and unexplained absence of U.S. representatives. By shunning the conference, administration officials missed the beginning of a process that has within it the seeds of real progress toward peace. In addition to more than 100 Shia, Sunni and Kurdish participants, the conference was attended by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran—but no U.S. officials. The gathering was strongly supported not only by the Arab League but also by the U.N., EU and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:08 pmHow about I talk to Canadians about the Canadian health care system. They love it. I am a widower and met a dear widowed friend in an online support group who lives in Canada. We swapped stories about our ill spouses experiences in the hospital. My god, man, I would have taken the Canadian health care system any day over what I went through and the amount I had to pay! Her husband had CF and had the most top-notch health care I have ever seen in my life — even a lung transplant! Sadly, he was in his mid-30s and there sometimes isn’t anything that can be done at that point. But at least she’s not in a financial burden from his his health care costs.
I just love it when right-wingers automatically assume left-wingers want social programs because they don’t donate to charitable causes privately. So, how much do you donate to charity? I offset my “carbon footprint” every month through donations to help build alternate energy plants, such as wind farms, solar plants, biomass plants, etc… I donate to various environmental, wildlife, and pet-oriented charitable causes I believe in too. And after that, I still want socialized programs to pick up the slack. I guess I’m just not a greedy little terd like the average “it ain’t my problem” right-winger.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pmNow Blair has been asked by the elected ruler of Iraq to leave by the end of the year. By what conceivable right does he refuse?
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday May 31, 2006
Both Bush and Blair seem to be deaf
Bush is showing so much neglect for the ordinary people of Iraq hes trying to starve them of medical goods, electricity, food and water until the Iraqi Govermet cant take any more and sign the oil contracts – Which will never happen
The world sees right though america
June 16th, 2006 at 4:18 pmGood news!!!! Your side has a new spokesMAN and ally – The PERVERT pedophile, Brian doyle, from Homeland Security (who got busted for wanting to have sex with a young teen girl), told”her”, “Bush is a nice guy, but not a good Pres. – No WMD’s + Liar” Read about it at huffington blog or yahoo news. A FINE spokesMAN – but huffington was SO disingenuous as to say simply, “Former Homeland Security official….blah, blah” – they kind of forgot the rest of Doyle’s credentials. In their alternative universe, Progs would likely believe a perv pedophile over a conservative EVERYDAY.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pmJerad,
Your stupidity is trumped only by your arrogance.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:43 pmMighty Aph – If one is not allowed to hold a political opinion that a criminal also holds, then the entire Republican platform is gone. Enron, anybody?
June 16th, 2006 at 5:07 pmBush & Cheney don’t really want to leave Iraq, so they’ll pretend they didn’t hear Iraqi leaders saying they want a timetable. BushCo wants to turn Iraq into a puppet state (permanent bases, control of their economy, etc), so we have to keep finding excuses to keep our troops there indefinitely.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:41 pmWe didn’t spend all this blood and treasure just so the Shiite majority could have elections and set up an Islamic state. The US National Security state needs puppet regimes, people.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:43 pmJared said “I am still seeing you guys act like Bush lied about prewar intelligence. I have not seen one thread of proof to that claim yet. ”
June 16th, 2006 at 5:56 pmApparently he doesn’t read too much because we have more proof that Bush lied than we have of Saddam having WMD’s or being connected to 9/11 as Bush claimed.
Except we have testimony from many who said Bush made up his mind to go to war long before the public was told, long before the inspectors were finished (then he just told them to leave before the bombs were dropped).
Bush and the Republicans have stymied all investigations that would have left no doubt in the minds of any American.
BnF says it very well in #72 - perhaps Jared could read it again and try to absorb some of it.
64# Bush does not want to leave Iraq because in the Iraqi Constitution the US will get part of Iraq OIL.
Comment by Mary Poppin — June 16, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
wrong :- Constitution of Iraq
Chapter Four: Powers of the Federal Authorities
Oil is defined as the property of all Iraqi people (Art. 109) and is to be managed by the federal government in conjunction with regional and provincial governments, Article 110 attempts to define how oil revenue is to be distributed among the country’s regions and provinces; however, beyond stating that it be done “fairly”, the constitution does not go into specifics. It also could be read as referring solely to “current” oil fields, not ones opened up in the future.
oil fields, not ones opened up in the future.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:59 pmYou will not in the month of sundays get these new contracts for new platforms do you think the people of Iraq want you to steal the countries wealth to pay for a war that has given them so much grief - NEVER –
do you think the people of Iraq want you to steal the countries wealth to pay for the failing American Economy - NEVER
#92
Bush wants to amend our Constitution to prohibit gays from marrying and people burning a piece of colored cloth. Do you really thinks he gives a sh*t about Iraq’s Constitution?
June 16th, 2006 at 6:07 pmVice President Tariq al-Hashimi
google the above name and see many papers carry this story from Isreal to China and more interesting and some more detailed
PS well done to Iraqs new prime minister for installing this guy – he is more honest than the last Idiot Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi
The re-appointment of Mahdi may yet provide the Bush Administration with its most important victory in the Iraq war since Saddam Hussein was pulled out of a rabbit hole in Tikrit. However, Mahdi’s Vice Presidency may also ultimately generate at least as much hostility towards the United States as the invasion itself.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:17 pmParrot – I must compliment you on wanting others to pay for your spouses hospital bills – at least you have the nerve to come right out and say so. I do get a laugh at the unmitigated gall you and other socialists have in thinking other people’s money belong to you or your “pet” (pun intended) causes. I have relatives in BC and Ontario and they often whine about “the wait for procedures”. (But they were ’60’s draft dodgers so what do you expect???
You donate enough to mitigate your cabon footprint??? Wow! You must have REALLY small feet!
From a leftist political point of view that “values privacy and choice”I do not feel rude in telling you it’s none of your business how much I donate to charity, but our accountant says we are generous. Frankly, I prefer anonymous donations – they are more sincere and reap no return for the giver.
I have to admit, alliteration does wonders for the question – what’s in a name? ProgressiveParrot sounds far better than SocialistParrot.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:37 pmbBS – I don’t believe Jack Abramoff on anything- including what time of day it is. But before you lose your last shred of credibility, better get those inconvenient FACTS straight – Delay has NOT been convicted. I AM curious to see the evdence you apparently don’t have to hear. (I don’ think that’s the definition of an “open mind”.) But more evidence you couldn’t have a conversation without the ad hominem attack if your soul depended on it (sorry atheists!!)
Harry Reid is an artful political spinner (the way all politicians,right, left or center are). He simply has the misfortune of exuding as much confident masculinity as a bowl of lukewarm tapioca pudding – this is NOT his fault – he is genetic pencil-neck. But to throw up “Ted the Swimmer” as a paragon of virtue?? I wouldn’t trust that mysogynist as a neighbor, babysitter, dog walker, gold fish feeder, uncle – not a thing!
June 16th, 2006 at 6:53 pmJared: You stated that you are 26. You also stated that you voted for Clinton in both elections. If you meant Hillary in 2000, that would have been the first year you could have voted. If you are 26, you CANNOT have voted for Bill Clinton in either presidential election, as you would have been 12 in 1992 and 16 in 1996. Clarification, please.
As for intelligence pre-Iraq invasion, and “everyone” believing that Saddam has WMDs, NO, NOT TRUE. Those of us who get our news from places other than the MSM, such as the BBC, foreign newspapers, the Duelfer Report, Hans Blix’s reports, the IARC’s reports, etc., KNEW that Saddam could have, at most, a very small amount of WMDs. Scott Ritter said that as of 1998 98% of all weapons had been found and destroyed or disabled.
Do you think Saddam could have reconstituted weaponry after the inspectors, AT CLINTON’S REQUEST, were kicked out in 1998? How? We have satellite surveillance capable of reading newspaper headlines from orbit. Saddam was under international interdiction, and if he were importing large amounts of materials needed to build new weapons, this would have been discovered.
Also, the Bush Administration was talking out of both sides of its mouth. They kept claiming that we could end up under a mushroom cloud (the weapons they had during Iraq War I weren’t capable of reaching us anyway). They bloviated about what a huge threat he was to us. They also were saying at the same time that the war was going to be a “cake walk”. So that was another clue that they weren’t telling the truth.
I knew this at the time leading up to the invasion, and I’m a lowly nobody with no access to classified information. So did plenty of others know this. I and my friends were watching the buildup to the war in horror, thinking, he CAN’T be serious, because we all knew that Saddam was no longer a threat. If we could know this by reading and researching, others could have as well.
Yes, many Democrats in Washington decided to support the war. This is to their everlasting shame. Their mail before the war was running 70-80% against the war, but they chose to support the war nonetheless, and to allow themselves to go along with what they should have admitted to themselves was false information, because they believed it would play better politically. I wrote letters to all of the Democrats supporting the war at the time and told them that if they ran for the Presidency, I would not vote for them in the primaries, and I didn’t in 2004, nor will I in 2008. They are just as complicit as the Republicans in this. But I will support Feingold or Clark or Gore or others who had the courage and the intelligence to come out against the war back in 2003.
Damn it, we who opposed this war were RiGHT!!! We deserve some respect for this, and our opinions should carry more weight than those who supported this misbegotten abortion of a war!!!
June 16th, 2006 at 7:24 pmWhen the truth is “inconvenient”, say the opposite and get the boys in the House to pass a supportive resolution. The good folks in this country are adept accepting inconvenient truths as lies, this is just another classic example.
June 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am[...] Al-Rubaie joins the Iraqi president, Iraqi vice president, and Iraqi prime minister in calling for a withdrawal to begin soon. [...]
June 20th, 2006 at 1:15 pm[...] Bush was even dishonest about the Iraqi government asking us to withdrawl. They don’t even want us in Iraq anymore. [...]
July 7th, 2006 at 2:58 pm