Civil war? Where? Move on, there's no civil war here...
Posted on 11/28/2006 8:12:03 AM PST by Mo1
President Bush, under pressure to change direction in Iraq, said Tuesday he will not be persuaded by any calls to withdraw American troops before the country is stabilized.
"There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said in a speech setting the stage for high-stakes meetings with the Iraqi prime minister later this week. "We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
YAY President Bush!!!
"We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."
That is called being a Commander in Chief.
Well shucks! He just dashed my hopes for Barbara Streisand having to wear a mandatory burqa.
please allow the troops to fight instead of hamstringing them then.
"Pull out"???
Doesn't sound manly to me!
YEA!
This is my President, excellent.
Good. The troops themselves deserve that.
My nephew for one has killed and seen too much death to come home empty handed with an incomplete or failed mission.
Then wth would it all have been for?
"I say leave it in there, and get the job done".
It is claptrap that the troops are being hamstrung.
He gave another excellent speech .. though only FNC aired it
For oil, and Halliburton, of course,
I say pull out partially, and then reinsert with overwhelming force, then repeat until the job is completely done!
Good job, W, now let's go win! Dems must now decide whether they are willing to bear the blame for the disaster of pulling out by cutting funding for the war. No chance they will do it, IMHO.
But but but... didn't our new commandress in chief Nanci tell us that this was not a war to be won but a situation to be resolved (by quitting)? I am so confused. (/sheeple_off)
I'm confused.
bttt
"There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is com"
In other Words, "bite me Chuck Hagel!"
Re-invaded Baghdad and the Anbar province with overwhelming force and if the Southern provinces revolt than crush them as well with overwhelming force. Enough is enough.
Re-invade Baghdad and the Anbar province with overwhelming force and if the Southern provinces revolt than crush them as well with overwhelming force. Enough is enough.
I am relieved to hear he has taken anything less than victory off the table. Let's win.
That is called being in denial.
What statement? I don't recall him saying any such thing.
As you know the President can veto any bill if it does not have two third majority in both houses of Congress and it is impossible for get two third of Congress to vote cut the troops in both Houses of Congress with this is slim democrat majority. Anyway, I think at least 10% of democrats in the House and the Senate, in particular those from red conservative states and districts will not vote to cut the funding to the troops because they know that they will be finished in the next elections. So there is no need for a Presidential veto on this matter, the bill will not even pass in Congress.
I hope we won't pull out, but I'm concerned that this is more rhetoric than reality. (Read my lips...no withdrawal.)
What we should do is bomb the Triangle of Death, take out the Mahdi Army, make it clear to Iran that we'll target them next if they don't stop supporting the terrorists, send in some more Special Forces (maybe withdraw some artillery), and train the Iraqi police and military while we're doing these things and after, so that eventually they can take over. And we need to stop prosecuting our own troops on the word of the enemy for doing their job. If the terrorists are hiding among the population of a village, we have NO choice but to attack that village. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidalbe.
When did the President say that he will pull out the troops? Please do not spread lies.
THE PRESIDENT: "Right. No, you and Hunt and Keil came in the Oval Office, and Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they’re going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."
It doesn't quite have the ring of "Ther eis no substitute for victory," but it will do, as long as we actually stick with it.
This is called fighting until we win and no cutting and running like cowards.
Amen.
You should be .. because he never said we'd cut and run
I'm looking for it now.
Did find a statement made August 21, 2006 where he gave the year 2009 for a troop pullout....
Maybe I misread something. Not the first time.
Bush also said that Rumsfeld would serve until the end of his term, and then fired the man a week later (and admitted, when he did it, that he was planning to do so when he said he wasn't).
You only need to lie once to the public about something big, and you lose credibility when you say the next big thing.
I hope the President is being truthful this time. But after the Rumsfeld firing, we cannot be sure he is.
I think you are right, when it comes down to tactical orders.
But as long as the Iranian border is not sealed, and the Syrian border is not sealed, and the likes of Mookie al-Sadr are still showing a pulse, the overall effect is the same.
I 100 percent agree with him. I just wish we could send him the bill!!!!! That is my main concern over this whole thing. I mean we are spending 1 million a day with no end in sight!!!!! Who is going to pay for it? Otherwise I love the patriotism the U.S. has right now with the normal people (99 percent) and the fact that we are helping the Iraqi's and that we will have a great country to help us in the War on Terror once they are straightened out. Am I the only one concerned about the cost?????
Your tag line says support the commander in chief but if you the think the commander in chief will do any of these things you are barking up the wrong tree. At most, he'll send a few thousand more troops in the short time troops and try to speed up training of the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi army. In other words, look forward to more of the same.
Great job Bush
What a nutty statement.
Whew....I have been waiting for weeks...since the election to hear him say those words...
Take that Baker group...and all of you weinies like Hagel, Levin...and all of the rest!
that's "in the short term"
Psst..He was joking.
Go President Bush!!!
Carl Levin is deeply saddened.
The statement I found for that date was the Pres saying we wouldn't leave as long as he's president. Not saying that we would pull out then but saying that he can't guarantee what the next president would do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.