Bush: 'I take responsibility' for federal failures after Katrina
- Thread starter hbk409
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 175
- Views 12K
- Status
Horse excrement!!!!!!!!Sean Mota said:
The only one that can give anyone permission or authority to act on behalf of Iraq is the Iraqi government. The government we are protecting until it can build a military force. Be very careful what you say now or you will legitimize another one of Bush's reasons for the Iraq war... Al Qaeda. Are you saying that Bush drove them out and he was right??? Saddam had Bin Laden connections???The iraqi people were Bin Laden supporters???
But we were told that we would be in Iraq for weeks or months.CPanther95 said:
February 7, 2003
Rumsfeld: "It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html
March 16, 2003
Cheney: "weeks rather than months"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer
EEJay said:
I believe we were told that the conflict with the Iraqi forces would be for weeks or months. We're not fighting the Iraqi forces anymore.
Mario
Please read the article I posted for Rumsfeld
"We don't talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
We are still using force to this day.
"We don't talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
We are still using force to this day.
EEJay said:
I did read it. He was refering to how long the conflict with Iraq would last. He was right, it was a short conflict. The current fighting is with the various terrorist groups who do not have the support of Iraq. The administration has made it clear, from the beginning, that we will fight terrorism as long as we need to.
Mario
OK, that's a good argument. I don't want to go back and forth here and let the sh*t fly, especially when any side is unlikely to change the other's mind, so I'll just make one last statement.mperdue said:
If the administration believed we would fight the Iraqi forces for a short period of time, where do they predict, if at all, how long we would fight an insurgency like we have. In the link I posted about Rumsfeld, he does address a post-war Iraq, but in regards to our obligation to build a nation that won't threaten its neighbors, won't have WMDs, etc. The Washington Post article I just posted about Cheney quotes Tim Russert asking if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle." It quotes Cheney as replying "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . " But we are still battling, and Russert's question didn't specifically ask how long we would battle the Iraqi forces, only how long we would battle.
Since we are still in Iraq two years after the fall of Baghdad, with no prior estimate of how long we would be there after the defeat of the Iraq army, that only lends credit to the belief that there was little thought put into the post-war operations.
I do agree that the "administration has made it clear, from the beginning, that we will fight terrorism as long as we need to." That's inarguable. It just seems to some that they may not have predicted that we would have to do so in Iraq for as long as we have.
I'm out. Everyone enjoy their weekend.
EEJay said:
the rest was an "it could be" statement. For those that speak english it is very clear that the length of the conflict was known. He also said "I doubt it will be 6 months". If you think those are absolutes then Id like to do some contracting business with you.
vurbano said:
CSB! Much better than the chicken-sh*t coward who failed in protecting our border from the Mexican hordes before deserting - wonder if he loses sleep over the lives of those who died in his stead because their daddy wasn't a senator with enough pull to jump them over the hundreds of men in the waiting list for the guard???
You think maybe these new terrorists have come to Iraq BECAUSE the U.S. is there? We used to be disliked around the world, and hated in the middle east. 9/11 happens and the world sympathizes with us for the first time. We had the world in our palms (except the middle east) and Bush found someway to f**k that all up again, and make them hate us worse than before.
Imagine if you're living in england or japan, and instead of a "bond" type gentleman of a US President they see this smirking, goofy dolt of a man standing there on their televisions proclaiming to represent americans. Yeah, gee thanks for making the world think we're all retarded cowboys who couldn't run a business to save our lives and couldn't find oil in texas...He's a 50 year old man with the mind of a 10 year old, and he's the leader of the free world. How that doesn't strike fear into you I don't know...
Oh, BTW, whatever happened to those Weapons of Mass Destruction? Hmm?? Hmm???
Imagine if you're living in england or japan, and instead of a "bond" type gentleman of a US President they see this smirking, goofy dolt of a man standing there on their televisions proclaiming to represent americans. Yeah, gee thanks for making the world think we're all retarded cowboys who couldn't run a business to save our lives and couldn't find oil in texas...He's a 50 year old man with the mind of a 10 year old, and he's the leader of the free world. How that doesn't strike fear into you I don't know...
Oh, BTW, whatever happened to those Weapons of Mass Destruction? Hmm?? Hmm???
how does Iraq have anything to do with taking responsibility for Katrina ???
this topic has gone way off base, should it be closed ?
NOTE: Edited had quoted something wrong, sorry.
this topic has gone way off base, should it be closed ?
NOTE: Edited had quoted something wrong, sorry.
T2k said:Bush is pretty much like vurbano: they don't have problem with their own simplicity.
Matt said:It is not very hard to invision vurbano playing in
"Sen McCarthy => The No - Return Of The Real Dead !"
sticks and stones Comrades
mperdue said:
Bingo
but they are not there because we are there. they are there because freedom and democracy are there. Something that threatens the stranglehold their religious dictators have over the inhabitants in the region.vurbano said:Bingo
Based on that argument then they should be over here in the U.S. where there is freedom and democracy. They should also be in Iran since it has democratically elected leaders and the way things appear to be going in Iraq, it will be ruled like Iran. I hope you folks can stomach that. By the way, you really can't argue that Sadam was a religious dictator. You can make a good argument that he was a dictator supported by the U.S. for many years especially under Reagan but in those days, we didn't care about democracy for others, we just wanted friendly dictators who would do what we wanted. They were our friends because we shared common enemies regardless of any other distateful actions they took such as using chemical weapons like Sadam. I'd swear some folks around here have there head so far up Bush's ass that if they were on the surface of Mercury they wouldn't need sunglasses.
- Status
Similar threads
