I think the President's impromtu press conference back fired on him. I think his advisors advised him to talk to the Nation amidst his lowest approval rate ever... to try and reassure the country.. but instead, he's divided the country even further. Basically wiping his hands clean of all responsibility in returning our troops home. The man is an asshole.

 

March 22, 2006

Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, March 21 — President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009.

 

In a quick remark at a White House news conference about the reserves of political strength he earned in his 2004 re-election victory — "I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war" — Mr. Bush in effect acknowledged that until he could convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the United States was winning the war, Iraq would overshadow everything he did.

 

Later, in response to a question about whether a day would come when there would be no more American forces in Iraq, he said that "future presidents and future governments of Iraq" would make that decision.

 

That statement was one of the few he has made that provides insight into his thinking about the duration of the American commitment in Iraq, and signaled that any withdrawal of troops would extend beyond his term in office.

 

Mr. Bush asserted that Iraq was not in a civil war, and took issue with Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister and White House ally, who said Sunday that it was. The president also said repeatedly that he was convinced that the United States would succeed in Iraq and that he would continue to deliver that message across the country.

 

"I'm going to say it again: if I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there," he said at the nearly hourlong session in the White House press briefing room. "I wouldn't put those kids there."

 

The president's news conference was part of a White House campaign to convince Americans that there is good news in Iraq, not only the daily bloodshed they see on television. The session with reporters was sandwiched in between a series of presidential Iraq speeches — Washington last Tuesday, Cleveland this last Monday and Wheeling, W. Va., scheduled for Wednesday — and like them, projected a tone of qualified optimism.

 

Mr. Bush admitted mistakes and acknowledged chaos on the ground, but emphatically asserted that the situation would improve.

 

"I've heard people say, 'Oh, he's just kind of optimistic for the sake of optimism,' " he told reporters. "Well, look, I believe we're going to succeed. And I understand how tough it is. Don't get me wrong. I mean, you make it abundantly clear how tough it is. I hear it from our troops. I read the reports every night. But I believe the Iraqis — this is a moment where the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they didn't. And that's a positive development."

 

The speech tactic worked in late 2005 when another series of Iraq addresses helped to stabilize the president's poll numbers temporarily. But analysts said that with his message now familiar to the nation, it was not clear whether people were listening.

 

"The problem with the speeches is they get gradually more realistic, but they are still exercises in spin," said Anthony Cordesman, a military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "They don't outline the risks. They don't create a climate where people trust what's being said."

 

White House officials are hopeful that the communications offensive by Mr. Bush will stop the decline that has sunk his job approval ratings to the lowest levels of his presidency, but some military analysts said they were skeptical because he announced no new policies in his news conference or in his speeches.

 

"This particular series confuses me about what it is trying to accomplish," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military specialist at the Brookings Institution. "It's been a bad winter in Iraq, but I also don't think he has enough new to say, and it's too soon after the fall speeches."

 

The war in Iraq bled into most questions at the news conference. Mr. Bush once again strongly endorsed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in response to a question about whether he should step down, as some members of Congress are demanding.

 

"No, I don't believe he should resign," Mr. Bush said. "I think he's done a fine job of not only conducting two battles, Afghanistan and Iraq, but also transforming our military, which has been a very difficult job inside the Pentagon."

 

He added: "Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy, not just the war plan we executed in Iraq, but the war plans that we have been executed throughout the history of warfare."

 

Mr. Bush's mood at the news conference alternated between relaxed and testy, although he appeared to be trying hard not to show his irritation at some reporters. In one exchange, Helen Thomas, the longtime White House correspondent and Hearst newspaper columnist, asked Mr. Bush why he really wanted to go to war with Iraq. He curtly replied that "to assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect."

 

At another point, he took on a peevish tone when asked about Democratic measures in Congress to censure him for his secret surveillance program. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows that a majority of Americans support the program as long as they believe it is intended to protect them from terrorism.

 

"I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Mr. Bush said. He added, in a formulation similar to his campaign speeches portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, that "they ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used."

 

He used the same question to take on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, over the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, although no reporter had brought up either the Patriot Act or Mr. Reid.

 

"He openly said, as I understand, I don't want to misquote him, something along the lines that, 'We killed the Patriot Act,' " Mr. Bush said, referring to Democrats and a handful of Republicans who temporarily held up renewal of the law because of concerns that it was infringing on civil liberties.

 

"If that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so," Mr. Bush said.

 

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, responded that Mr. Bush's remarks were "part of his standard talking points, but the reality is that Senator Reid strongly supported the bill that was signed into law by the president." Mr. Reid also issued a statement on Tuesday with the headline, "We see no end to Bush's dangerous incompetence."

 

In the news conference, the president strongly defended his staff against calls from Republicans in Congress for new blood in the White House and complaints that the West Wing is adrift.

 

"These are good, hard-working, decent people," he said. "And we've dealt with a lot." He added that there was natural Congressional anxiety in an election year.

 

"I can remember '02 before the elections, there were a certain nervousness," he said. "There was a lot of people in Congress who weren't sure I was going to make it in '04, and whether or not I'd drag the ticket down. So there's a certain unease as you head into an election year. I understand that."

 

Asked if he planned to bring to the White House an experienced Washington insider who could quell concerns among Republicans in Congress, Mr. Bush replied, "Well, I'm not going to announce it right now."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/politics/22prexy.html?pagewanted=all

 

*you may have to be registered to view the actual article*

yeah, I read this...I can't believe anyone could agree with the feeling that the Iraq war is going well and that they are winning. (it's actually possible that civil war is what bush and co. now want....and bombing that mosque was a good start)

I love how he says "oh.. the troops will be there for as long as they need to be.... and it won't be me to bring them home.. but some other guy." :rolleyes: winner.

yeah' date=' I read this...I can't believe anyone could agree with the feeling that the Iraq war is going well and that they are winning. (it's actually possible that civil war is what bush and co. now want....and bombing that mosque was a good start)[/quote']

 

 

yeah because you know bush wants to war to go even more bad and look worse in america eye, that his exact goal....i bet next he'll just start going and robbing banks in america to make people hate him more and all....geez do you actaully listen to yourself?

yeah because you know bush wants to war to go even more bad and look worse in america eye' date=' that his exact goal....i bet next he'll just start going and robbing banks in america to make people hate him more and all....geez do you actaully listen to yourself?[/quote']

 

 

one could ask you the same, my dear kettle. :kiss:

yeah because you know bush wants to war to go even more bad and look worse in america eye' date=' that his exact goal....i bet next he'll just start going and robbing banks in america to make people hate him more and all....geez do you actaully listen to yourself?[/quote']

 

 

It's quite obvious you aren't informed on the situation and can only respond with a poor attempt at a joke?....you were trying to be funny weren't you?..?

 

anyway....don't post in these threads if you have nothing useful/constructive to say. Geoege W would be proud of you. I'm actually feeling sympathy for people that are as socially/politically blind as you. You are going to be dragged along by any government.

Hey remember and look at the type of people we are dealing with here...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3570845.stm

 

Video about the IRAQ "Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bushjoke.wmv

Can ANYONE argue against this man's lack of intelligence? I've never heard even extreme conservatives brag about his genius.

 

Because he's an idiot.

 

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of those troops were laughing while they were looking under tables for WMDs. Then got their faces blown off and sent home in a casket with a shitty flag draped over it. No black tie dinner jokes for them. Just a solemn funeral and an empty promise of bringing security to their families.

 

This is a typical "cover my ass"/"cut and run" strategy coming from Bush. It's obvious the Iraqi war has failed. Ok, so we got them the ability to vote. And I'm extremely happy for that, I do love to see those images of the innocent citizens smiling and feeling that huge sense of accomplishment that comes along with voting. But what good has that REALLY done? Iraq is basically having a civil war at the moment, it's over run by insurgents, people are killed each day in any range of attacks. And what I hear from people in official offices is talk about not IF we'll ever have another terrorist attack. But when. And how will it be carried out.

 

 

So if we're all so positive that yes we will be attacked again, then what are we doing in Iraq? Carrying out our flimsy Manifest Destiny? Those in power, in the US, need to accept their mistakes and apologize for them. Take the troops out now, and end this.

 

 

Nick, maybe if you articulated yourself better we could take your point of view seriously. Please try to.

Nick' date=' maybe if you articulated yourself better we could take your point of view seriously. Please try to.[/quote']

 

Good points.

ahhh so this is what 'intelligent discussion' is like....... :nice: bless you both an_cat and Gareth!! :kiss:

It's quite obvious you aren't informed on the situation and can only respond with a poor attempt at a joke?....you were trying to be funny weren't you?..?

 

anyway....don't post in these threads if you have nothing useful/constructive to say. Geoege W would be proud of you. I'm actually feeling sympathy for people that are as socially/politically blind as you. You are going to be dragged along by any government.

 

im informed but i use reason and common sense....something you should try sometime.

Can ANYONE argue against this man's lack of intelligence? I've never heard even extreme conservatives brag about his genius.

 

Because he's an idiot.

 

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of those troops were laughing while they were looking under tables for WMDs. Then got their faces blown off and sent home in a casket with a shitty flag draped over it. No black tie dinner jokes for them. Just a solemn funeral and an empty promise of bringing security to their families.

 

This is a typical "cover my ass"/"cut and run" strategy coming from Bush. It's obvious the Iraqi war has failed. Ok, so we got them the ability to vote. And I'm extremely happy for that, I do love to see those images of the innocent citizens smiling and feeling that huge sense of accomplishment that comes along with voting. But what good has that REALLY done? Iraq is basically having a civil war at the moment, it's over run by insurgents, people are killed each day in any range of attacks. And what I hear from people in official offices is talk about not IF we'll ever have another terrorist attack. But when. And how will it be carried out.

 

 

So if we're all so positive that yes we will be attacked again, then what are we doing in Iraq? Carrying out our flimsy Manifest Destiny? Those in power, in the US, need to accept their mistakes and apologize for them. Take the troops out now, and end this.

 

 

Nick, maybe if you articulated yourself better we could take your point of view seriously. Please try to.

 

 

extreme conservatives have no need to brag about their intelligence because they know showing it does more then bragging about it...but im not a extreme conservative.

 

taking the troops out now would be the worste thing possible to do EVER. because its not to late to end this atleast with some good. its not going to end very well, but we still have a chance to make thing better and it will take time. leaving now would only cause twice as much iraqi's to die along with terrorist to take control of the whole country and set up another base like they did in afganistan. atleast now they are fighting our troops instead of launching an offensive on america. the war will not turn out like bush wanted it but there still is chance to make things better. we owe it to the iraqi's to atleast do that, leaving now would help no one but the terrorist.

 

when im serious and articulate you guys dont, its now how i say it, its what i have to say....

im informed but i use reason and common sense....something you should try sometime.

 

....

 

I wish you well, I really do.

Actually, we're all using common sense and reason, all in our own way. It's just some of us actually like to back up what we think with proven data/quotes/etc. It's what all scholarly, thoughtful people have to do if they ever want to be taken seriously. I can hardly read what you have to say because the grammer's so horrible. If you want to debate someone, you need to articulate yourself the best that you can. That way someone listens to you as an intelligent, informed person. Instead of just blowing you off as someone shooting their mouth off. I'm not going to do that to you, though, because I am fairly interested in what you have to say. Just not how you say it. So leave name calling out of it, this is a scholarly debate. [/end_sermon]

 

On the topic of withdrawing troops from Iraq, I think it's completely necessary to end this now. Our economy is going down the tubes. The cost has surpassed what anyone could have been predicted when the war began in 2003. In fact, here are some nifty, ironic quotes for everyone's enjoyment:

 

Donald Rumsfeld: “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.” [source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]

 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

 

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

 

Pretty damn amusing now, huh? Actually. I think it's sickening. And now they'll deny ever having said that. Pathetic people.

 

 

Our men and women are dying. I can't help it that I want these people to be alright, I want them to come home. I'm sick of hearing about people having their heads blown off by IEDs, or enemy fire. I just can't stand it anymore.

 

If you're actually mildly interested in how many people have died so far, I direct your attention here: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

 

Sadly, this IS an antiwar site. I'm sure you will simply ignore it. I advise you don't, though. It would be a close-minded thing to do, to shield yourself from the truth. There are a number of people now who are numbers who aren't coming home.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

 

Another good resource to stay up to date on. I certainly check it often. Just to remind myself how POINTLESS this all is. Oh, yeah, these people are being killed by insurgents. It's not US who's killing them. Well, actually, there have been thousands of Iraqis killed by American/Allied fire or bombs, or whatever they're using now. Think of how many places we've tried hitting that were "known" terrorist hide outs. Think of all the ones that WEREN'T. There's a very real, very human toll to this "goodness" we bring to these people. Iraqs getting worse, not better. These aren't the "good ol' days" of war play. These wars that we're waging aren't cut and dry, with treaties and cease fires. It's no different from Vietnam, with no clear motive, organization or end in site. It's just a bloody mess. And Bush is now saying "Well, guess what everybody. We're stuck there for a LOOONG time. So suck my dick, 64% of the country! It's the next dude's problem!".

 

Pardon my englaise. But I get pretty heated when I think about the waste of life, money and time this has cost us all. And the fact that people are actually HAPPY we're there is beyond my comprehension.

Again, great post/read (if 'great' is actually a suitable adjective for such issues).

I also have recently read about the cost of this 'war' and it's astronomical.

 

I looked at The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures....

 

Costs for Iraq war:

 

*Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion.

*Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month.

*Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion.

*Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month.

 

It's just absurd.

 

And the real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion - Up to 10 times more than previously thought (according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist (Joseph Stiglitz) and a Harvard budget expert (Linda Bilmes).

(Sorce: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html)

You can't argue with the numbers. They're there, hardcore proof of the lies this administration fed to us to get the majority of this country to go along with it.

 

(I was never one of those people, just for the record.)