Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That'd be the point of a '****burger'. You leave it for the next guy to sort out and take the hit on.

Nonsense. A job undone or done incorrectly does not imply willful negligence or premeditation.

Do you truly think any President including the twit W honestly wants to set the next President up to fail?

As opposed to themselves? Yes.

Wow how cincial you have become. I thought myself a cinic. I actually give the Presidents a bit of credit in that they wish the best for the country.

[Patroklos]

Since the invasion, almost 300,000 people have died in Iraq, mostly from the complete collapse of services. About 30,000 have died in combat. That latter number is the number tha most people will admit to America being responsible for, even though we created the collapse in services as well.

We've run the country for three years. Saddam ran the country for 30. He killed 300,000 people over that time. That's 10,000 a year. Using the smaller number, we've killed 30,000 over three years. That's 10,000 a year.

How are the Iraqi people better off?

I don't think I have ever seen a larger log of BS, especially the bolded part.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So? Doesn't mean it was left for someone else to clean up and point of the matter was he kept Truman so in the dark that it bordered on negligence on FDR's part not to have reasonable succession planning.

You think that Presidents tell their VP's every bit of national security information?

You think Dan Quayle knew everything about the USSR's dealings that George H.W. Bush did?! Are you insane?

Different than W in what regard? Hostilites ended and troops were there to pacify the region.

Actually hostilities continued even while they were involved in negotiations for a cease fire since 1951. Eisenhower was pissy that they weren't making more progress. Truman was actually doing something to move forward and try not to saddle the next guy by getting involved in negotiations to end the war.

So? He saw the handwriting on the wall knew he couldn't win and chickened out from running another term. Cowardice plain and simple. The complete abdication of responsibility if you ask me.

Oh please . This may be the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread. He 'abdicated responsibility' by looking at his approval ratings in a DEMOCRACY and deciding that the people didn't want him in office anymore? It took more courage to do what he did and put his pride to the side than to go to the barricades again.

I think LBJ was a bad President, but I can't fault him for his decision to not run again. He knew it'd be better for the country to have other individuals run for the office.

And yes, he did end up leaving a mess. But he didn't seem to be delaying so the other guy would clean it up... he was inable to really change the situation at the time (as was Nixon for most of his administration).

That sounds vague familiar. Where have I heard that before? Ohhhh yeah its what we say about W.

Please... Clinton was attempting to end the conflict by Dayton, the establishment of some independant authority for Kosovo. Actually, I fail to see what kind of '****burger' he's left for Bush at all. I don't recall Bush having to do anything about the Balkans in his term of office.

Unless, say, what Bush is doing, which is saying 'screw it', we'll just do the same thing and wait for the new guy to try to end it. There is no attempts at progressing here, even in the face of countervailing evidence (ie, there may be a Civil War coming soon, Georgie Boy).

Nonsense. A job undone or done incorrectly does not imply willful negligence or premeditation.

Please. Presidents don't want to take hits on certain issues. If they can leave it for the next guy to take the hit on, they will... especially if that next guy is from the other party.

Difference is most Presidents decide to do this in the last year of their Presidency. Bush is deciding this with 2+ years to go.

Think of it as a guy retiring. This guy could work on what needs to be done until he leaves. Sure somethings would be left for someone else, but that's inevitable. Or the guy could, with 3 months remaining, look at some of the harder work and say "the next guy will take care of it". The point was being made that Bush is acting like the 2nd guy. Some Presidents have indeed acted that way on certain issues (if you want to blame Clinton for a ****burger... talk about medicare), but in foriegn policy, and the examples you've stated, the norm hasn't been to be the 2nd guy.

[MrFun]

For the first time during both of his terms of his presidency, Bush is forthright and honest about what he really wants.

[Chemical Ollie]

Hey Ted, let's bury the axe! We have agreed on 99% in this topic the last two years, so it was unnecessary of me to bring up things from further back and troll you into reverting back to the "dark side". You're one of four guys on my Apolyton buddy list, and I want to keep you there. You're a skilled and witty debater when you put some efforts into it, but in this thread I appearantly stepped on some very sore toes and trolled you into losing your temper. Let's both chill before Ming "help" us doing it. Have a beer and relax!

I still don't agree with your last posts and I had mentally prepared to write a long and detailed reply to explain why, but I think it would be unwise to continue throwing dirt at each other. War is wrong, and I'm not going to start one against you. I will step down if you do the same.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So? Doesn't mean it was left for someone else to clean up and point of the matter was he kept Truman so in the dark that it bordered on negligence on FDR's part not to have reasonable succession planning.

You think that Presidents tell their VP's every bit of national security information?

You think Dan Quayle knew everything about the USSR's dealings that George H.W. Bush did?! Are you insane?

BY and large I would say Veeps in the past are well informed. Or perhaps this is moreso a Republican phenomen moreso than a Democratic one.

For example it was widely understood that Eisenhower and Nixon were very effective as a team and that as Veep nixon was an exceptionally strong one.

Whilst Kennedy essentially isolated LBJ.

LBJ and Humphrey were also likely well in tune.

Nixon and Agnew yep. Agnew being Nixons pitbull until the inevitable scandal caused his (Agnew's) resignation.

Ford and Rockefeller, I honestly couldn't say. They were both transitional anyway.

Carter and Mondale, well that first assumes that Carter was in the know so that Mondale could be informed/consulted.

Reagan and Bush Sr. by and large, yes I think Bush Sr was well advised of situations (Iran Contra aside )

Bush Sr and Quayle, obviously no I don't think so but then it calls into question the competencyof the running mate now doesn't it.

Clinton and Gore. I don't think Gore was well connected as he wasn't in the inner circle.

That leaves W and Cheney. the answer is of course Cheny is aware of teh goings on of the Presidency.

So grand total since Eisenhower the Republicans have 4 of 5 veeps well in the know with Ford and Rockefeller being unknowns.

On the Dem side we have 1 of 4 veeps being in the know.

Of these that were war presidents

Ike, Johnson, Nixon (Agnew), Bush Sr, and W, 4 out of 5 were keeping their Veeps fully in the know with the only exception being VP Quayle for obvious reasons.

Different than W in what regard? Hostilites ended and troops were there to pacify the region.

Actually hostilities continued even while they were involved in negotiations for a cease fire since 1951. Eisenhower was pissy that they weren't making more progress. Truman was actually doing something to move forward and try not to saddle the next guy by getting involved in negotiations to end the war.

And we still have troops stationed there today.

So? He saw the handwriting on the wall knew he couldn't win and chickened out from running another term. Cowardice plain and simple. The complete abdication of responsibility if you ask me.

Oh please . This may be the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread.

Save your responses perhaps.

He 'abdicated responsibility' by looking at his approval ratings in a DEMOCRACY and deciding that the people didn't want him in office anymore? It took more courage to do what he did and put his pride to the side than to go to the barricades again.

By that logic, W is a paragon of courage to state the obvious that it will take a sizeable chunk of time and that, guess what, troops will likely stay there far outside his administration like they had to in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.

I think LBJ was a bad President, but I can't fault him for his decision to not run again. He knew it'd be better for the country to have other individuals run for the office.

And yes, he did end up leaving a mess. But he didn't seem to be delaying so the other guy would clean it up... he was inable to really change the situation at the time (as was Nixon for most of his administration).

What crack are you smoking? The first part of course he was a bad president to that point we agree. But come off it if there was ever a "stay the cours" approach that you seem so averse to it was LBJ's. The arguement that there wasn't time to effect a change, Holy crap we were in there from 64-68 during his admin with the situation escalating and US casualties in a single week outpacing the casualties of the Iraq over 3 years. No change in policy or for that matter tactics nada.

Inable to really change the sitaution at the time my ass. Problem was as you seem to apply to W was he didn't try. Nixon did try new and different means to apply the needed pressure to bring the war to a halt.

That sounds vague familiar. Where have I heard that before? Ohhhh yeah its what we say about W.

Please... Clinton was attempting to end the conflict by Dayton, the establishment of some independant authority for Kosovo. Actually, I fail to see what kind of '****burger' he's left for Bush at all. I don't recall Bush having to do anything about the Balkans in his term of office.

The requirement of US troops stationed to maintain the peace sound familiar?

Unless, say, what Bush is doing, which is saying 'screw it', we'll just do the same thing and wait for the new guy to try to end it. There is no attempts at progressing here, even in the face of countervailing evidence (ie, there may be a Civil War coming soon, Georgie Boy).

Yup same old thing attempting to apply a means to allow a self determing government to form and holding down the fort until that happens.

Unless of course you have better ideas?

Nonsense. A job undone or done incorrectly does not imply willful negligence or premeditation.

Please. Presidents don't want to take hits on certain issues. If they can leave it for the next guy to take the hit on, they will... especially if that next guy is from the other party.

Difference is most Presidents decide to do this in the last year of their Presidency. Bush is deciding this with 2+ years to go.

Think of it as a guy retiring. This guy could work on what needs to be done until he leaves. Sure somethings would be left for someone else, but that's inevitable. Or the guy could, with 3 months remaining, look at some of the harder work and say "the next guy will take care of it". The point was being made that Bush is acting like the 2nd guy. Some Presidents have indeed acted that way on certain issues (if you want to blame Clinton for a ****burger... talk about medicare), but in foriegn policy, and the examples you've stated, the norm hasn't been to be the 2nd guy.

So let me see if I got this right. A presdient with absolutely nothing to lose as he can not be reelected decides of his own accord that it is too risky to try new things. Riiiiiggght. Lame Ducks are lame not for reasons of motivation of the President but because they don't have political capital to make things happpen.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Hey Ted, let's bury the axe! We have agreed on 99% in this topic the last two years, so it was unnecessary of me to bring up things from further back and troll you into reverting back to the "dark side". You're one of four guys on my Apolyton buddy list, and I want to keep you there. You're a skilled and witty debater when you put some efforts into it, but in this thread I appearantly stepped on some very sore toes and trolled you into losing your temper. Let's both chill before Ming "help" us doing it. Have a beer and relax!

I still don't agree with your last posts and I had mentally prepared to write a long and detailed reply to explain why, but I think it would be unwise to continue throwing dirt at each other. War is wrong, and I'm not going to start one against you. I will step down if you do the same.

Well done, you took the high road and are clearly the better man. Said with 100% seriousness, no sacasm whatsoever.

Since you are Swedish [Viking] you can bury your axe and since I'm American [cowboy] I will bury my revolver LOL !

[Chemical Ollie]

I wouldn't bring an axe to a gunfight

Modern vikings use Bill missiles

[Drake Tungsten]

A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

I always liked Kerrey; it's a shame the Democrats don't have more people like him...

[GePap]

So agents of Saddam meet with Osama in 1995 and ths is a "tie" between Osama and AQ? Was AQ even running in 1995?

Jesus, that is trulyl pathetic.

Oh, and no **** sherlock, of course Saddam was an enemy of the US...wow, huge revelation there by Kerrey...never would have figured it out...I mean, besides the war, the sanctions regime, and our violating Iraqs airspace on a daily basis, I would have thought the Saddam regime was a huge american friend....

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap
---
I mean, besides the war, the sanctions regime, and our violating Iraqs airspace on a daily basis, I would have thought the Saddam regime was a huge american friend....

He was

[Imran Siddiqui]

BY and large I would say Veeps in the past are well informed. Or perhaps this is moreso a Republican phenomen moreso than a Democratic one.

Yeah, Eisenhower and Nixon were so in the spirit of a team that Ike refused to endorse Nixon for President after his term was up. I doubt he shared all the national security info with a veep he couldn't stand.

In addition, Agnew was the 'pitbull', but in no way, shape, or form was he involved in deciding national security policy. Nixon turned to Kissenger to discuss that. Agnew was mostly isolated from the rest of the WH.

And we still have troops stationed there today.

And how many have died by enemy fire in the last... oh 40 years?

The arguement that there wasn't time to effect a change, Holy crap we were in there from 64-68 during his admin with the situation escalating and US casualties in a single week outpacing the casualties of the Iraq over 3 years. No change in policy or for that matter tactics nada.

So LBJ knew he was going to be a 1 term President in 1964? Riiiight.

The requirement of US troops stationed to maintain the peace sound familiar?

And tell me... how many US troops were killed in the former Yugoslav region during the end of Clinton's term?

Yup same old thing attempting to apply a means to allow a self determing government to form and holding down the fort until that happens.

That really seems like its working... well aside from the impending (if not already here) civil war, of course.

A presdient with absolutely nothing to lose as he can not be reelected decides of his own accord that it is too risky to try new things.

Presidents never care about their legacies, nosiree!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I wouldn't bring an axe to a gunfight

Modern vikings use Bill missiles

Best anti-tank missile in the world.

Scary how strong it is, not only blasts tanks, makes them explode into a million pieces. Scary.

[Dr Strangelove]

The watthings stand Bush could call the boys back home to bolster up a Republican candidate or leave them there to dump on a Democratic (Hillary) successor.