Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Dave Miller, Miamisburg, OH — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:43:04 GMT

Who cares about 2008 Presidential candidates? Democrat or Republican, who cares? Bush is still floundering around deciding whether he wants to, indeed, embrace reality, or keep on with his dreamy, rose colored glasses Iraq policy that's kept him afloat for the past 6 years. He is the only person in Washington DC (save for Dick Cheney) who hasn't grasped the full meaning of the 2006 election. Poor George. Can't get out of his own way.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Little Georgie, Washington — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:46:09 GMT

There is no action like inaction....the 'decider' can't decide....there are no clear cut, black and white choices, this is too dificult.."Ive been right all along, never been wrong, never made any mistakes, how come everyone is so mean to me? I only did what I was told to do.".........."Daddy can you come help me, I'm in trouble again?"

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Desmond — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:49:15 GMT

Is his speech date not locked down or is the President not locked down. I did not understand that statement.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

john burke, hillsborough, nj — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:00:21 GMT

This president is more concerned with salvaging his legacy - than reducing the risk our soldiers face on an everyday basis in Iraq. He's playing with real lives - and at some point is destined to face the reality of how poorly his policies have been constructed or carried out. Over the weekend I heard that only 6 people in the 1000 person US Embassy in Bagdad - speak Arabic. There is little reason to expect this president based previous experience has the leadership abilities necessary to get us out of this mess!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ken Klinkner, Washington Crossing, PA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:02:16 GMT

I guess W is just going to keep asking people for advice and opinions on Iraq until he finds one person, somewhere, who agrees with his assessment and then hold that up as a reason to continue and justify what he is doing! It's a shame because in the meantime more lives, property and money will be needlessly wasted just to try and prove his point. What was the point afterall of this high powered Iraq Study Group if the administration was not going to listen to it? So much hype and anticipation for nothing!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Charles Potts — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:03:31 GMT

It is obvious that the administration strategy is to try to run out the clock until it is out of office so they can readily blame the failure in Iraq on the incoming president. Let's help them out of office pronto by impeaching them for high crimes and misdeameanors. That way the adults can start early to clean up the mess.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

T. Rotter — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:07:11 GMT

THE STATE OF THE UNION.. IS LOCKED DOWN. VOTERS SHOULD HAND BUSH A SUPBOENA AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPEACH.. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ellen McLean — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:08:20 GMT

Prolonged dithering will not do a damned thing for our troops or the Iraqis. There are no silver bullets, just bad and worse choices. Stop acting like reality is a crutch.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Benjamin Purser, Royal Oak, MI — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:10:25 GMT

How many speeches has the President given on Iraq twenty maybe. If speeches could solve the Iraq issue the situation in Iraq would be solved. What this President need is action not more speeches.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Rick Collins — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:10:34 GMT

Forget about whether the President or his speech date is locked down. He neeeds to be locked up for perpetrating the greatest foreign policy failure in this nation's history. If arrogance, ignorance and incompetence were crimes he'd be doing time by now. R. Collins, Texas

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

dewey — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:11:22 GMT

so the white house says what is not so important to release information a few weeks before christmas. i guess deferment bush has put death on hold in iraq those few days. another adm. spin, while more die and besides his meeting with those three generals and the other two were all against troop withdrawl, he knew that, we all knew that, just another waste of time, i thought he had a plan, another lie, you can tell when he lies, his mouth opens.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Richard Merrell, Seattle, WA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:13:54 GMT

Bush and Cheney don't have a clue what to do with Iraq other than to try to rearrange their sentences and mini speeches to give the impression they're changing their approach to their war when they're really not. They can't change because that would be an admission that dressing up in flight suits and standing under a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" was nothing but a show - and the show must go on. This administration is so pathetic, so tragic.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

H. Shore — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:25 GMT

All options on the table are designed to keep us in Iraq. Did we really invade the country to give it back? Is the Iraqi government not just a puppet like afghanistan? If we really wanted to give it back the solution is really simple. Instead of Congress appropriating $130 billion "for war" appropriate $130 billion for peace. Bring the three Iraqi factions together in Wash DC and work out a solution with money as the glue, get all troops out and monitor the situation from abroad. If they continue to fight (unlikely) pull the financial plug. This will never happen because there is more profit in war than in peace. All this talking is just a smoke screen. Get real Americans The US is a predator nation. Nothing new here. History is all about WAR and more WAR.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Rick Collins — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:16:23 GMT

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Warner Lee, Albuquerque, NM — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:17:46 GMT

We all need to wake up and say flatly that invading Irag was a really idiotic thing to do. With that as a given, maybe we can conlcude that the only lotical course of action is to end this madness.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ed G., Olathe KS — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:20:38 GMT

There is only one Presidential speech to give on Iraq: "I was wrong. I am sorry. The generals will bring the troops home as fast as is safely possible."

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Dave Tuten, Fort Atkinson, WI — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:27:33 GMT

Move all US troops to the north, including all oil producing regions and cities, declare our support for their impending notice of independance from Iraq, and let the Shiites and Sunni kill each other off. We then have an oil producing friend in the region, Haliburton gets to make some more money, and soon most troops will be home. Then we can acknowledge our real aim in the region, devoid of the hypocracy we are faced with noe.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

M.Wiley, Tampa, Fl — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:28:07 GMT

Blame seems to be the only thing people are offering. If we just redeploy(Retreat by another name)like many people are asking the mess we are currently in will be nothing compared to mess the whole region will be in after we leave. Do people really think the violence is going to stop once we leave. If people do then they are living is a fools paradise.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Robert Pike — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:28:34 GMT

Each day of delay costs the American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars from future earnings. This war is not pay as you go. Much of the funds to fight this battle are borrowed from foreign nations central banks who invest in U.S. bonds. Many of those nations have strategic national interests that are in oppositon to our own. The United States national debt currently eclipses $8 trillion and is climbing each month. In addition to squadering our future national fortune on a battle being waged to enrich U.S. and U.K. oil companies, the Bush administration is setting this country up for a massive financial crisis.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Steve Foster, Mount Laurel NJ — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:28:48 GMT

I sleep better at night knowing that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destructions, I understand why the U.S.A needed to determine whether or not these weapons existed once and for all and eliminate the looming Sadam variable. Question answered and Sadam gone, I am now in favor of gradually moving out of Iraq. If the Iraqi people don't take advantage of the Democracy we have enabled them to create, shame on them.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Mark - Westlake Village, CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:29:14 GMT

Warner, At least 30% of America said the war was idiotic at the time of invasion, including myself. I had no problem with Afghanistan, and had bush "stayed the course" and got bin Ladin, then we may not be in this mess. However, some (not all) Americans already know and have known for A LONG TIME the invasion was stupid.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Snoopy, in North America — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:29:55 GMT

Bush has no intention of changing his delusional, tragic direction with regards to Iraq. He is just conducting the ongoing, highly publicized meetings with like-minded hawks so he can be told what he wants to hear: that his current pseudo-strategy is correct. These meetings are just a means for stalling as long as possible. They're also an attempt to throw the results of the Iraq Study Group back in his father's face. The US Congress and the American public will have to stage an intervention to stop the misadventure in Iraq. Funding must be cut as soon as possible!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jeff Hughes — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:33:44 GMT

I speak as a soldier...who will soon be shipping out to Iraq. I will go and I will certainly do my job to the best of my ability. It is hard to say goodbye to my dear wife of 25 years and my two boys who are in their early twenties. I only ask a few simple things: A clear objective; Good equipment, training, and leadership in the ranks; and the prayers and support of my neighbors and countrymen. Yes, the whole matter of policy and courses of action should be vigorously debated. Answers need to be found! But of neccessity my focus is bit more practical - just get back in one piece!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

D Johnson , Duluth, MN — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:35:03 GMT

It is funny how the US only has 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the prison population. These are US citizens put there by there own government. Why is it that we point the finger at everyone else when it comes to human rights when we are the best at taking them away. 1 in 32 Americans is currently caught up in our legal system one way or the other and people still want to make more laws. Saddam treated his people better. I support anyone that wants to fix the problems here and not point fingers. I am going to start voting Bin Laden on the write in in future elections.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Mike Wright, Blue Springs, MO — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:39:43 GMT

The "Decider's" inaction brings to mind the old saying "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Glenn McIntyre, Martinsburg, WV — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:44:53 GMT

Impeach Now.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Owen Vander, Evansville, IN — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:47:23 GMT

If we left Iraq there would be no way to find those pesky WMD's! (or did dick and napoleon finally admit they aren't there?? crossed their fingers-didn't really mean it1) If one would venture to redstate.com you'll find out where the WMD's are, in Syria, Iran, ect. Trod lightly if you go over there though, if you blog too logically they will put on their brownshirts and start chanting the kool aid mantra, "life's all about me, just me, only me, how I love me". Read DeLay's reject blog http://tomdelaydotcom.blogspot.com/ It's a hoot (if you are offended by profanity, do not venture there-it is rough)

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Brandon Makoroff, Los Angeles, Ca — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:48:13 GMT

If you remember, Bush has stated that he has not made any mistakes. His father has made the mistakes in always bailing him out of trouble, like he is now trying to do. Prez will not take any advice from the Iraq Study Group because then he will have to say that his daddy helped him and he will not do that. We will still be in Iraq for many years to come and all the lives that have been lost will be on Bush's head. Ask him how many funerals he has attended - answer zero. He is afraid that the familys will throw him out on his backside for killing their sons and daughters.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

cb — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:51:28 GMT

I have always found it amusing, and yet quite disturbing, that Mr. Bush continually refers to himself in the 3rd person. He calls himself the 'commander-in-chief' constantly as if he is trying to convince others or perhaps himself. He calls himself 'The Decider', but can't make the right decision. He stands firmly behind his cabinet even though they have made some incredibly bad decisions. His most recent aberation is to try to connect his ultimate legacy with that of FDR. I did not know FDR, but history already indicates that Mr. Bush will never be considered in the same class as FDR. He may well be the 'commander-in-chief', but he will ultimately be judged as the one who set off the turbulence in the Middle East. His legacy is clearly linked to inept decisions and a stubborn nature that will put him in the history books not as 'The Decider', but as 'The Doofus'.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Olivia, Peoria, Ill. — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:33 GMT

Per Mike Wright--President Nero definitely fiddled while New Orleans flooded--and burned in massive fires that could not be put out (due to firefighters' engines and other equipment that had been damaged) despite being surrounded by floodwaters. Really--Nero flew from his ranch in Crawford, Texas (from which it would have made sense to visit New Orleans and Mississippi's obliterated communities, being close by) to California where he strummed some show-biz buddy's guitar. It took him over a week even to find the time to fly over and look down on the affected areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. Remember that stupid-looking photo of him looking out through Air Force 1's window? It totally betrays his cluelessness--and meanspiritedness--while looking upon a serious disaster that demolished 80% of New Orleans and much of Mississippi's Gulf Coast. Then, the idiot in the White House made the Faustian bargain of choosing Iraq over New Orleans--and the chickens are coming home to roost. This can be seen in last weekend's run-off in Louisiana's 2nd District, which includes New Orleans, where voters chose to re-elect William Jefferson in spite of his problems with having had $90,000 in "cold hard cash" in his freezer, because they were fed up with Bush Administration inaction. In spite of the fact that Jefferson had been stripped of his spot on the Ways and Means Committee, they trust him better to pull for more aid to Louisiana than his opponent. The re-election of Jefferson should be seen as a cry for help.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ann Utica NY — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:59:15 GMT

The "decider" can't decide anything. I have never seen such an incompetent person in public service in my life. It just gets worse everyday. I never wanted an impeachment, but I think it is time for one. He is ruining the great USA.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jack, Atlanta GA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:59:57 GMT

Wow... if he had given so much thought before invading Iraq, I may have supported this war!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

paul drennan, charleston, sc — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:00:57 GMT

i would venture to say that less than 5% of this country's population has been to the middle east. i am a retired Army Captain 1991 who spent a great deal of time in that region. our soldiers who are now coming home almost to the T who have spoken w Iraqui civilians recall these conversations. that Iraq had WMD throughout the country, they saw it, were victims of it i.e the Kurds. Remember the 1985 Israeli air raid on the nuke reactor in Bagdad it was being built to make the bomb to wipe out Israel. The WMD was simply moved at night prior to the 2003 US invasion to Sunni friendly Syria. it is there now on Syrian ground as they w/ cooraboration funnel the newly trained Al Quaida terrorists from south Lebannon into Iraq. Remeember, most of the Middle east region is running 30-40% unemployment w/ 5% of the population in those countries controlling 90% of the wealth. they hate us because they are so jealous of our wealth, because we work for it. Remember, in 1946 w/ Aramco and other US companies we gave them our brains and technology to drill for oil. we have US people today all over the middle east still giving them the know how to maintain and extract oil. each and every Muslim needs to stop hating us and work for their countries and make progreses go. you are just wasting your time hating America and those who help your freedom. do you want daily destruction and the ultimate destruction of the planet. is this what you really want? wake up, go to work, and fix the leadership in your country who are ripping you off. for you Americans who are criticizing the support of Iraq, if we pull out that deranged shia madman will come in just like Hitler. i recommend you spend 3 weeks in the region and you will know why Bush is fighting for freedom. I am not a Republican but a pragmatic realist

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Khayami, Bethesda MD — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:00:58 GMT

It looks like every body has forgotten about the world in early 2001. We had the Arab and Israel fighting, Afghanistan was controlled by Ben Laden, 9/11 was in the works with more terrorist plans in the pip line, Iran& Syria were helping Hezbolah, North Korea was producing the bomb and getting pied for it, 40000 US forces were in Saudi Arabia, Us was being attacked constantly, the Moslem world hated US as much as they do now Etc. The only difference was that every thing was under rap and people felt there was no problem. People need to wake up and smell the roses, we had huge problems in the past, we have huge problems now and will have huge problems in the future. Problem is one SUPER POWER in the world and every body blames US. The world media, American media are in a feeding frenzy with Bush, they blame him for every thing and the polls go lower and they report it and blame him more and world leaders(Kofe Anna, Chavez, Carter and so on) get in the feeding frenzy. We need to stop this madness and blame game

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Citizen, New Orleans, La — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:04:59 GMT

Obviously a liberal, Bush bashing column. Nobody with any ideas on how to get out. AHHHH memories of Vietnam........... I too agree that we made a mistake even going there, but all we have here is a bashing session much like the Clinton sex bashing of times past. It is said that a little intelligence can be dangerous....Wee these folks got nothing to worry about

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:08:44 GMT

Well, I think it's nice that King George is taking a personal interest in this insignificant little war.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Nick, Ohio — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:09:13 GMT

Bush has done nothing to advance the human condition. He has lied uncontrollably, he has done nothing to help reduce the human impact upon our global natural resources and he is ignoring the truth and fact by living in a cloud of denial. The war in Iraq is nothing short of criminal and he and his cronies need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. Bush claims to be a religious man, but if he really were, then we'd not be in Iraq with well over 100,000 notches in his belt. The reasons for our invading Iraq were totally contrived. He was banking on our support of him during our 9/11 ordeal and we believed him. (Personally, I have never believed one word he has ever said.) We now have our troops in harm's way for no apparent reason with no indication of there ever being a plan of action, a definition of what could be defined as "success". I don't know if impeachment would stop all legislation in Congress, but an investigation into Bush's actions is certainly warranted. At the very least, we should indict him after he leaves office (and NOT grant him a pardon). We need to show the world that we are sorry for our sins and seeking justice by pursuing this action, which is necessary to help begin healing the world.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Elvis, Sarasota, Florida — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:09:57 GMT

Yo Duluth....what a bunch of liberal crap.... Yea, we lock up people that break the law which naturally gives us a higher prison population than most of the world....which usually just kill or maim criminals with no trial. Matter of fact, they probably have the right idea. "Saddam treated his people better"??? So's howzabout you move out of the USA, cuz obviously you don't like it here. Don't let the door hit you in the azz. elvis

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Army Guy, Ft Bliss TX — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:15:25 GMT

We seek nothing more from our government than open, honest dialougue and not to rush to use our armed forces as a hammer. The military is a part of statecraft, a diplomatic tool to gain national obejectives. It is not to be used, like now, to nation build, to foist on others to gain some obscure objectives. We compromise the Soldiers, the equipment, the budgetary assets and besmirch our national will by this messy war. I saw a post about getting Kurd, Sunni and Shiite in the same room and bribing them to come to an agreement. Hmmm..I think that money will not solve the religious/ethnic hatred these folks have for each other. Sadly, Saddamm kept them in line w/ fear, torture, threats, etc. now that the iron glove is off the sectraian hatred and killing resumes. There is no good solution to this mess. walking away is not right, but is it wrong? We will lose face no matter what dioorection we go in, so we need a plan to extract and move onward in the world. No matter what we decide it is going to be a mess, since it was a mess before we moved in. Still- national consensus needs to be met, not the will of a stubborn President and his cabal of idealistic neocons.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

John Erickson, Rancho Cucamonga CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:22:27 GMT

Has anybody considered maybe George W. Bush is learning from his mistakes? Granted, he entered the War in Iraq really fast. Some has said that he "irrationally jumped into it without thinking about the consequences." It makes sense in my mind that he would consider all possible sides before he commits to making huge decisions that could affect hundreds of thousands of lives. Maybe if he took "a time out" 4 years ago the Middle East would be a lot different than it is today.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

J ....Trona California — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:23:32 GMT

how to run Iraq ? It appears the Saddam Hussein knew a lot more about it than we do. Although his methods seem rather ruthless, his law and order was very effective..in his eyes, killing a person who going to kill himself anyway wasn't much of a deterent...the possibility of killing his family or half of the village kept things in check......this place is not civilize and civilized method don't work.....I can truly understand why this so call "monster" did what did...a person walking the streets with a half arm or half of tongue gets the message across a little more than a judicial probation any comments ?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

sl glenn , clovis nm — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:24:18 GMT

what i would like to hear from a gw speech is that he has brought all Americans home and has nuked the whole arab world.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Glenn McIntyre, Martinsburg, WV — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:28:54 GMT

Impeachment will stop the madness - remember "People should not be afraid of their Government . . . Governments should be afraid of their people."

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jack — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:30:45 GMT

Bush and his neocon cronies remind me of another leader back in the 1930's and 1940's. That little man also wanted to hear from his generals about what to do while the Russians were at his front door. We all know what happened to him. Why is Cheney so involved with what is being said....is he afraid of losing some of his Halliburton and KBR profits if the US leaves Iraq. Bush will not listen to anyone except those with the same mindset. He hasn't done it in 5 years, why now. His legacy? Worst President Ever

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Zorro, San Francisco CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:37:01 GMT

It's nice to know (sl glenn) of clovis NM has absolutely no say in our foreign policy. It's also nice to know that (sl glenn) was probably crying after the elections in november when his thieving neo-gimps lost to the Democrats.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Nick, Ohio — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:47:00 GMT

Citizen, do you want solutions? Try reading about those that Sen. Joe Biden presented back in Nov, 2005. http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=249188 Since we've now experienced 2006 and have seen Iraq fall into chaos and civil war, the only option left to us is to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. We can give them a carrot to stop their fighting and join hands to move into the future, by offering money and assistance to rebuild Iraq without our military presence and have very few conditions... 1. that all contractors be Iraqi, with Iraqi labor; 2. that all fighting must cease immediately; 3. that the Iraqi govt. must be all-inclusive with all sects in Iraq; 4. that Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries all pitch in to help stabilize the Iraqi powder keg through discussion and negotiation and not via any military action (although, holding that over their heads may be a wake-up call); 5. that the oil in Iraq benefit the Iraqi people and no one else. Iraq is in civil war. Whether you believe it or not, can grasp the ramifications or not... the truth and fact of the matter is this: multiple factions are killing each other at alarming rates in terrorist-style fashion. The only act we have yet to see is each side have an army. Obviously, all sides in Iraq fight in a fashion we are not comfortable with. I actually believe the conflict in Iraq will explode once we leave, but we are only prolonging this event by being there, not preventing it. We have a responsibility to fix what we've broken, but we cannot fix it at this time. Let the insurgents eventually calm down after our departure and then offer the money to help rebuild.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jim Franklyn, Hollywood, Florida — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:56:31 GMT

Bush and Cheney are the two biggest threats to our National Security. Radical Christians are no different than Islamic Extremeist. Real Christianity has nothing to do with dictating how other nations or people need to behave, killing people if they do not agree with your point of view, not admitting your own flaws. Bush and Cheney are not God. Being Christian is all about love, peace, forgiveness and most importantly, helping those in need. We are in this mess by Neocon Choice, certainly not by true Christian values.... Jim

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Peter Van Rossum, La Jolla CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:57:31 GMT

whew...at least there is some reality trickling back into the american psyche - nice posts people. Now grasp this....if 1 second = 1 dollar, then 1 million dollars is 12 days (about) and a TRILLION is (get this...) 36,000 YEARS! That is how much this war has cost and uncurious George has increased our national debt for future generations to pay.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jane — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:58:03 GMT

Remember when we were called 'unpatriotic' for saying things like this? Remember when we were called un-American? Traitors? Terrorist lovers? Sure feels good to vent and not have anyone (including Rush Limbaugh) be able to sound anything other than sadistically insane to criticize us, doesn't it?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Still Crazy After All These Years — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:00:18 GMT

Well, I personally believe Nancy Reagan's astrologer visited him and told him the stars were not aligned right now for him to address the American people. Yep, that has to be it. Why else would he delay speaking to us?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jerry K, Seattle — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:04:08 GMT

Impeachment is not good enough. We should explore the possibility of a treason trial. Let's see...treason during wartime...capital punishment???...Hmmm...

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Rickie R Byers, Lynnwood, Washington — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:07:20 GMT

As a Vietnam Veteran I emphasize with the comments made by the soldiers. Debating an issue does not lower moral, but continuing aimlessly does. As far as I am concerned our Armed Forces have done everything that was asked of them. They deserve our thanks regardless of your personal thoughts of the correctness of the war. The only true solution to Iraq lies with the people of Iraq. We can not "give" them democracy. Continuing our presence in Iraq will only exacerbate the situation. I have a feeling that a lot of people who look at removing our troops as retreating have never been in an armed conflict themselves. Support our troops by exercising our patriotic duty to question failed policies of our civilian leadership.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Tom, Virginia — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:07:34 GMT

Look, the invasion was so obviously stupid that I was furious. I tried to take action, i wrote my congressman and senators. I participated with a church group who thought the whole thing was ignorant and proposed ways of raising action against it. People marched in mass numbers protesting this war. All of which was ignored. I found an old letters I wrote in fall of 2002 and spring 2003 talking about what would happen if we invaded. And guess what, I was right. Amazing.. and I'm a nobody. However.. part of what I said was the problem was that it was an unecessary trap. Once in, you CAN'T leave until it's stable, which could be never. You can't have another Iran or WORSE. Saddam was many bad things, but he was a stablizing force in the region, he was under control... he was a stalinist dictator who Al Queda hated and wanted to see overthrown. We did them a favor by ousting him, and.. actually made like worse for those in Iraq. Bush SR knew this, wrote of it in him Memoirs... it's why Bush Sr did NOT oust him in 1991! Do you know that any subversive behavior was met with death, that meant Al Queda. Notice that a lot of those "most wanted" were women? Notice that one of Saddams cabinet was a Christian? Women have actually lost rights since the invation, Christianity is difficult to practice openly, and the Sunis and the Shias want to kill each other.. which was predictable. Any time you have cultures that hate each other.. you're going to have turmoil. Lets look at Yugoslavia. So many groups help together by a totalitarian state, but when that collapsed, they went into chaos, that eneded up breaking the small country into what.. is it 6 smaller countries? It didn't take a genius to see this happening. And again... if we leave Iraq now... what will happen? The country will fall and we'll have something MUCH worse than Saddam. Our best interest was not going in in the first place, but now, we have no option but to stay. Damn it Neo Cons

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Debra — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:08:07 GMT

IMPEACHBUSH.ORG NOW!!!!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

james loesch — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:08:46 GMT

an op ed piece in yesterdays ny times told of an american general in vietnam in 1967 who knew the situation was hopeless and only spoke anonymously until recently to protect others. he spoke of " destroying a single division three times". How can we allow such a crime to be commited again while we wait for for sanity to prevail

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

g flatt lloydminster ab — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:24:42 GMT

As a neighbor to the north of most if not all of you, I have been busy trying to keep up with all of the rhetoric that bandies back and forth in the guise of meaningful dialogue. Here are some of my conclusions (albeit from an outsiders point of view) - The war in Iraq is wrong and once having served your "search warrant" for WMD, the US should have left. Since when do the police restore a residence after having conducted a search warrant? Secondly, I believe it was stated that the invasion was not for "regime change" purposes. What a lie that appears to be! Iraq is like being chased by a dog in heat - you run you get bit, you stop and you get screwed! I may not approve and I certainly do not understand all the angles, but in a small defense of your embattled president, at least he did something. It may not have been the right thing to do, but at least he took action when he felt action was required. How many politicians sit around and wait for the popular vote to swing their way before acting. (I was told that your president conducted his own informal public opinion poll before deciding to cowboy up and invade a sovereign nation. I feel deeply for all who must deal with the future decisions and consequences of the past few years. May peace guide your thoughts. I wish all of you great success in this ordeal. My hears goes out to all those who are serving and have served. There are no easy or kind solutions. You have the voice of a vote. I encourage everyone (myself included) to seek a balanced set of facts and go from there. Much information has been hidden and distorted. Please do not take the easy way out and let the media decide for you. God bless. Merry Christmas to all of you. g

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Kevin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:25:40 GMT

Enough is enough Nancy. Impeach the lying little coward now.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

moreofthesame — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:27:11 GMT

Bush is just delaying his speech hoping people will forget about the Baker-Hamilton report, at which time he will give yet another version of his sick "stay-the-course" policy. I'd say impeach him, but then we'd get Cheney. Can we impeach them both? To think that every day more dedicated American soldiers die, all for Bush's ego.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

R. Frick, Longview, Tx — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:27:32 GMT

WMD? The UN inspection teams showed they didn't exist before Bush called them incompetent and told them to get out or get bombed. Thats reality. No matter, one can't change the past. My only suggestion - put Bush in a corner and don't let him do anything until our new president takes the oath of office. What frightens me is the number of people who voted for him.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ron Oelerich, Kennewick, Wa. — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:31:06 GMT

All we want is for Bush to provide some leadership for our soldiers who are being killed everyday. Why do we need all of these studies, meetings, speeches, and cute sound bites. This is not what our soldiers need, they can get that anywhere. Be a man and lead the troops Bush, or could anyone step up to the plate and help our troops? I would think that if you voted for Bush you may have a sense of obligation to help either our brave troops, the wounded who have come home, or the families who have lost a loved one. I could care less about Bush's legacy, why is he so concerned with it at this time? Why even question it?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Violet Cauthon, New Mexico — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:35:40 GMT

Everything, I mean every act from this White House, is political. There is no one in leadership in this administration that gives two cents for how their acts, legal or illegal, affect the citizens of this country. Like Tom in Virginia, I, too, wrote letters, called my representatives, and protested on street corners before this illegal war began. None of those actions, or the millions who protested and marched, had any effect. The Bush-Cheney duo had their so-called valid excuse for the war after 9-11. (Never mind most of those extremists were Saudis, the Bush family's friends.) "Now we can scare everybody with Iraq and grab all that oil!" was probably heard in the White House just days after 9-11. None of the reasons for invading Iraq made sense to me and even then I knew, absolutely KNEW, we'd be in "deep doo-doo" for that invasion. I've never liked saying "I told you so", particularly when so many lives have been lost and so many, many others have been maimed for life because of the "worst president ever".

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

R. Simard — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:36:10 GMT

As a Canadian, I find it interesting that you are slowing waking up to the reality that Bush is and always was inept at governing. Where were you in 2004 when he was reelected. Stop complaining and make sure you don't scew up again in 2008. The whole world knew how bad Bush was for the U.S. Why didn't you?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Mike, Pasadena, California — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:36:21 GMT

How MANY examples of incompetence, arrogance, denial, parades of the King's Clothes do we need to tolerate before the people rise up and DEMAND impeachment proceedings? I don't care Nancy Pelosi says, the American people have a right to justice. This self-proclaimed leader is an albatross. How about everybody with a computer sending 10 emails to various congressional leaders and demand impeachment proceedings be the first order of business of the new Congress in January? Isn't there some fail-safe procedure that requires the Commander-in-Chief to be physically and mentally capable of performing the job for us to allow him to continue? He has proven time and again that he is not! . WRITE EMAILS TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AND DEMAND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IMMEDIATELY !! Please! . It's time the American Family puts its arms around him and does an intervention to prevent him from continuing to hurt himself --- and the remainder of the PLANET!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Cincy — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:36:48 GMT

95% of this thread is whining lefty Bush-bashers who have nothing constructive to offer. There's no doubt that Iraq is a mess. Does quickly withdrawing our troops solve the problem? Heck no! Need I remind people of Somalia in '93? After we got our nose bloodied by the skinnies, Slick Willy withdrew the troops which emboldened the likes of Bin Laden. The same thing will happen if we pack up and leave Iraq.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

JP Johnson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:38:43 GMT

It seems as if we have two choices. 1)The way forward, 2) Salvage and go home. Death and destruction is enevatable either way. However, on #2 American's are not in the middle. :-) You can't build upon the current situation because our military are sitting targets. The way we are fighting now we don't know who is the enemy. Organize-Recognize-Plan-Attack Terrorism (Polically - Financially - Militarily). We should pick the where-when-how we are going to fight. Right now it's the other side with this advantage. I do have one question for Bush. Why is Iraq so important on terror say verses Iran, Russia, North Korea, Europe,...? However, to answer this question he would need to know if we're in Iraq today for terror, nation building, WMD...? Give or troops the best chance for victory (not probable) or bring them home!!!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

jena Walker denver, colorado — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:39:31 GMT

I just think that it's terribly unfair that our young men are going to another country to fight for freedom that they do not have right here in America. Many of them did not choose to go to war. They chose to get an education instead. But who really cares about our men and women who are sacfricing their lives every day, certainly not our present congressmen. Many of these young men went to war and died before they ever had a chance to live. It is just not fair to families, tax payers who bring children into this world, raise them and send them off to die. I believe in fighting for my country when it becomes necessary. However, I do not believe in sacrificing lives for person reasons, whether it be revenge, oil, status whatever, it is just not fair to ask our men and women to give up or put their futures, their lives on hold while the older folks make plans to fight a war. I am all for bringing our men home so that they can't start living the futures we as a country owe to them. My prayer is always with the soldiers and their families especially during the holidays. I am sure it is especially hard on them. Please let these soldiers out of their prison, or nightmare, whatever you wish to call it.(the war)They need to be able to get on with the business of living.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

John Doe — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:10:41 GMT

Donkey: I think things might be going bad in Iraq. Elephant: We can't cut & run, we must stay the course, they might have WMD's, don't forget Al'Queda and don't negotiate with them. Donkey: You stubborn Donkey (jackass).

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Robert John, Arcadia — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:11:03 GMT

This is actually worse than you think. The people behind this see what is happening as a great success. They would have game theoried this out. They will probably bomb Iran next and drum up an excuse to seize the easiest oil. Well, you can't call this the United States of America anymore.The miserables run this country now and it is time to leave.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Ross Chicago — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:13:19 GMT

I'll bet the house rent that Bush does little more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titantic. He'll speak emphatically about how it is this country's goal to win the war. It's all very sad because even more will die because of this Administration's idiocy.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

DL, BK, NY — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:15:59 GMT

Let me start by first saying I belong to neither party. With that said, we cannot just leave Iraq. Was Bush wrong for invading? Of course. Is he a liar? Of course, but even if we impeach him we cannot just leave right now. What would be the point? What did we gain in invading Iraq? Everyone thought it was for the oil, but gasoline prices are still through the roof. (Did you see that trick the Republicans did? Prices were lowering everyday up until the elections and now it is goingback up. Sorry it did not work.) Was it to fight terrorism? More soldiers have died or been injured than the 9/11 attack. Was it to get rid of Saddam? (By the way I thought he had less than 30 days to live, that was like 45 days ago.) I say we apologize to Saddam and give him his country back. First of all, geography showss you that Iraq being a Shia state as opposed t oSunni gives Iran and Syria a clear passage to trade arms which will eventually lead to the collapse of Israel. The one good thing before we invaded was that Iraq and Iran did not like each other and Iran could not get the necessary materials from Syria to build the bombs as it is doing now. Was this ever thought of by anyone besides Colin Powell who said not to attack? We as a country are worse off than before the war, but it is not fair to the millions and millions of innocent Iraqi people who will be worse off if we leave without a solution. I say we impeach the President, apologize and work out a way that we can give the country back to the Sunnis, because an Iraqi controlled by the Shia, will be the end of the world as we know it, and Israel will suffer.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Time for Change — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:16:05 GMT

It is unfortunate that we don't have the same swift system of impeachment as Canada. Remember last year when the PM was ousted in a vote of No Confidence by their Parliment? That was over him misappropriating a mere $3,000,000. Not the billions of dollars this admin has wasted, or the 3000+ US deaths, or the 650K + Iraqi deaths. All while our own people are still living in trailers due to Katrina and Rita - many in Bush's own state. I can aonly hope that at some point, we are able to pass an anti-dynastic law barring the election of people within 2 generations of eachother. Think of how much better we'd all be without the Bushes.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

RJ, Pennsylvania — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:16:32 GMT

Interesting discussion. For my part, I am also one of those that was against the invasion of Iraq and I believe that this president has lied to us uncessingly. I don't believe that making that statement indicates a lack of support for our troops. I also would like to think that everyone posting here is taking active steps: to make sure their government representatives know their opinions. Other than that what can the average person do? Well, I believe that it has been stated before although it seems to be unpaletable to people in the US: go green. Terrorism is like cancer -- if you starve it, it dies. Where are these insurgents getting their funding? From Syria and Iran. Where are they getting their funding? From the sale of oil. The US has traditionally propped up regimes that sell us oil cheaply causing the desparity that fuels discontent in these Middle Eastern countries. Currently, the US receives 20% of it's oil from the Middle East. But we are the major users on this planet. Just think what would happen if you cut your consumption by 20%? So tell your governor you want tax breaks for installing solar energy on you property instead of giving tax breaks to the big oil companies like Bush and the previous Congress did. Trade in your SUV. Get behind bio-fuels. Convert your house to natural gas or propane (all produced in this hemisphere). Starve the money machine that is killing so many people.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Matt Bendix — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:18:59 GMT

Not confronting Iraq would have been neglegent in a post 911 world. Pro-active determination of Iraq's weapons capability was at the least prudent. Taking Sadam out of power silenced a major proponent of anti-american ideas and gave the us a foothold in the region. If we were not in Irag within reach of Syria and Iran we would have already had another 911. The Iraq war is a component of a much larger picture. The struggle to thwart religious fanaticism will take decades. We have just begun, get used to it. You can't hide from terror, you can only fight from the moral high ground.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Karma is coming for payback — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:20:58 GMT

Chimpy McFlightsuit will not change his policy because he isn't wrong, has never been wrong, ignores facts he doesn't want to hear, lashes out at dissenting voices and still keeps on trying, and forever failing, to outdo, be tougher than, more manly, a 'better' President THAN 41 to satisfy all those sociopathic, insecurity issues he has with his Dad. Remember his statement several years ago that he can't recall a single mistake, and his recent statement that the 'only' way out is by winning, whatever that might mean. He can't change his inner 'Stay the Course' methodology because he simply cannot accept that his Iraq FUBAR is wrong; his mental map, his inner man cannot accept his failure or that his decisions and acts caused this failure. He is like a rat trapped in a psychological maze, not knowing how to get out, running the same track and not even seeing a flashing EXIT sign; he cannot even accept that Baker's Commission report gave him a 'Get out of Jail Free Card because he can't and won't accept that he needs that card. If Dubbya had not trashed so much of what I hold close about my country: my Constitutional freedoms as an American, my innate moral sense of right and wrong, my faith in the American political system and the one man, one vote concept and did it for divisive partisan politics and money, gave our tax dollars to his sponsors [essentially stealing from my children and grandchildren], deliberately putting incompetents in office because of ideology and making public policy based on ideology, deliberately transhing our environment,and lying to us damn near every time he opened his mouth, I could maybe pity the dumb bastard for being so stupid to get sucked into an NeoCon ideological concept[creating a functioning democratic government in Iraq - by Force](He really is stupid) and accepting their guidance because he couldn't and didn't understand the consequences and still refuses to admit his failures as President.. BS! !NO, I couldn't, Not even!! NOT EVER. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If all his deeds and misdeeds is still not enough to impeach him and Cheney for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" then I hope that whoever gets him a BJ also makes sure that he also gets good whisky and drugs.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Andrew Bauer — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:24:00 GMT

You know, it's hard work being a president. He understands, I say, un-der-stands that we're all very concerned about Iraq and his senseless policy of continuing to shove an endlessly reforming line of lives of innocents, both our troops and civilians, into the maw of a bloodthirsty Iraq system. Its hard work peddling the idea of putting more lives at risk to honor those already killed. Enough! Enough long long ago.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

James, Chico CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:26:38 GMT

See the pathetic neocons in this thread cling to their delusions. There is nothing "lefty" about recognizing that Iraq is a mess. A mess created not by the "liberal media" but rather the most incompetent president this country has ever seen. Its obvious that Bush is incapable of changing his Crusader mentality. Congress needs to step in and either cut funding or impeach this loser.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Johnny Fean, Anytown USA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:28:06 GMT

It is important to remember it isn't just liberals bashing Bush anymore. It would be incredibly naive to think so. This war is stupid -- as is the adminstration that brought it to us.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

David, Seattle WA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:29:05 GMT

Impeach the CRIMINAL !

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Rich, St. Louis, MO — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:30:41 GMT

In all the twenty or so speeches, we have never heard a clear plan beyond the initial "shock and awe" of the initial invasion. No real plan. Why do we think this next speech will be any different? How are we so arrogant to think we can force stability on this false country, called Iraq for less than a century, scarred by thousands of years of war? Yes, we have removed a dangerous dictator from power, but with him went the only thing that kept Iraq semi-stable, and that's fear. We have liberated Iraq, all right. Now all the factions are free to wage war.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

alsocal, fountain valley, ca — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:30:46 GMT

Just amazing is the tone for this! People are seriously sick of what's been happening lately. Glad to see it. I was amazed when Bush was re-elected. Seems like there's hope for better when electing our next president. Iraq will split in three sooner or later. Chargers beat Bears in Superbowl.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Frank Seeley — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:11 GMT

On the news today an interview with some of our trops ivulged that they" were not sure who they were supposed to be fighting" Well Bush doesn't seem to know either, or else he and Cheney are both living in lala land. The old saying "we have met the enemy and it's us" just abut tells the story on the overall Bush policy. Iraq and Iran and all the rest of the muslum world are so divided in thier religious beleifs that there will never be a peace in that part of the world. These people don't know the meaning of democracy, and none of them really want to know. In their own words the Iraq people want us out of there because our presence is just fueling the fires of revolt. We can't tell them what to believe and no one else can either. I see the situatiion like putting the Pope in alliance with Charles Wesley and Martin Luther. The US should get it's troops the hell out of that part of the world, and take the billions of dollars of equiptment with them otherwise we will be blamed for "arming the terroprist's" who will wind up with it anyway. I believe that if the US goes home and takes all of iit's stuff with them the entire area will settle down and one of the religious sects there will take charge and go on about thier buisness."Cheney said not to long ago that if we leave"they will come after us" I really don't think so. If Bush would put as much emphasis on protecting this great country from with in , and get us an army we would be far better off. This country has no buisness trying to shove our ideals down other peoples throat when it's very obvious they don't want it. Bush you've listened to Cheney long enough to get our country in a hell of a hole, now listen to the people who live in this country (They key word here is listen) and put our country back together again. Frank Seeley

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Cease Walker, Naples, Florida — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:32:59 GMT

Bush is a lame duck President. Folks are simply counting the days until he and his croonies are out of office. He damaged America's image and should be charged with war crimes for his acts in Iraq.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

susan — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:33:58 GMT

Speeches, speeches, and more speeches. Talk, talk, and more talk. Where's the action? Oh, getting advice, pretending to listen to it, pretending to heed it, then doing exactly what he wanted to in the first place, except changing the words used so that the people will become confused and not realize they've been duped. I got it now. There doesn't need to be a date set for any speeches; he will do it whenever he pleases. And to think that this country actually voted him back into office in 2004. Yes, every single solitary one of you who voted for that person who calls himself "president" or whatever nickname he chooses to make it seem that he's better than all of us, you didn't even bother to LOOK let alone SEE the forest for the trees then. You were so very happy that he had four more years! Weren't you?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

The Edge, Macon GA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:35:11 GMT

Cincy...I remember the cause and effect you are talking about....we pulled out of Somalia in 93', it "emboldened the likes of Bin Laden." who promptly ordered 9/11....oh wait, that was 8 years later...well not so promptly....What will "embolden" terrorists and our enemies more, to deplete our armed forces in a war of attrition in Iraq, or to get out strong and ready to defend OUR Country?? Let the different sects have it out. When it is all over, we can go in and try to help pick up the pieces. It is not our fight, not our job to police a civil war. Granted we have the guilt for starting it(Thanks dubya and friends), but we can not finish it without endangering the defense of our home. Iran and N. Korea have already taken advantage of our weakness. I don't know about you, but I would rather defend our homeland than offend someone else's.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Gina, Bath, Maine — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:39:50 GMT

Very shortly, now, if it hasn't already happened, the number of dead Americans in Iraq will surpass the number of dead Americans in the twin towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93. The tired old refrain, "If we don't fight them there, we will fight them at home," will then be meaningless. These are our children we are sending to die. Bring them home now, and do some real national security planning.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Frank Seeley, Colville Washington — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:40:08 GMT

On the news today an interview with some of our trops divulged that they" were not sure who they were supposed to be fighting" Well Bush doesn't seem to know either, or else he and Cheney are both living in lala land. The old saying "we have met the enemy and it's us" just abut tells the story on the overall Bush policy. Iraq and Iran and all the rest of the muslum world are so divided in thier religious beleifs that there will never be a peace in that part of the world. These people don't know the meaning of democracy, and none of them really want to know. In their own words the Iraq people want us out of there because our presence is just fueling the fires of revolt. We can't tell them what to believe and no one else can either. I see the situatiion like putting the Pope in alliance with Charles Wesley and Martin Luther. The US should get it's troops the hell out of that part of the world, and take the billions of dollars of equiptment with them otherwise we will be blamed for "arming the terrorist's" who will wind up with it anyway. I believe that if the US goes home and takes all of it's stuff with them the entire area will settle down and one of the religious sects there will take charge and go on about thier buisness."Cheney said not to long ago that if we leave"they" will come after us" He never did say who "they" were. I really don't think so. If Bush would put as much emphasis on protecting this great country from with in , and get us an army we would be far better off. This country has no buisness trying to shove our ideals down other peoples throat when it's very obvious they don't want it. Bush you've listened to Cheney long enough to get our country in a hell of a hole, now listen to the people who live in this country (They key word here is listen) and put our country back together again. Frank Seeley

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

christopher melton, amherst, nh — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:44:12 GMT

My heart goes out to the soldiers and their families and friends; this war was thrust upon them yet, to a man and woman, they accept their responsibility and serve their countries honorably and bravely. What of Bush, though? Where was he when it was his turn to serve? For him, his military career was just a nuisance and a joke, something that got in the way of his hollow-headed fratboy partying. He showed up for duty when he felt like it and, like everything else he's done in his adult life, he was a failure as a soldier. His disdain for his military commitment is an example of the contempt and indifference he feels for the men and women fighting his disgraceful war in Iraq. Bush is a heroically incompetent President, and if his message to the American people is still "stay the course" or "we will prevail" it will likely cost him his presidency. Bush will be the last person to know, but the history books will put him in his very own category - the worst president ever.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

MS.BESSIE BROOKS,CLOVIS,NEW MEXICO — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:44:53 GMT

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS WRONG.AND NEEDS TOBE IMPEACHED FOR WAR CRIMES,MURDER,AND HATRED AGAINST HUMUNITY.AND MR.BUSH NEEDS TOBE ON TRIAL FOR THE MURDERS OF 600.OOOO.00 IRAQIUS PEOPLE.AND BE SENTENCED TO HANG.WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE,IS ALSO GOOD FOR THE GANDERR.........RIGHT...........NOW IF MR.SADDAM CAN HANG FOR 150 PEOPLE LIFES.THEN HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD THIS APLY TO MR.BUSH?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Houston — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:54:37 GMT

cincy [[95% of this thread is whining lefty Bush-bashers who have nothing constructive to offer. There's no doubt that Iraq is a mess. Does quickly withdrawing our troops solve the problem? Heck no! Need I remind people of Somalia in '93? After we got our nose bloodied by the skinnies, Slick Willy withdrew the troops which emboldened the likes of Bin Laden. The same thing will happen if we pack up and leave Iraq.]] ----- That all is a load of rubbish. The extremists in the Middle East got the idea that the US would always back down thanks to Saint Ronnie Raygun, who instantly pulled US troops out of Lebanon after the deadly bombing of US troop quarters there. As for Bin Laden, he's what the CIA calls "blow back," which is spy talk for "creating a Frankenstein Monster." Bin Laden was on "our side" fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Once he saw that a great superpower like the USSR could be driven out of Muslim lands by the use of extreme violence, he figured that the remaining superpower, the US, could be driven out as well. Bin Laden is totally evil and extremely dangerous, but Bush, with his mixture of ignorance, incompetence, and arrogance, has done far more damage to the world. Bush has destroyed Iraq. The middle class, the doctors, and the engineers are fleeing to other countries. Iraqi society has disintegrated. Iraq is a dead country and Bush is the one who killed it. Bush was warned that an invasion of Iraq would open "the gates of Hell" in the Middle East, and that warning has been proven all too true. Bush lit the fuse in Iraq to see what would happen and now the entire Middle East is on the verge of bursting into flames. The fault is his alone. It is certainly not the fault of Bush's victims, the unfortunate people of Iraq.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Very Patriotic!! — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:54:41 GMT

IMPEACHBUSH.ORG NOW!!!! This sums up all your previous comments; can we all make a decision, be the deciders, they are criminals and they work for us!!!!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Tim, Albany New York — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:55:16 GMT

This tragic mess was not a mistake or a miscalculation. It wasn't caused by ignorance or ideology. It is very simple. It's about the price of oil and how that price is effected by supply and demand. When you wipe out the oil producing capacity of a top 5 OPEC nation, the price goes up (as we've all seen). The primary benefactor will be Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that sells us most of our Oil and, in return, invests much of that money in our war industries. It is very simple stuff. But the media will no acknowledge it for whatever reason. In the end it's always about the money.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Heero Bya, Chicago IL — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:57:39 GMT

someone said "The struggle to thwart religious fanaticism will take decades. We have just begun, get used to it. You can't hide from terror, you can only fight from the moral high ground. " that makes me laugh. war against religious fanaticism has been raging for thousands of years. remember the Crusades? if Jesus did exist he was killed for being a religious fanatic, plain and simple. Problem is that there is no moral high ground when all of our interests in the region involve oil. Our creation of Israel post WW2 because we needed tons of oil for our new superpower status, why do we invade and oust Iraq but not our good, oil producing dictators in UAE and the cruel Saudi kings? Oh ya, oil. Moral high ground, such a thing does not exist. Relgious extremism will never end until religion ends, and they only way to stop violent extremism is not through bombing a country back the stone age...

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Edouard — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:57:44 GMT

Bush is now frantically seeking advice on what to do with Iraq. He should have done this exercise TWO years ago. His delay caused the lives of many Americans and Iraquis. Should'nt he be charged in Geneva's World Court with crimes against humanity?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jim Frego, Capt. US Army (ret) Grants Pass. OR — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:01:50 GMT

It's very interesting that persons coming to advise Bush on IRAQ that have supported his FAILED POLICY are called "EXPERTS". The folks with alternate ideas are labeled as non-starters. Looks like the "WAY FORWARD" is to dig a DEEPER HOLE by sending more troops.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

David, Los Alamos, NM — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:07:25 GMT

A bucket of blood for a barrel of oil? When will the new Democrats start talking impeachment?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Nick, Ohio — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:08:14 GMT

I campaigned for Gore and the Dems in 2000 and did it again (for Kerry) in 2004. I worked for a friend who ran for the US House in Nov but lost as we only had 10 weeks to campaign (after our Dem candidate resigned from her campaign). We gathered quite a few votes for such a brief campaign. It was quite amazing. My whole family has been involved in the Democratic Party. An ancestor of mine was James Cox's campaign secretary in 1920. In 2004, 56+ million people voted for Kerry-Edwards. We only lost due to some shady practices in my state and a number of others. We also lost due to the dirty campaign tactics by Rove against Kerry's service in 'Nam. Much, if not all of it, was untrue, and most people seemed to read right through the lies. However, many people did not, especially those people susceptible to such stuff, namely the right-wing neo con "Christians". And, as in 2000, we had a key state with the Secty of State (who controls the state dept of elections) also be the leader of the campaign to re-elect Bush. Blackwell lost in his bid for Gov. of Ohio and was soundly trounced. People have reached the end of their wits with this idiot we call a president. Many who were with Bush in 2004 here in Ohio, were booted out in 2006. There is no way forward with this war in Iraq as long as the US is involved. We are the pariah, the untouchable, the one whom no one can respect or enjoy being around. Our only saving grace has been that the world mostly sees the good people of the US being just that... good people who have had the last two presidential elections stolen from them. I cannot speak to conspiracies, but the whole electoral process in the US is broken. Hopefully, there is now enough anger amongst us good people, to cause serious change here. We are supposed to be the example that others are to live by, when we can't seem to get a free and fair election for the President of the US. Some 3rd word countries seemingly have freer elections than what we did in 2000 and 2004. That is just woefully shameful and plain wrong. My family & I support a soldier in the Rangers. He has been in Afghanistan and Iraq a number of times. I hope and pray for his eventual safe return to a peaceful life with his new bride. I know a local Dem leader who had a flag in his yard for every soldier killed in Iraq. He ran out of room. I don't want this war to escalate to something akin to 'Nam. We need to end our involvement soon, to stop the killing. We need to allow the Iraqi people and the Middle East the ability to forge their own futures. We cannot force people with our military to become democratic. It just doesn't work if there are a sizable number of people who oppose it. They need to HAVE to want democracy. They need to HAVE to want peace. Without their involvement, there will NOT be peace in Iraq. Don't claim the Dems have no plans. We've had the plans (read any Dem candidate's campaign speech, read the Joe Biden speech of Nov 2005 and many others), but we've not had the control to see them become reality. Don't blame the Dems for not having the answer when the Bush camp and the whole Republican Congress has not allowed those solutions to see the light of day. Don't blame many Dems in Congress for siding with the Adminstration in going to war in Iraq when you did as much and led the way and may have known the truth to the matter. Don't try to put the blame on the Dems for something the Repubs have botched and mis-managed so badly that the only recourse now is to exit. Don't blame the Dems for Bush's idiotic mantra of "stay the course". Don't blame the Dems for all the horrific acts performed by the CIA and others under contract. You can blame the Dems for only one thing: that we have not spoken up as a unified body of patriots to unseat our tyrranical meglomaniac of a president. If you are amongst the last bastion of single digit supporters of Bush (which could occur by this time next year or sooner), I pity you for your blind support and avoidance of the truth and fact. I don't care if you're conservative, liberal or libertarian. You need to see the facts. Our president lied to us and many thousands of people (mostly innocent, although God doesn't distinguish) have perished. This is not only legally wrong, but is a sign of moral corruption. All for what? Some bloody oil to power our cars and trucks? For revenge? For proving that he is better than his daddy? For profit? Let's become the peacemakers by backing out and then later helping them to succeed via diplomacy, discussion, monetary support and compassion... "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Darren Atlanta, GA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:08:33 GMT

Hey Cincy: Big darn deal about Somalia! Yes, we all know we lost some helicopters and some people in Somalia. We also know that Somalia is now in the hands of radical Islam. We also know that we LEFT Somalia in 1993 (and yes, in somewhat defeat). My question to you is, "How many times have those Somalians come over here and produced terror on 'our soil'" None in 13 years. So stop with the argument that we will have another Somalia on our hands. So what! Let those savages kill each other over there and they won't come over here (as has been proven over these last 13 years). Almost makes Somalia sound somewhat successful, now, doesn't it?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

J. Agui, San Francisco, Calif. — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:39:52 GMT

I just find it interesting how the Administration and the Media (the lap dog of the Bush Administration) continues to refer to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries as "moderate" Arab countries? Are they serious? These countries are far from moderate, far more facist (rightist) than most countries. Also, I'm not even talking about the human rights problems that each have, the executions which occur, the sham elections, the military punishments, the human rights abuses against women and children, the violent abuses against people of other religions, etc. Should I go on? If you're going to compare Shiite against the "moderate" Sunni governments, at least be honest with the American people. The only difference, one is Shiite and the other is Sunni. That's the only difference. Further, if anyone should be punished severely for this debacle it should be the media. They went fully hand-in-fist with this Administration, and continue to do so. They practically giggle when Bush comments about their ties and suits--like little girls with crushes. It all makes me so sick and angry.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Seattle Sue — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:50:08 GMT

The elections of 2000 and 2004 must have been stolen by Bush. I can't beleive the American people are that stupid to elect Bush the first time much less the second time. I agree that IMPEACHMENT won't change the the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq and nobody knows what to do about it. But Bush needs to be investigated and IMPEACHED, if found guilty and he probaly should spend the rest of his days in a cell.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Nick, Ohio — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:56:30 GMT

In the end, it's always about the money, not about taking the morally correct action. Our actions in the world since 2000 have been appalling. Our govt. believes we are the most powerful country in the world and that everyone else should bow to clean our feet. How ludicrous is that? Islam is a peaceful religion. So is Christianity. So is Judism. And, all other mainstream religions. They have been misconstrued and misinterpreted over the years to serve our own desires, our own greedy "wants". There is no reason to believe that an entire religion is violent solely due to the actions of a relative few. Christians have many reasons to be ashamed of their past actions. So do the others. No one is perfect or above corruption. The terrorists are no better than those who left Europe to fight in the Crusades in the Middle East. They've all been horribly mis-guided by their own selfish interests believing that their quest is the holy one that is backed by God. The God I know cannot condone someone killing another person in His name. No excuses. About the only instance I can see that *may* be plausible, is in the personal defense of yourself or of someone who cannot defend themselves and your actions are not meant to actually kill, but to protect. I cannot extrapolate this to a country-sized issue, but you get the point. Isn't our goal in life to live as close to the life of our great prophets, or Christ, or Muhammad, or Buddah? You can't do this by being a warring person, a liar, a cheat, a truly violent person. Our leaders have put this country in a very dangerous position. They have destroyed Iraq and can't put it back together again. They can't speak with others in the region to create a lasting peace. They have no clue as to how to live, eat, breathe diplomacy and compassion. How can you do those things if you're fighting, destroying and killing? Our new US Congress has a huge task ahead of it. Don't expect miracles, but DO expect sanity and a group of leaders who WILL hold the Bush Administration responsible. DO expect some battles between Bush and Congress, even with some Republicans joining the Dems. DO expect and DEMAND compassion for our "enemies" and a helping hand to anyone who needs assistance. DO expect change and a hope for a saner, safer and more peaceful world after Nov 4, 2008. The world needs us to change, folks. We need us to change. We can't continue to let us all down. We don't want to become another Roman Empire.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Cincy — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:16:59 GMT

As much as I would love to see our troops get out of that stink hole, it's a fantasy for people to think that will solve our problems and will be the end of it. My earlier comment regarding Somalia was to make the point that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda saw withdrawal from that POS land as a sign of weakness and lack of will, and hence began a campaign of attacks against our interests, notably the Kobar Tower bombing in 1996, the Kenya and Tanzania bombings in 1998, and the USS Cole bombing in 2000. Any bit of weakness or lack of will goes a long way to encourage those nut jobs. (By the way, I don't disagree that Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 was a sign of weakness.) With regards to Iraq, since it is a mess that we started, is it not our obligation to clean it up or at least prevent it from becoming an even wider crisis? For those concerned about our credibility with the rest of world, what credibility will we have if leave Iraq unstable allowing it to fall into an all-out civil war? Not much or nothing at all. Roughly 768 long days until Bush leaves office. Ha ha!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Steve Foster — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:34:54 GMT

The USA is far from perfect, but held up to the light of scrutiny cast by the Middle East we are the benchmark. Misogynistic, brutal non-tolerant governments abound in the Middle East so why did we start with Iraq? Iraq was the only significant country in the region we had a hope of toppling. Iraq also presented itself early and often as a threat. Not a tremendous adversary but a belligerent punk, who could sucker punch us if we were not careful. I for one had no interest in being sucker punched a second time. Once was enough. If the US is the "world police" and Iraq is the "thug on the street" then you can easily see that the thug resisted being searched by the police. After asking 20 times the police were forced to search the thug. It really doesn't matter whether the thug had a gun (WMD's) or not. The search was prudent and warranted. I'm glad we have an answer. I proud of our troops and our country for having the guts and ability to invade two protagonist counties at the same time! Osama poked the sleeping giant when knocked down those buildings... Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan can thank him for turning our focus to a pro-active stance. The President of the USA and people he represents have no reason to apologize for actions we have taken in a very difficult situation. We didn't start this conflict, we are not obviously well prepared to combat it, but for my children and this country I sure as hell hope we finish it strong.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Tim, Albany New York — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:35:45 GMT

A really interesting way to look at this is to check out the stocks for oil companies. In particular, i urge you all to go to bigcharts.com. Punch in the stock symbol XOM. Take a look at the five year value trend of their stock and then take note that they are essentially the Saudi/Jordanian/UAE oil company. It is quite telling and certainly gives validity to the old cliche that a picture speaks a thousand words. That five year stock history IS why we fight.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Matt Bendix — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:40:02 GMT

Organized religions are cults who embrace superstitions passed down from antiquity which center on invisible beings? Is it any wonder that these people are predisposed to erratic, non logical behavior? All religions are scary!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:58:41 GMT

I agree with 'all of the above'.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Diz — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:17:40 GMT

As it's been previously stated, let's leave IraQ, We can then regroup 2 fight another day, (while these people continue 2 kill each other) until we're ASKED 4 our Help ( we will be asked). Their fight has been raging since the beginning of Time & nothing we can do, will change that. It was also previously stated that We are funding this terrorism with our Non-Stop consumption of Foreign OIL. How true, how true this is. Up & until We, The United States of America, decides 2 wean ourselves from Foreign Oil, we will Continue 2 have Terrorism in the World. Thank goodness the American People finally awoke from their Jamestown Experience before it was 2 late, ( hopefully it's not 2 late). As GWB has squandered all the Politcal capital that he was given after 911, let's Hope that Our newly elected Congress will Not squander there's. The World cries out 4 our Leadership, DO NOT LET ALL OF US DOWN THIS TIME. YOU were elected 2 putta STOP 2 this MADMAN. The Power of the purse was Taken from GWB & given 2 YOU. The American Voter gave You The AUTHORITY 2 bring Our Troop's Home, " DO IT NOW" The voter will only hold You ( The Congress) Responsible 4 Not listening 2 them

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Lee in CA — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:53:14 GMT

Cincy, if it's a fantasy to think if we leave our problems will all be solved, what is it to think if we stay, all our problems will be solved? Your logic is like deciding you'll be better off breaking the rest of your dishes after accidently breaking half. I'm really proud that George thinks he can defeat 2 billion people by drawing them into a clever trap called "Iraq," wait, no - I think he's a retarded monkey who can only making things worse. Disgrace or disaster is all that's left for history to decide. Even if you can defend the invasion - which made as much sense as invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor - it's so f@@@ed up there IS no good answer and our problems aren't all going away no matter what but that's no reason to stand around and let disgrace turn into disaster (not that it isn't already, for Iraqis).

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jenna Bush, Crawford, Texas — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:55:07 GMT

My father is such a fool. Will someone please adopt me.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Barbara Bush (the Yalie, not the grandma), Washington, DC — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:56:04 GMT

Me, too!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Steve Mount Laurel NJ — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:56:40 GMT

If we are going to look at the stock market for answers then I guess we went to Iraq to fight so Google could profit? Oil is not the only stock that is up tremendously... That dog don't hunt...

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Nick, Ohio — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:47:26 GMT

I just don't see the point of now trying to resurrect some sort of positive action in Iraq. Maybe that could have taken place 2+ years ago, but now that country is so embroiled in self destruction via civil war that our presence is only adding fuel to the fire for that strife. In this manner, Iraq is almost equal to Viet Nam. We need to leave. (However, I seriously doubt it will occur before the next election. There is no way for Bush to now save "face". He is too stubborn and ignorant to allow our retreat to occur. We'll know more in January, I guess.) We have to learn to NOT try to go it alone (the coalition is a joke) in policing the world. We are co-founders of the UN, which could be the power to handle these affairs, if we would only allow it to do its job. Certainly, the past 6 years have not been good for US-UN relations. And, having Bolton in there recently, is not the most intelligent act the president has ever performed (which seems to be consistent with everything else he's done these 6 long years). How can we be expected to be the world leader with such an incompetent administration? I do give them one credit, however... they've certainly built up the world oil market. I wonder how many members of the Bush Administration made a killing in the oil business when the price of crude went up through the roof this year? (You think they are abiding the law by having no stock in any of those companies?) I still believe a settlement can occur in Iraq, just not with our military presence. We can be the peace broker, but not with our current president. It will take Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to control that country. And, we must not forget to allow Iraqis to rebuild Iraq. I only hope that those who have left Iraq for safety reasons can someday return (if they wish) once it is peaceful again.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 03:52:15 GMT

Elvis from Sarasota, You said, "Yea, we lock up people that break the law which naturally gives us a higher prison population than most of the world....which usually just kill or maim criminals with no trial." The most recent year that I could get statistics for incarceration rates for various countries was 2001. In that year the US had an incarceration rate of 715 per 100,000. The Russian Federation's rate was 584, China's 119. Those two support your argument. But, Italy's was 100, Germany's was 96, and France's was 95. None of these three countries have a death penalty, they don't kill or maim their criminals and they do have trials, so how come their rates are one seventh of ours? Moreover, our incarceration rate is not uniform; the African American male incarceration rate is eight times that of the white male rate. How do you explain that? Do you know what you are talking about?

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

ken, Seattle WA — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:55:39 GMT

The delay is not surprising. This is the same retard that thinks the constitution is some kind of fancy toilet paper. He'll be off wiping his @$$ 'till January.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:19:56 GMT

Pittsburg Pete. Sorry, Elvis has left the Planet.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

DG, upstate NY — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:14:20 GMT

To all those calling for the impeachment of the president I ask one question. Why in heavens sake would you want to make dick cheney president? wouldn't that result in a new vp being selected and a viable? repub candidate for 2008? Yikes!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:40:21 GMT

To think that this war with Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 is irrational. If we invaded every country that had anti-American ideas we would be invading a new country every time we turned around. This makes no sense. We were within bounds going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and hunting Osama bin Laden, but not Sadaam Hussein. We should get out now because we will not "win" this war in Iraq. We need to have troops ready to fight when and where they are needed to insure our country's safety, and though we have ruined their country, the Iraquis will have to come to a political solution. They will have to get by without our troops. It's not right, but it is the only way for our own country's army to survive. They need to be able to fight another day. We need to look at this as losing a battle, so we can win a war. We need our country's borders secured and we need our army here to do that. Five years after 9/11 and still anyone, including terrorists, can sashay in. I don't feel safer.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Boris Gelfand, Chanhassen, Minnesota — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:54:31 GMT

Years from now historians will describe Bush as an only President who understood a real and horrible predicament. The very existence of the USA is at stake. All these fairy tales about WMD, Saddam dictatorship or even so called ‘war on terror’, all of them were invented to ‘legitimize’ the actual war for survival of the USA. Very few years from now every country will struggle for the remnants of the wonderful black gold – oil. The life of the United States economically and even politically will be endangered because if there is no oil flow toward the American shores then there is no America as we know it. If America would like to survive, then she should control oil flow. To control oil flow means to be as close as possible to the source. Therefore, we have out troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc. Bush is the oil man and understands very well that all so called ‘alternatives’ are not feasible either economically or technologically. Therefore, we are engaged in the resource war. This war is the war for survival of the USA.

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Tina ,N/A,N/A — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:34:22 GMT

i believe that our tax dollers are being wasted in the buildings in iraq, and question the quality of work that our goverment is doin to give back to the americans. why can we just leave iraq? what good is it really doing if we're helping then build there goverment when we should be working on our own! i feel as though we are wasting our friends and familys lifes with nonsence!

Bush's Iraq speech: not till 2007?

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:08:29 GMT

As golf wedding favors related topics continue to gain in popularity, there will be more places to learn more about this pressing theme.