Comments on: Bush, Iraq PM Discuss Troop Pullout Plan

2011 Eyed As Target Date For U.S. Troops To Leave But No Deal Or Timeline Finalized

[jackmayoff2]

WELL THERE GOES THE MCCAIN IDEA 100 YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ OUT THE WINDOW

[gce65]

It hardly matters what the US agrees to anyway. Bush will do whatever he wants regardless of negotiations of treaties or status of force agreements. Negotiating is just a stalling tactic anyway, it''s what the Israelis do all the time.

[brianbwb-2009]

"For Bush to have to agree to a time-table of withdrawal..." Posted by alohaone1

It is because the more sane of us are appalled at the death and destruction wrought by his lies, and will continue, even after he has left office, to call for his arrest and presentation at war crimes trials, and for the return of the money stolen from our children''s future, from the war profiteers who stole it.

The Iraqis should be emboldened to attain the end of our occupation of their land, and if I, in my opposition to genocide based on lies, have in any microscopic way helped to bring it about, then I have done my duty to humanity to oppose a war criminal.

[promaclaura]

brianbwb - willing to let people suffer under Saddam Hussein because of Bush Hate.

[gce65]

Pop some smelling salts under Bush''s nose! Wake up, George!
It''s the central point of negotiations.
It''s called a TIMELINE FOR WITHDRAWAL.
It''s around June of 2009.

[alohaone1]

alohaone1 and notblue - I might add that I believed Saddam should be ousted before George became President. You see, like the rest of the world that watched Saddam play WMD pat-a-cake during the no-fly zone (costing billions) I watched as well (on this very network and 60 minutes). Everyone believed he was a menace to our country and feared him the most. Then 9/11 happened, and we woke up to the fact that if terrorist trained in Afghanistan could perform such a tragic event, what in the h e l l could Saddam pull off? After all he was the one that pretended to have the WMD, so we took his game to heart. Bye, Bye, Saddam. I bet many of these posters believed Saddam was evil as well, it took President Bush''''s election to change their minds, truly pathetic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by promaclaura at 06:14 PM : Aug 22, 2008

Well said ! it is true ... it is easy to say " I told you so " when we did not find WMD in Iraq , but the trouble is , Saddam would not let the inspectors do their jobs ...and it went on for 10 years ! on the other hand , if a decision was not made and it turn out that Saddam had WMD , will any one care to bear the consequences . Remember , the evidences were never enough to make the case that Bin Laden will pull 9/11 on us , but he did , same case in WW2 , yes , wait until you get enough evidences (which is close to forever) and risk the consequences !

[promaclaura]

promaclaura -- Did not Cheney himself in 93 say the first George Bush was right in not continuing and toppling Saddam. Funny Bush 41 and 20th century Cheney were right and Bush 43 and 21st Century Cheney were wrong. Republicans apparently do not age well or effectively teach their young common sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by misha128

History has proven this wrong, I felt it was a mistake to leave Saddam in place. Wow, he was so kind to his detractors after that. Mass murder and mass graves show how successful leaving Saddam in place was. Let''s not forget the successful no-fly zone, a great big prison that cost us billions and gained us nothing. It also, made sure to keep our troops in Saudi Arabia, the holy land that p i s s e d OBL off so bad. We spent 12 years wringing our hands over Saddam, it would have been much better to have done it the first time.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by promaclaura

Your point is irrelevant, as Saddam did not have WMDs, as most of the world already knew, and all of the world certainly knows now.

As for whatever chicanery Saddam was up to, that was an internal Iraqi matter, it still was no clear and present danger to us, he was sent back out of Kuwait, and bombed back to the 1950s, and was absolutely no reason that 4,100+ of our children, and upwards of a million Iraqis should have died, and still die.

You can continue to try to invent reasons and justifications for Bush''s lies, but in the end they are still lies, and in time people like you will be regarded the same as the few remaining old Germans who still think that Hitler was right in what he did.

[alohaone1]

Any of you Libs out there who said that evidences pointed to NO WMD in Iraq before the war CARE to tell me why the many UN resolution before the war ? What did the Resolutions say ? if the evidences were so compelling , why did the UN have resolutions at all? Then , how many resolutions were broken and treated like TRASH by Saddam before we invade Iraq? How much time did we wait between resolutions , how many deadlines come and past , how many "if you do not complain, there will be consequences " were treated like Jokes by SAddam who even when the war broke out , refused to believe that the world DARE to do anything to him? and the strongest evidences coming from the UN inspectors , I quote: "..we can not rule out the possibilities of WMD in Iraq .." now that is so compelling and strong ! Go do some research on news prior to the war and you will see.

[promaclaura]

alohaone1 and notblue are lost with Senator McCain in an alternate reality where there is an Iraq-Pakistan border and the enemy Al Qaeda is a better source of intelligence than the US intelligence agencies. Someday they may actually read the recently declassified intelligence documents and determine what the administration hid from Congress and the country in making their case for Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by misha128

misha - the case for ousting Saddam was made before George Bush even took office. Look at Saddam''s atrocities and tell me that you would have wished that on anyone. Come on, this is pure Hate Bush speak and you know it. President Bush shouldn''t have even had to make a case at all, Clinton and his administration did a good job on that already. All Democrat minions sought ways to oust Saddam because he was evil personified. Go ahead, defend your hero Saddam.

[kansas1946]

I think George is using Obama''s plan. McCain would stay there 100 years.

[misha128-2009]

promaclaura -- Did not Cheney himself in 93 say the first George Bush was right in not continuing and toppling Saddam. Funny Bush 41 and 20th century Cheney were right and Bush 43 and 21st Century Cheney were wrong. Republicans apparently do not age well or effectively teach their young common sense.

[promaclaura]

Hans Blix told the UN that there were no WMDs, and cheney said that the US had information contrary to the guy who spent two years on the groung looking for them.

No your point is pretty much the opposite of reality, most of the world, probably 90%, knew that Bush was lying us into a war for oil. Even I knew it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by brianbwb

The U.N. is a joke. Corruption at it''s best under Koffi Anan. Ever hear of the "oil for food scandal"? Koffi''s son was up to his neck in this one. France was bought by Saddam with oil, Russia was selling Saddam weapons. Those countries turned a blind eye to Saddam''s attrocities, and made a mockery of the sanctions against Saddam. Using the very tool that was supposed to feed his people to buy support from the real oil grabbers. Thank God France woke up and elected a pro-American not on the make. Once again, Bush hate blinds one to all else. Keep on defending your favorite dictator Saddam, it fits you so well.

[alohaone1]

Obama said he would strike within Pakistand after Al Qaeda. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but then Bush did. Obama said to redeploy troops to Afghanistan. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is. Obama many months ago stated a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is.-----------------

Posted by kissamaarse at 05:20 PM : Aug 22, 2008

Okay , let see , Before Bush bombed limited and precisedly confirmed targets inside Pakistan border-region , he called and got permission from Musharaf who confirmed it as the case leaked out . For Bush to have to agree to a time-table of withdrawal , it is because the Iraqis become emboldened by the stupid Libs and Obama support and thus our negotiating power with them is curtained by our own people . When the war were raging on, for the shake of their country , we did not talk time -table , now with the enemies nearly destroyed and come time for our companies to make profit, they want time-table ? what kind of joke is it , but you know what , if your own people is stabbing you in the back , now can you negotiate ? Remember why the best army lost in Vietnam ? Now , WE have to GRUDGINGLY AGREE TO THIS UNFAIR DEAL once again, thanks to Obama and the betraying Libs...and Afganishtan , it is time the other Nato nations do their duties , not us , but because Obama and the libs are playing the image of we abandoning Afganishtan , we have to send troops there too !

[ajaxtheleast]

future prez. reads to third-graders:

"And then you know what ?,,,,

Well,,,,,

The good Commander-In-Chief George Bush

in his eighth year of his battle against

the Evil Ragamuffins from the far-away land

offered pennies, nickles and dimes to

half of the Evil Ragamuffins to become good

Ragamuffins to fight the remaining half of

the Evil Ragamuffins,,,,there-by managing a

tie with the Evil Ragamuffins AND everybody in

the one-third left that could still do this

sort of thing LIVED happily ever after.

[bagdadshere2]

Once upon a time, the United States refused to recognize any government that was elected while under foreign occupation (see Lebanon). I guess the exception to that policy is when America''''s the occupier.

How can anyone not see that the current Iraqi government is nothing more than a puppet of America?

Posted by shoebox119 at 06:04 PM : Aug 22, 2008
----------------------------------------

AMERICA doesnt recognize any government elected under foreign occupation when the people vote under threat and AK-47 like in Lebanon and Gaza strip. That was not the case with the Iraqi government cause the people voted freely without any fear and elected Nuri Al-Maliki.

[misha128-2009]

alohaone1 and notblue are lost with Senator McCain in an alternate reality where there is an Iraq-Pakistan border and the enemy Al Qaeda is a better source of intelligence than the US intelligence agencies. Someday they may actually read the recently declassified intelligence documents and determine what the administration hid from Congress and the country in making their case for Iraq.

[promaclaura]

alohaone1 and notblue - I might add that I believed Saddam should be ousted before George became President. You see, like the rest of the world that watched Saddam play WMD pat-a-cake during the no-fly zone (costing billions) I watched as well (on this very network and 60 minutes). Everyone believed he was a menace to our country and feared him the most. Then 9/11 happened, and we woke up to the fact that if terrorist trained in Afghanistan could perform such a tragic event, what in the h e l l could Saddam pull off? After all he was the one that pretended to have the WMD, so we took his game to heart. Bye, Bye, Saddam. I bet many of these posters believed Saddam was evil as well, it took President Bush''s election to change their minds, truly pathetic.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...I thought 90% of the world DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SADDAM REALLY POSSESSED WMD OR NOT and that include not just our CIA BUT also the French , the British , the Russians , the Israelis..." Posted by alohaone1

You thought incorrectly, the French disagreed with the US, hence "freedom fries," remember that idiocy? The German foreign minister accused Bush of using tactics akin to Hitler''s in stirring up the war fever, and was forced to apologize for her comparison, as it offended Israel. The British foisted a pirated ten year old thesis, stolen from an Indian student at Berkley University (California, btw) proof that they too were lying. Mahathir Muhammad then Prime Minister of Malaysia, observed that the US had a 50 year cold war with the Soviets without firing a shot, but because Bush wanted Iraqi oil, the US fires every weapon other than nuclear, that it possessed, against a country that was no threat.

Hans Blix told the UN that there were no WMDs, and cheney said that the US had information contrary to the guy who spent two years on the groung looking for them.

No your point is pretty much the opposite of reality, most of the world, probably 90%, knew that Bush was lying us into a war for oil. Even I knew it.

[pvperson]

"I thought 90% of the world DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SADDAM REALLY POSSESSED WMD OR NOT"

That was before the world found out that Bush had fabricated everything he was using as proof.

The world was willing to let the inspectors do their jobs, Bush knew that he had to invade before the world learned the truth.