Bush: Conditions, not polls, drive Iraq withdrawal

What a radical idea--letting military leaders run a war! Instead of newspaper reporters, who (it is well known) are the real military geniuses of our time.

For more on newspaper surrenderists, see Victor Davis Hanson's takedown of the NY Times, the church bulletin of the Leftist media, at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2007/07/13/the_new_york_times_surrenders

Bush, I hope when you read this blog you will take note of this important point: We don't trust you." Read our lips "We don't trust your mind, we don't trust your judgement, we don't trust any thing about you." Just so your cheerleaders know, we don't hate you, we don't trust you. End of story.

RNC Bruce,

"...letting military leaders run a war!"

Sarcasm doesn't do your RNC lockstep justice.

But here goes anyway:

Do you mean like when Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said it'd take approximately 400,000 U.S. military personnel to secure Iraq post-invasion?

Bruce, have no pride? Have you no shame?

If Bush was as forthcoming on HOW we can win the war (not to mention just going ahead and WINNING it) as he is adherent to this ridiculous mismanaged debacle he's put us through for the past 4 years), this wouldn't even be an issue. All Bush has is "trust me, it'll get better" long after he's lost our trust (and by "lost," I mean "had it securely and then threw it away lie by lie, secret by secret and act of arrogance after act of arrogance") and given us continual failures and continual escalating costs with the war NOT getting significantly better.

And I don't put the entire blame on Bush's shoulders. He's to blame to the extent he could have made a better analysis of the facts going in, and especially to the extent that he took too long to replace his people (Rumsfeld, Bremer and Feith, to name a few) when they failed to produce results. But the Iraqi government and the Iraqi defense forces have shown almost NO capacity for stepping up to their own plate, and that's THEIR fault. I think it's shameful that we keep sending brave, strong troops in to clean up the mess of people who WOULD be a comedy act of ineptitude and ignorance if it weren't for the fact that human lives are at stake and are being thrown to the winds.

Under the circumstances, it's high time Bush started listening to the polls. And so should Congress.

The "conditions" to which he is referring, you numbnuts, are those on ground ... on Wall Street.

Guns of August make money for the people who only care about the bottom line.

If you think it's hot in Baghdad and Washington, you haven't touched the ground of the financial world.

Pole this, W: Maleekee says we can go and thanks us for the US$282million you gave him the other day.
W, WE WON!!! WE CAN LEAVE NOW!!! We're free to get the he11 out.
Bruce...JohnDunce, look: we win, we win! USA! USA!
W can put TWO socks down his flightsuit crotch, now. One for Brucie and one for Duncie.

Bush: "Conditions, Not Polls, Drive Iraq Withdrawal"

Translated this means:
I don't care what the American people think, I'm a dictator, not a President, and don't you dare question me.

LATE NIGHT SNARK:

"Earlier today a new list of the Seven Wonders of the World were unveiled and the list includes the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal and the Coliseum in Rome. After seeing the list, President Bush asked, 'What about Space Mountain?'
-CONAN O'B'BRIEN-

"Sixty eight percent of Republicans don't believe in Evolution. On the other hand, only five percent of monkeys believe in Republicans."
-STEPHEN COLBERT-

"There's a Republican Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, who admitted that he dates prostitutes. And he was very generous with one girl..he paid her with a new highway project in her home state..One thing I'll say for this Vitter guy, at least he went to a professional and left the Congressional pages alone."
-DAVID LETTERMAN-

"John Edwards is on the campaign trail. He's now doing something called his 'Poverty Tour', where he's visiting people who have no money and no hope. His first stop today: John McCain's headquarters."
-JAY LENO-

"Surrendering the future of Iraq to Al-Queda"

How can Bush expect anyone to believe anything he says when he includes ridiculous statements like that in his speech? If we leave now, Iraq may be taken over by the Iranian-backed Shiite majority and there could be a long bloody civil war, but an Al-Queda takeover is as likely as a George Bush winning another term in 2008. (Yes Bruce, I know he is limited to two terms.)

Bruce,
Your comment might mean something had George W had let the military leaders run the war. So you want us to sit tight, say nothing and watch dumb move after dumb move.--It makes no sense.

Yo Doug, the folks in the ground were the direct result of the wishes of Gen. Tommy Franks and the Joint Chief of Staff back in 2003.

Yo Doug, the folks on the ground were the direct result of the wishes of Gen. Tommy Franks and the Joint Chief of Staff back in 2003.

You guys are funny. Great posts, of course there's Bruce but there's always one in the crowd. Iraqi PM Maliki is saying that Iraq can manage without the US. So what's the problem? They don't want the US military there, the US military doesn't want to be there, and the American people want this OVER! And yet, little prince silver spoon up his nose insists on playing war.

What a radical idea--letting military leaders run a war! Instead of newspaper reporters, who (it is well known) are the real military geniuses of our time.
Posted by: Bruce | July 14, 2007 10:15 AM

Would they be the military leaders who said we can win with only 150k troops...and can't, or the ones who said it would take 400k troops and were retired or the new thing.."spend more time with their families"?

"When America starts drawing down our forces in Iraq,'' he said, "it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right -- not because pollsters say it would be good politics.''

Interesting. I get it. He really wasn't only referring to our polls or Congress. He was referring to the Iraqi polls and Gov. Turns out they are unhappy with the surge. Apparently, only when the surge will mean even handedness; no sparring Shiite neighborhoods. This is lovely we replaced Saddam with another ape just like him, or should I say apes. All of a sudden NOW we are "arming gangs of killers" and "anybody" against al-Queda. NOW we are "committing human right violations" bc our bombing takes the lives of civilians too. NOW the surge and pressure for political reconciliation is an "American dream" and "American lab experiment." NOW we can't work with Petraeus, bc he plans to seriously shake up those neighborhoods Shiites live in. NOW its a problem that Baghdad has a wall in it; after erecting it and insisting on bombing Shiite strongholds. What a bunch of fruity pebbles. I would say as far as Bush Co/neo-cons are concerned it's all true and a problem. The problem is how NOW it becomes relevant when we do anything to threaten the comfort of Shiite leaders in gov and their affiliates. What a bunch of apes. To think their people Shiite Kurd Sunni who have been disheartened all along by this gov have to stand by the waist side of these monkeys. We gave the people liberty? democracy? Until this gov plays fair and considers that its really "their citizens" too who are against the gov, and not only "gangs of killers", unless they are made up of their own, we just gave them the same hierarchy they enjoyed before under Saddam. Taking exception to the fact that unlike Saddam they actually might not mind Iran. Mission accomplished.

John D.,

General Shinseki spoke truth to power about troop level and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz fired him for it.

Franks told them what they wanted to hear and here we are.

I 2nd GW. Sorry Shrubby. No one trusts you and any of your Republicrook buddies anymore. I'm not listening to anything you say because I don't believe anything that passes your lips.

Enjoy your place in history: Worst. president. ever.

If I were a General that had been in charge of our Iraq effort I would be going out in public with a Groucho Marks nose and mustache. That is better than trying to explain four and a half years of failure.Our defeat has been caused by the Generals going along with bad tactics,no strategy and fear of defying the civilian paper tigers. Why our Generals have no shame is beyond me. Petraeus is on his third tour in Itaq and is going to tell us in September exactly what Bush tells him. Petraeus is the successor to Colin Powell as Bush's "dog robber".

John D.,

Don't you wish you could get that 1st 2:32 PM post back?

And yet, I have yet to see a clear definition by president chainsaw of what exactly constitutes "victory". You can bet he's not asking chimpy for advice.

Impeach Bush and Cheney?

Anybody see where Bruce Fein
(His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.)

called for putting impeachment of chimpy and shotgun dick on the table to get them to hew the line on properly adhering to the Constitution of the United States. Yep, even well credentialed conservatives (i.e. - REAL Conservatives) are looking at chimpy as a real ghoul.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Read it and weep brucie, pillow and juanD.

Worst administration ever.

george took another oppurtunity to show his base he is still the decider guy. The American will is driven by it's disgust after 6 years of unnecessary bloodshed, ignited by a War they were duped into backing. Mr. Bush is still insisting we stay until our corporations can stimulate our economy, "CAPITALIZING" on the circumstances George created, surrounding the plight of Iraq.
In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment of how the Iraqi government is doing in meeting the 18 benchmarks that Congress asked us to measure.

So, anybody, including the President, that still insists this war is winnable, should be tried for treason. You cannot win a war that is annulled by the people fighting it. Regardless of how you spin your little message.

No Doug, Franks did not tell Bush what he wanted to hear. He asked for what he thought was necessary.
And in regard to the first 2:32 post, I tried to correct it before it went but to no avail. I thought you and your buddies would like the "in" part.

Wait, this just in. Maleakee says "US can leave anytime.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq,1,7982944.story?coll=chi-news-hed

I look forward to welcoming our troops home from Iraq next week. We have achieved total victory, according to the man elected leader by a democratic process.

And while we're at it, why do these incompetent, intellectually and morally corrupt despots seem to think that documents pertaining to true American hero Pat Tillman are protected by executive privilege? Could it be they contain information about how president chainsaw and his bootlicker chimpy mcflightsuit (and the evil twin of Valdemort, KKKarl) tried to capitalize on Pat's death, knowing it was friendly fire after all?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003788310_webtillman13.html

The

worst

administration....................ever.

John D.,

In February of 2003 General Shinseki testified before Congress that he thought a post-invasion troop strength of "several hundred thousand" would be needed.

Subsequently Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said of Shinseki's testimony that it was "wildly off the mark." Then Shinseki was fired.

Rhetorically speaking; What message did General Franks deduce from this?

And in retrospect, who was correct Shinseki or Wolfowitz?

WHAT A RADICAL IDEA....

Real "commanders" would not have put us in there in the first place. That was A "POLITICIAN." Now it's up to Field Commanders to carry the load. Nice dump job! Because we were decieved going in, does not mean we should stay.

Focus on the roots of terror. They were never in Iraq. Some may be now but surgery-not nation building-will surfice.

Strike at the heart...wherever that leads. We obviously do not care about borders so there should be no limits.

You'd half expect them to start covering their tracks and hiding all the skeletons about now instead of this boldly defiant stance.

I mean we're only 18 months away from a COMPLETE drawdown of Republicans from our American political stage...

All this bickering over military strategy, politics, the constitution, historical reputation -- what should be obvious seven years after the fact is that this has nothing to do with the United States or government. This is a cabal, a takeover of the presidency for the gains of an even smaller group than usual (smaller even than the politburo). For Haliburton, Exxon, Chevron, B.P. (thus the British PMs shamelessly licking this wincing monkey). It should be seen as the most utter contempt for this country that such plantation-mindeds would think to foist this wretched lout Bush Jr. up as their puppet -- even after trying it with the Texas Rangers and Harken. Dick Cheney doesn't care what anyone thinks about Bush. Take that, America. Like Pat Robertson saying he can leg press a ton, they're getting off seeing just how credulous we will be,.

I have been following the political scene
for over 40 years, and not very often, if it all, has any elected offical has accepted responibility, unless they were caught with their pants down. I forget, or don't remember,that was somebody else, doesn't or should I say, is not acceptable anymore.If we are to believe anything they are incompetent to the point of being felonious. Stand up , point out the truth, stop calling each other names , we know it is all about the money. If we don't we fall into the spin they give us!

Impeach BUSH!

Impeach BUSH!

Conditions?

Like one of these:
1) The US Treasury is bankrupt and all of the income for the next 50 years will go to Bush's cronies off-shore accounts under British and Dutch protectorate territories

2) The Sunni's and Shiites have been completely positioned to massacre one another and then we pull out all at once so there can be a blood bath and then the Democrats can be blamed for the next 20 years.

or perhaps 3) Until Bush's administration is over and there is no longer any culpability it will be someone else's mess...

Personally, I think it's more like 4) All of the above

"The fight in Iraq can be won."

What is he talking about? Is it the fight of the Sunnis to reclaim power. The fight of the Shiites to hold power and keep the Sunnis from getting it again. The fight to get the Iraqi police and Iraqi military fighting on our side, or the side of their puppet government? The fight of stopping groups like Al Qaeda from creating further chaos. Or is it the fight to install a democracy, getting everyone cooperating happily, maybe get some fast food restaurants and a few topless joints going, and getting all the citizens interested in flowers for Americans instead of guns. You can't install democracy in a country such as Iraq.

Bin Laden is still alive and Al Qaeda is getting experienced and stronger. They are going to be here again, and we are stuck in this insane war for which there is no victory for another how many years.

I sometimes wonder if the 400,000 troops and better border control after the invasion would have made that much of a difference. Even then we would be there for ten to twenty years. This war is a grotesque mistake.

Bush has a plan? Wow, I'm impressed. I thought it was just "go in with six guns blazing and forget the details".

It isn't a WAR, its an occupation; In a War by definition, forces are alllowed to engage as needed/required, to win by attrition or any means possible. They are within populated areas, similar to todays police officers. It is a shoot- dont shoot condition. Hostiles are among the Friendly townspeople. This cannot be WON, and therefore it is a no win scenerio...

It is downright embarrassing and depressing to have such an idiot at the helm. Bush has totally lost track of the real goal and is fixated on "winning in Iraq" (what the hell does that even mean in the current situation?). Hell, we're even fighting their police force now.

The real goal should be going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Hey George... the command and control structure of Al Qaeda is not in Iraq. It's in the mountains of northern Pakistan. While we waste our precious young men, women, and treasure in Iraq... perhaps doing away with a few minor Al Qaeda foot soldiers, Bin Laden et. al. must be laughing their heads off at how easily distracted, and obstinate you are.

We've done zippo to go after those guys in Pakistan... and here at home our own government is still issuing permits for nuclear material to NON-EXISTENT companies. Gosh, I feel so much safer with the "Decider and Commander in Chief" at the helm.

Wow, the level of arrogance in those words is astounding. Someone please, stop these guys.

I AM A GRANDMA AND I THINK WE NEED OUR TROOPS HOME TO DEFEND OUR USA.

Doug, I am not a Wolfowitz fan. I would say that in retrospect more troops were needed. McCain said that from the beginning as well as others.
However, Patreaus's surge plan is actually showing results and has only been in action for a few weeks now.
Fact is, though leaving now or soon will accomplish nothing but a worse scenario.

Under the circumstances, it's high time Bush started listening to the polls. And so should Congress.

Posted by: Op109 | July 14, 2007 12:12 PM

You mean the repugnicans in congress don't you Op109? Try telling the whole truth for a change.

John D.,

I might be a little more patient if I saw even a glimmer of political progress being made by the Iraqi Government.

But I don't see it.

I also see little to no evidence of the Iraqi army & police standing up so we can stand down.

In addition, alliances with our military that are happening in some regions and neighborhoods are alliances of convenience and ever so temporary in nature. Iraqi poll after poll after poll say they want us out of there.

Running up the body count doesn't equal success or security for the U.S. or Iraq.

President Maliki has announced that the Americans can leave any time and the Iraqi forces can step up to the plate.

Translation: he and his Shiite pals think they have enough control that they can take over the country and smush any opponents. No more pesky US interference and talk about ending sectarian violence.

Mr. Maliki is a smart man.
His statements must be terrifying Bush et al who desperately want us to stay in Iraq at full strength at least until January 2009. What if the Maliki government turns on them?
The world is watching.

What will it take for Maliki to back down?
Billions to a Swiss bank account? Bush will pay it.
Regime change? Here we go again....

Maliki definitely has the upper hand in this negotiation.

No, I think it's more like stupidity and arrogance. That's why you added 30,000 more troops, you moron!

It's ALL about George.

George W Bush will go down in US history as the worst leader ever. Why? because of all the wonderful things he COULD have done with those hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, but instead of being the super-hero of democracy as he continues to believe himself to be, he will be remembered for being duped by the Shiites of Iraq into helping them to over-throw the Sunnis, as they will now do when the US troops leave (whether now or later, makes no difference).

John McCain is singing the same song. "Principle, not politics," will determine McCain's position on the war.

This is, after all, a Republic. But unlike Saddam Hussein, McCain has to eventually face the voters. So ultimately, if the voters decide your fate, you better start listening to THEIR will.

Bush, like Saddam and unlike McCain, doesn't have to listen to the voters anymore.

McCain, unfortunately for his campaign, doesn't get this yet.

"Under the circumstances, it's high time Bush started listening to the polls. And so should Congress.

Posted by: Op109 | July 14, 2007 12:12 PM

You mean the repugnicans in congress don't you Op109? Try telling the whole truth for a change.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2007 7:45 AM"

Well, what I mean is that Bush ought to listen to what the people are telling him, what they told him by their votes in November, 2006 and what they continue to tell him. And Congress -- both Democrats and Republicans put together -- ought to be listening to what the people are saying as well. The Republicans should be listening to what the people want rather than trying to run damage control, and the Democrats ought to grow a spine or a pair or both and ought to start playing hardball with the Republicans AND Bush, which they've been too timid to do so far. And, although there's not a snowball's chance of it actually being successful, I think the Dems ought to put impeachment back on the table for both Cheney and Bush. The power grabs by the Executive Branch are intolerable, as they were under the Clinton administration. I think that NOT starting impeachment proceedings is an affront to our country, and it's telling Bush we don't mind that he's overstepped his bounds. Even an unsuccessful attempt would send a message that we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.

It's not like there's not enough blame to go around, and neither party is doing what they ought to be doing to resolve this situation adequately.

My opinion.

I think we should take Maliki up on his offer.

The reason the polls are so dismal Mr President as we no longer believe your assessment of the conditions on the ground.
Letting military commanders decide the course of the war is all fine and good until you fire every commander that disagrees with you. Once you do that the credibility of both the military and the oval office is degraded.
For those who support this president, ask yourselves honestly, would you still support this war if this presidents name were Clinton?

"What a radical idea--letting military leaders run a war! Instead of newspaper reporters, who (it is well known) are the real military geniuses of our time."

Posted by: Bruce | July 14, 2007 10:15 AM

Wrong Bruce!!

As brillianty stated by the former French statesman and prime minsiter, Georges Clemenseau, "War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."

Contrary to Democratic candidate John Kerry's claim, in the first debate of the 2004 presidential election, Shinseki was not "retired" for his testimony before Congress. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled.

Doug Zook Don't you wish you could get that 1st 4:14 P.M. post back ?

Don B.,

No.

When the largest newspaper in the reddest state bails on Bush's war, the end must be near:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6376583

Oh, Reamer, er John E., no matter where the newspaper is located most of the so-called journalists working on it will be liberal to far left. The position of the Salt Lake Tribune means nothing.

Don B.,

I looked again at the timeline for Shinseki's retirement and you are indeed correct.

Good for you, Doug!

John D.,

I am tired of the name calling. I want the phrases "You have a point there" and "Oops, my bad" to remain a part of my vocabulary.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I commend John W. and a few others for inadvertenly reminding me of that.

Hello hello, is this thing on. As far as corporate.governmental.media LLC is concerned. I live in the bluest of blue states. So they say. Our major publication is owned by someone from texas. The day following the libby jail break, our little rag's editorial was dedicated to praising the finer attributes of george w bush.
But idle chat is not what brought me back here.
Lets make it three or so.
You are being accused of being a leftist rag. Just for fun, why don't you throw the folks that still lean left a little bone.
WHERE IS THE STORY ABOUT THE DRAFT IN SEPTEMBER?
Will it be in full-swing in September or will it start softly, maybe at a later date? How many different loopholes will there be to defer service? What's the chances a kid from the ghetto will get one?
All this and the rest of the news, when it's too late to do anything about it.

Courtesy of the good folks at corporate.governmental.media LLC - Creating a better world for us.