(I'm not sure if he understands what the word "envisions" means
.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."

"I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.

"The president has always said that ultimately you want to be handing primary responsibility off to the Iraqis," he said.

"You provide the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of Iraqis but you do not want the United States forever in the front."
.
.
.
.
Note that he says....."U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
.
.
.
Haven't they already done that???????????

(I'm not sure if he understands what the word "envisions" means
.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."

"I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.

"The president has always said that ultimately you want to be handing primary responsibility off to the Iraqis," he said.

"You provide the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of Iraqis but you do not want the United States forever in the front."
.
.
.
.
Note that he says....."U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
.
.
.
Haven't they already done that???????????

Hmm... Didn't we invite ourselves?

Hmm... Didn't we invite ourselves?

his given us a timetable

"Hmm... Didn't we invite ourselves?"
.
Well, yes.........But that was before we set up new leaders, who wanted us around for a while. These new leaders now think that it is time for us to go. I guess that we either have to (a) leave, or (b) get "new" new leaders.

Now I'm really confused by this whole "Mission Accomplished" thing.

No wonder he doesn't like artificial timetables. He doesn't understand the concept.

Now I'm really confused by this whole "Mission Accomplished" thing.

No wonder he doesn't like artificial timetables. He doesn't understand the concept.

Your confusion about the "Mission Accomplished" sign is due to your refusal to accept the real explanation for it and insistance on using it for political advantage. as for being there for 55 years, sounds about right to me, what did you expect? We are likely to be in Afghanistan for the same length of time.

Your confusion about the "Mission Accomplished" sign is due to your refusal to accept the real explanation for it and insistance on using it for political advantage.

Stop trying to sell me BS, Snake. The ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" thing was done solely so that Bush could use it for political advantage. It was supposed to be the best photo op ever. Too bad it backfired on him and now is used against him. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

Hmm... Didn't we invite ourselves?Yes. But we did in Korea too.

I understand where the President is coming from. The problem is that unlike Korea, I don't think there are any major players in Iraq who actually want us to stick around much longer. In Korea, the SK gov't and people clearly wanted us there. In Iraq, not so much.

Stop trying to sell me BS, Snake. The ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" thing was done solely so that Bush could use it for political advantage. It was supposed to be the best photo op ever. Too bad it backfired on him and now is used against him. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

I'm not trying to sell you anything. Just being brutally honest with you 'cause I care so much.

I'm not trying to sell you anything. Just being brutally honest with you 'cause I care so much.
awww how sweet, hugarounds and whispering sweet nothing...

Just being brutally honest with you 'cause I care so much.

Three words:

Flight suit bulge.

There are a few officials in the Iraq government that have pushed for a resolution to tell us we aren't welcome, but they are a small but vocal minority. To this moment the Iraqi government has not requested that we withdraw, afterall we are training their troop and providing stability and support.

The comments I keep reading in these posts make it sound like we're in conflict with the Iraqis as a people. Everyone tends to forget that we and the Iraqis are on the same side against a force not officially supported by any military or government or even the comman person in Iraq.

Most of the pressure to leave is coming from our own people, most of who don't have a clue what is going on. That said, there is always a high price to pay for anyone who takes our current stance, and that in truth is what most are reacting to, not the right or wrongness of our position.

Three words:

Flight suit bulge.

try to recontextualize the moment.

7 other words
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended"

so what have the last 4 years been? (yes it has been 4 years to the day)

or

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed"

or

"Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice."

gee we just finished combat operations in Iraq and Bush is making references to terrorist attacks. No, he never alluded to connecting Iraq to terror.

Yes. But we did in Korea too.

I understand where the President is coming from. The problem is that unlike Korea, I don't think there are any major players in Iraq who actually want us to stick around much longer. In Korea, the SK gov't and people clearly wanted us there. In Iraq, not so much.

In korea we were there to keep the outside forces out, we did not act as policing forces. So this is nothing like korea

There are a few officials in the Iraq government that have pushed for a resolution to tell us we aren't welcome, but they are a small but vocal minority. To this moment the Iraqi government has not requested that we withdraw, afterall we are training their troop and providing stability and support.

The comments I keep reading in these posts make it sound like we're in conflict with the Iraqis as a people. Everyone tends to forget that we and the Iraqis are on the same side against a force not officially supported by any military or government or even the comman person in Iraq.

Most of the pressure to leave is coming from our own people, most of who don't have a clue what is going on. That said, there is always a high price to pay for anyone who takes our current stance, and that in truth is what most are reacting to, not the right or wrongness of our position.

please tell me which Iraqis want us to stay
the Sunnis that are killing us
or the Shi'a that are killing us

where you getting your info
here this is as MOR as possible
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/two_polls_two_s.html

small percent, like 71?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

or a more conservative 60%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm

lefty site but it has a graph
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

and over half the govt

"On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum)."

so please oh please oh new one. get your info straight next time

Everyone tends to forget that we and the Iraqis are on the same side against a force not officially supported by any military or government or even the comman person in Iraq.


That is so wrong-headed I do not know where to start.

You reading of the situation is just plain wrong....believing that the insurgency and instability is driven only be foreign Jihadists.

That is so wrong-headed I do not know where to start.

You reading of the situation is just plain wrong....believing that the insurgency and instability is driven only be foreign Jihadists.

That isn't what he said Rydster. The insurgency is being fought by the Iraqi government and the Americans. Both the jihadists and insurgents are a common enemy of both governments and the people of Iraq, who incidentally, bear the brung of the destruction and murder. Look through the ATP smoke, the guy does make sense.

That isn't what he said Rydster. The insurgency is being fought by the Iraqi government and the Americans. Both the jihadists and insurgents are a common enemy of both governments and the people of Iraq, who incidentally, bear the brung of the destruction and murder. Look through the ATP smoke, the guy does make sense.

No Snake he specifically said 'a force'. The point is that the 'insurgency' is not one single entity, and claiming it is, is surely implying that 'it' is foreign Jihadists, given their percieved unity of purpose (establishing a Caliphate with Bahgdad as its capital - Dick Cheney's words not mine). Fact is that the insurgency to the best of our knowledge, is composed of numerous factions from local Islamists, foreign Jihadists, former Bathists, common criminals and gangsters, to tribal groups and God knows who else. Added to this we have the private and ethnic militias, and the roque government forces who may not be at open war with the US military, but certainly see themselves as beyond its authority (or the Iraqi governments).

No Snake he specifically said 'a force'. The point is that the 'insurgency' is not one single entity, and claiming it is, is surely implying that 'it' is foreign Jihadists, given their percieved unity of purpose (establishing a Caliphate with Bahgdad as its capital - Dick Cheney's words not mine). Fact is that the insurgency to the best of our knowledge, is composed of numerous factions from local Islamists, foreign Jihadists, former Bathists, common criminals and gangsters, to tribal groups and God knows who else. Added to this we have the private and ethnic militias, and the roque government forces who may not be at open war with the US military, but certainly see themselves as beyond its authority (or the Iraqi governments).

The real strength in the insurgency comes from groups loyal to sectarian warlords. If that problem can be overcome, isolated brigands can be controlled as they are in any country that has an efficient police force and a strong national identity. Currently, eliminating the Al Qaeda forces in Iraq is our main goal and the political unification is going to be the responsibility of the Iraqs themselves. We are united with Iraqis and it is one fight with different facets. The problems can't be seprarated and one of us can't finish our job before the other.

The problems can't be seprarated and one of us can't finish our job before the other.

Yes I agree, but this is a very poor strategic position for the US to be in; to be 'handcuffed' to the fate of the Iraqi government. I am sure it was never planned this way, far better to be in a position where ones destiny is in ones own hands I think. If the Iraqi government cannot swim we sink with them!

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended"

so what have the last 4 years been? (yes it has been 4 years to the day)


How's that for supporting the troops?

I'm not trying to sell you anything. Just being brutally honest with you 'cause I care so much.


You should take your shell game out to the Death Star.... I mean, the Las Vegas strip... were not buying you game.

Heck, 55 Years at $100 Billion a year!

Let's just make Iraq our 51st state and call it a day.

Your confusion about the "Mission Accomplished" sign is due to your refusal to accept the real explanation for it and insistance on using it for political advantage. as for being there for 55 years, sounds about right to me, what did you expect? We are likely to be in Afghanistan for the same length of time.

That's funny. Not too high funny. Not too low funny. Just too exact funny. What will be accomplished in 55 years that can't be accomplished in 20 years? Is 55 just a safe random number, perhaps the number of years it will take all US Government individuals currently responsible in any way for this mess to die off?
Or is 55 years the absolute farthest into the future we even dream of looking to?
Maybe in 55 years we'll have proof neither God nor Allah exists. Israel no longer gives a damn about the "holy" land. And we'll be completely independent from foreign oil. Then, just by default, our current interests in Iraq will have disappeared all on their own.

That's funny. Not too high funny. Not too low funny. Just too exact funny. What will be accomplished in 55 years that can't be accomplished in 20 years? Is 55 just a safe random number, perhaps the number of years it will take all US Government individuals currently responsible in any way for this mess to die off?
Or is 55 years the absolute farthest into the future we even dream of looking to?
Maybe in 55 years we'll have proof neither God nor Allah exists. Israel no longer gives a damn about the "holy" land. And we'll be completely independent from foreign oil. Then, just by default, our current interests in Iraq will have disappeared all on their own.

55 represents a long time, pick any number you favor that does the same, I don't care.

You should take your shell game out to the Death Star.... I mean, the Las Vegas strip... were not buying you game.

How can you be a Democrat today and not buy into shell games?

So George W thinks that there will be a N Iraq and a S Iraq with a demilitarized zone between them.

Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html); USA Today, 4/1/03 (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm)]

Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html), 3/16/03 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)]

Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702224_pf.html)]

Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html); USA Today, 4/1/03 (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm)]

Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html), 3/16/03 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)]

Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702224_pf.html)]

Well, I'll tell you how much smarter I am than you are, I never thought in my wildest dreams that this would be short term. I didn't need any lies or any cajoling to approve of taking action that I felt was at least 30 years too late. George, Dick, Wolfy, Donny, none of them fooled me for a minute. Maybe that's why I don't switch sides and teams with every little poll driven breeze that comes along. It is also why I am thankful and supportive of the people in theater, even when things are toughest and I pray for their success and an end to the murderous ideology that has spawned this mess. I wish they didn't have to be their but am grateful they were willing to go.

Please explain why George & Co. told the American people otherwise.

Please explain why George & Co. told the American people otherwise.

Yup...why not sack up and say this war is gonna cause us a lot of problems, be of indeterminate length and cost a ton of our hard-earned cash. Do you think it would have been sold as easily? Maybe. Did I believe Bush back then when he was promising all this stuff? Hell no. I figured he was lying or at least fudging a bit to make the case for war. I was wrong about the extent of the lies though.

Please explain why George & Co. told the American people otherwise.

I don't need to explain anything if you weren't fooled by the party line and if you were, nothing I can say will help anyway.

using the lemon law

there has been enough false and misleading advertising

yeah I knew it would take a long time. it is why I opposed it.

Snake, Rydster is right, that Trout is less intelligent than the fish he's named after.

you can rarely fool a trout twice.

You guys don't understand. The problem isn't that the war is going badly, it's that the media is telling us the truth about it.

Everything would be going so much better if the patriot media would just show our boys handing out Hershey bars and playing ping pong. Sure, 123 of our soldiers died this month, but that's depressing. And yes, 30+ Iraqi civilians died in yet more Bagdad bombings this week, but they're just mooslims and probably all terrorists anyway so who cares. We don't need to hear about this stuff! Give us good news only. And if there isn't any good news, make it up.

You guys don't understand. The problem isn't that the war is going badly, it's that the media is telling us the truth about it.

Everything would be going so much better if the patriot media would just show our boys handing out Hershey bars and playing ping pong. Sure, 123 of our soldiers died this month, but that's depressing. And yes, 30+ Iraqi civilians died in yet more Bagdad bombings this week, but they're just mooslims and probably all terrorists anyway so who cares. We don't need to hear about this stuff! Give us good news only. And if there isn't any good news, make it up.

Worked for WW2 and they lost 123 men just getting into the landing craft to go ashore.

Worked for WW2 and they lost 123 men just getting into the landing craft to go ashore.This isn't WW2.

This isn't WW2.

I keep telling him that...

I keep telling him that...

He keeps ignoring that.

/wishing that republicans and their supporters would stop comparing Iraq to WWII...
//biting TMB's slashie style. Sorry...

This isn't WW2.

Didn't say it was.

I keep telling him that...

Why? I'm not senile, I understand that. :)

Didn't say it was.


then quit bringing it up

then again folks lest we forget

to Snake

Watergate was the media's fault as well

damn truth be told

then quit bringing it up

then again folks lest we forget

to Snake

Watergate was the media's fault as well

damn truth be told

Why should I stop mentioning it, does it make you uncomfortable? Another thing about it was that it was the last time Congress made a formal Declaration of War and I don't think any of the members later claimed to have been duped. That's refreshing, don't you think?

Why should I stop mentioning it, does it make you uncomfortable? Another thing about it was that it was the last time Congress made a formal Declaration of War and I don't think any of the members later claimed to have been duped. That's refreshing, don't you think?


WW2 or Korea for that matter is retarded

it is neither

so no it doesn't make me uncomfortable but it makes you look like a moreon

WW2 or Korea for that matter is retarded

it is neither

so no it doesn't make me uncomfortable but it makes you look like a moreon

I'm not comparing the conflicts, I am comparing the behavior of half the population, the media and half the Congress (more than half now) and I'm sorry if that sort of thing disturbs you. The various "barbaric" behavioral events with prisoners and combat incidents are also comparable if you look deep enough. War brings out the worst in human behavior as well as the best.

I'm not comparing the conflicts, I am comparing the behavior of half the population, the media and half the Congress (more than half now) and I'm sorry if that sort of thing disturbs you. The various "barbaric" behavioral events with prisoners and combat incidents are also comparable if you look deep enough. War brings out the worst in human behavior as well as the best.

was against WW2? so there goes that analogy

what political party wanted to not get involved? that one too

media? gee it is my memory that this is the first time the dead have been hid from the public.

look deep enough, IMPOSSIBLE German and Japanese Prsioners were POWs and thus protected by the Geneva convention (in theory at a minimum) and were released when the War was over. These are neither POWs and the war is endless, lovely.
So sorry that comparison ends there.

So no, again, your points bring up nothing other than your inability to understand good analogous situations.

was against WW2? so there goes that analogy

what political party wanted to not get involved? that one too

media? gee it is my memory that this is the first time the dead have been hid from the public.

look deep enough, IMPOSSIBLE German and Japanese Prsioners were POWs and thus protected by the Geneva convention (in theory at a minimum) and were released when the War was over. These are neither POWs and the war is endless, lovely.
So sorry that comparison ends there.

So no, again, your points bring up nothing other than your inability to understand good analogous situations.

Both halves took part in both wars. Your political party voted for both, wanted to get involved in both but it is this one that they want you to believe they have no responsibility for. They used to be honorable men and patriots. Japanese and German prisoners were treated sort of...........harshly at times? Not all of them made it to POW status either.

The dead from WW2 were mourned by all, not used as propaganda by some sad power hungryindivisuals.

Ths war will end at some point.

Both halves took part in both wars. Your political party voted for both, wanted to get involved in both but it is this one that they want you to believe they have no responsibility for. They used to be honorable men and patriots. Japanese and German prisoners were treated sort of...........harshly at times? Not all of them made it to POW status either.

The dead from WW2 were mourned by all, not used as propaganda by some sad power hungryindivisuals.

Ths war will end at some point.

I never said my party has NO responsibility.
they suck (have you missed my Lame Turds vs Evil Turds of late?)
but upon finding out it is a sham, what is patriotic about continuing the sham? please illuminate?

not all Germans and Japanese, sort of harshly. Gee NONE of gitmo have been POWs and all have been treated harshly. See that means A does not equal B. I again enjoy you negating your own points