ABC News' George Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.
"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579
2006-10-20 21:10:03 · 10 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no, the war is over, now its the insurgency, those opposed to our presence. we should of left alon time ago
2006-10-20 21:12:21 · answer #1 · answered by C T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The reason cons still think Bush can win this war is because they have no clue as to what is going on in Iraq and what is behind all the violence in that country right now. They still think it is Al Queda. It's amazing how unbelievably uninformed they are. There was a great frontline program on this past week completely laying out what was going on in Iraq. Petraeous was interviewed along with alot of other generals and they were going into what was really happening and why the Iraqie government wasn't making any progress in taking over their own country. It was because they haven't had control over it from the beginning. It's the muslim clerics controlling the violence and killings. The Iraq government is weak. The Iraq military and police are controlled by the Shiite muslim cleric, Sadr. And, he controls the office of the interior who is run by a Shiite muslim loyal to him. The office of the interior oversees the police and military. Out of this has developed death squads going into Sunni neighborhoods killing Sunnis just for being Sunni. It's a civil war. It's not in our hands. Over 80% of the Iraqies, Sunni and Shiite, want us out of their country. I don't believe our soldiers should be dying for Iraqies or Muslim extremist clerics. It's been time to go for a long time. Now more than ever. It's a no win situation and has been doomed that from the start. Sorry folks, but that is the reality of it.
2016-05-22 07:11:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Leave and we've wasted our time and good American soldiers lives. This war would be over had Bush and the Army been able to actually make the right actions (which is to take initiative and win this war at all costs) but were stuck in this standstill b/c libs are complaining and complaining and putting a stronghold on what we do there. It is the same as Vietnam, our Army could have won the war easily if we were allowed to continue with the mission and just destroy them...
2006-10-20 21:16:39 · answer #3 · answered by wcbaseball4 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Bush is stepping up his rhetoric on changing the course in Iraq because the Republicans are getting smoked in the polls for the upcoming elections. A week or so before the election he'll come up with this new grand plan for Iraq, but he'll need his supporters reelected to congress to get it done, of course. That way if the Democrats win a majority in November, he and the Republican party can blame the failure of the Iraq war on the newly elected Democratic congress because they didn't follow his new plan.
2006-10-21 00:44:24 · answer #4 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Tet offensive was a devastating loss for the Vietnamese.And of course any Democratic president would decide he had had enough with such a victory what with three terms and all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive
2006-10-21 00:31:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush has done more for this country then the Democrats have done in the past thirty years.
Bush will be looked favorably upon in the history books, second only to Reagan.
http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=irishdictator
2006-10-21 07:23:39 · answer #6 · answered by SlapADog 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, because I have not really been paying attention. I think Bush just needs to be more enforcing of american power in all these violent countries. They will never stop fighting, we just need alot more troops over there, tougher laws for a while.
2006-10-20 21:19:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Towards an end year by year. There is no one to inherit a democracy and fewer to defend it. A walk out is admission that oil is the only reason to attach a second time.
2006-10-20 21:15:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
THE VIET CONG & THE NORTH VIETNAMESE SUFFERED TREMENDOUS LOSSES DURING THE TET OFFENSIVE BUT
WERE SUCCESSFUL IN MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
( THE LIBERAL LEFT ) IN PARTICULAR WANT TO GET OUT OF NAM. THE INSURGANTS IN IRAQ ARE HOPING TO DO THE SAME WITH THEIR ATTACKS DURING THE HOLY ( ANOTHER CONTRADICTION OF TERMS ) MONTH OF RAMADAN. SOME RELIGION.
2006-10-21 07:33:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think bush should be given some training and a gun and should send him in Iraq to fight ...wht u say?
2006-10-20 21:18:22 · answer #10 · answered by aarshi72 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋