Notice how as soon as Bush said publicly that there would be no quid pro quo for the release of the Brits?

Question

That they were released the next day...lesson for libs: Have some spine and negotiate from a position of strength.

His quid pro quo was a reference that the Iranians we captured in Iraq were not on the table for swap, as the Iranians had hoped...

jax0817...read a newspaper once in a while...we have the captured iranians, they want them back bad...they were hoping to secure their release by having the brits pressure us to swap them...Bush said in no uncertain terms Nope...you dope...lol

If you libs think this is news I made up...you guys are the most uninformed group I have ever encountered...other than underclassmen taking grad courses...do a little reading and analyzing...jeez do I have to do all your leg work??? lol

Answer 1

The British troops were released because of the negotiations or talks that the Iranians were having with the British. It had nothing to do with Bush. They actually talked. Bush is opposed to this. Probably because he is not comfortable talking to anyone smarter than him, which is proving to be most people and definitely anyone in a position of power.

Answer 2

regrettably, maximum individuals are no longer engaged in this actual conflict. I heavily doubt that lots of the U. S. public even realizes that folk interior the Bush administration, including the chief, Cheney, have been in contact interior the political day trip of an agent. I quite have come to the conclusions that the U. S. public is willfully ignorant. So i assume i'm agreeing with that neo-con. the version is i think of that the neo-con time table is a maximum cancers on our gadget; mixed with aforementioned lack of know-how of the widespread public, that's a definite-hearth lead-in to eventual open militia dictatorship. If we even have yet another election, rigged or in any different case, i'm going to be greatly surprised.

Answer 3

Bush had no contact with Iran concerning British soldiers. He made an unnecessary statement. A quid pro quo would have been the British releasing Iranians. Idiots.

Answer 4

I'm no lib as you say but I don't think that Bush had anything to do with it. It's not what is said out loud it's what is said behind closed doors that solve thing like that. The Brit's solved their own problem but I'll bet you that Nancy spoke to Syria and they stepped in and spoke with Iran.

Answer 5

oh please. You have no idea what happened here. You can believe there was some 'exchange'....we will likely not hear about it soon, but we will.
Notice that no one said anything about "quid pro quo" until BUSH mentioned it.
Must have been on his mind for some reason.
Bush gives himself away.
tsk tsk

"UNINFORMED" ???
It has already been reported that one Iranian dioplomat has been released from US custody in Iraq and there are more to follow. You silly. why don't you read a book!

No one much cares about what Bush says anymore.

Three 6-month terms to go....and counting....

Answer 6

That's because Bush thinks diplomacy means having 2 diplomas.

Answer 7

Great point...I saw his rose garden speech when he forcefully said there would be no quid pro quo, but it didn't dawn on me that may have done it...very insightful.

Answer 8

Was it Bush's tough talk or Pelosi's gentle touch with the Syrians that had more effect?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain_syria

Answer 9

I am sure they figured they got about as much mileage out of it as they could. I doubt that statement had anything to do with it. Maybe it was Britain saying they would get tough if talks didn't work out.

Answer 10

Indeed. Bush has done such a fine job across the board I don't understand why people don't trust him...

Oh, yea! He's a retarded war criminal...