Do I have this right?

Question

Condi's new warning says that now the President will veto any bill which compels Iraq (through penalties for failing to make progress) to start to take charge of its own security?

WTF??????

Basically, what the administration is saying is... we're going to continue occupying Iraq and providing an overwhelming majority of its national security. We're going to continue paying for everything. We're not going to plan to ever withdraw. We're not going to do anything that will compel the Iraqis to stand up for themselves and stop living like a nation of welfare recipients.

Great plan, Mr. President. Really. Stellar logic and reasoning involved there. Fan-freaking-tastic.

Can ONE person explain to me how this plan is good for the United States? Don't give me rhetoric about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, or eliminating terrorism, or bringing democracy... tell me how it's good for US to NEVER end the war in Iraq.

BUILD: Thanks for proving my point with your utter inability to answer the question. Slinging insults isn't the answer, my friend.

Answer 1

Good question and also good luck in getting any reasoning for this absurd plan.Personally i don't think Bush has ANY plans on withdrawing EVER.And if the houses don't stick by their guns they are just as culpable if you ask me.

Answer 2

Well, I would expect the troops to be home by 2010 if not 2008. Odds are, the next president will not be pro-Iraq War. Unless, there is a major shift in Congress in the 2008 elections (which I kind of doubt) then Congress and the President will be on the same page. This is not the best news for the soldiers in Iraq now, but it is better than nothing.

Answer 3

I'm shopping for a presidential candidiate whose platform is "after a 5-minute inaugural speech I have to run over to the White House and sign an order to bring our troops home from Iraq in the next 2 weeks. I'm not going to let any more American kids be killed there for no good reason".

Answer 4

No, you don't have this right.

"The problem is that if you try and make consequences about these benchmarks, you're tying the hands of General [David] Petraeus and the hands of Ambassador [Ryan C.] Crocker," Rice said.

"What we don't want to do . . . is to tie our own hands so that we cannot act creatively and flexibly to support the very policies in Iraq that we're trying to enforce," she said on ABC's "This Week."

"The United States is paying in blood and treasures," Rice acknowledged. "The Iraqi leadership is being told, and I think they understand, that the kind of Iraq that there is going to be is up to them. We can't give them a united Iraq."

Congress has no business "running" the war. That's why we have a chain of command and the military.

Answer 5

He's "Stayed the course" so long that he figures if he just keeps going into the unknown he'll get to the end of the trail faster than if he tried to find a better way...... that's called hoping you are right... a pretty big gamble to be playing with so many lives on the line.

Answer 6

Not that I agree with it, but it seems like a shrewd imperial move to set up permanent military bases in the worlds biggest energy producing region.

Ever play RISK?- not too much worry about Human lives or freedom when you are trying to take over the world.

Answer 7

We still occupy Germany, Japan, Yugoslavia. We only recently left the Phillipines. The real question is, how long after hostility ceases do we stay?

Answer 8

I don't know either. If Bush really supported the troops, he'd bring our men and women home.

Answer 9

I hope that Bush vetoes every bill that the dems try to pass!

Answer 10

You have already closed your mind to fact and reason why bother to try and answer your question
Just drink deep from the Anti-America Kool-aid
From now on it is Kook-aid