W's objective(s) in Iraq

[CJY]

W has said he supports a "surge" in troups, but only if their is an objective that can be accomplished in doing so. He needs to talk to his people to see if there is an objective that can be accomplished by a larger force.


WHAT????:| Is there no longer an objective to being in Iraq? I thought he had objectives. Why are we there?

I thought he wanted to win the war on terror, free Iraq, stabilize the middle east. What happened to those objectives? Are those objectives no longer worthy of accomplishing? Can they not be accomplished? Are those objectives not in need of further military support?

I guess I could say it sounds as though he does not support our troups in Iraq......but then again, he already said it.

Nearly every time he opens his mouth, something stupid comes out. He does not think quickly enough for impromptu speaking. Much like Kerry, he should stick to pre-constructed statements and then quickly scurry from sight.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Google Bushisms. There are a ton and they're all insightful if not hilarious. This guy proves the theory of Freudian Slips beyond question.

Look for your post to be moved. You posted in the wrong spot by mistake. Been there, done that.

 

[treedancer]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Quote CJ

Are those objectives not in need of further military support?

Unfortunately yes, we have to bale his sorry axx out of the mess that he and his incompetent crew has got this country into.

Quote WillyBWright

This guy proves the theory of Freudian Slips beyond question.

You might add Murphy’s law into the mix also.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

You might add Murphy’s law into the mix also.

I'm not sure about that. Murphy's law deals with the unexpected. When repeat behavior yields the continued same results, it can't be called unexpected.

 

[snapperbait]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

"When repeat behavior yields the continued same results, it can't be called unexpected."

More like mental illness.....:}

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

I recently downloaded an old SNL skit where Dana Carvey's Bush 41 was reminiscing to Will Ferrell's Bush 43. This isn't verbatim, but it went something like "Yeah, when you came along, Babs and me knew you were a Special child. Course back then we called it Retardation."

 

[crunch]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

It's so nice having all of the Bush bashers in one place.

 

[JB]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

"W has said he supports a "surge" in troups"

Not so. He has said he is considering it but will not make a decision until he has considered all inputs from those qualified to suggest. The media have said that he has decided. Typical of media incorrect sttements.

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

2+2=4. New people in charge. Old people were against build-up. Stay the course. SOP for Shrub. At least he dosn't execute people for disagreeing with him. He just replaces them.

 

[CJY]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Read all of it JB. We said the same thing. You left out the rest of my statement and then finished it saying the same as I did.

I said:

"W has said he supports a "surge" in troups, but only if their is an objective that can be accomplished in doing so. He needs to talk to his people to see if there is an objective that can be accomplished by a larger force."

 

[PW2]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

The sad reality is he does not have a clue what to do.

With a Republican congress, he's been able to get by with cliches. Now with a Democratic congress (hopefully) he'll have to articulate an achievable mission for any increase in troops. After 4 years he's not articulated an achievable mission yet...it's hard to imagine he'll miraculously come up with one now.

As I see it, he has two options--fundamentally redefine what "victory" means, or create a major distraction, like launching an air attack on Iran.

As far as Bush Bashers, I think we are going to be seen as rank amateurs. Objective historians will ultimately be the real pros at it.

 

[jtexas]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

"...to see if there is an objective that can be accomplished by a larger force...." I'm curious to know is that a direct quote or a paraphrase?

Anyway, literally translated it means "to see if any of our objectives can be accomplished by a larger force."

I'm a big fan of Bushisms, but not of misinterpreting them.

 

[CJY]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

jtex,

The only word I placed in quotes was "surge." I think your question can clearly be answered with that.

"literally translated it means "to see if any of our objectives can be accomplished by a larger force."

? Are you sure? Is this your translation? Is W speaking through you? BTW, they are definately not the same statements, nor do they have the same literal meaning. Literally means, "word for word." You cannot take a statement, rearrange it and its meaning and then call it literal. Well, you can, but it is no longer literal. Its an interpretation.

I heard and saw him say it, or at the least something very similar. Hence, no quotes. Maybe I did misinterpret what was said, maybe he mispoke and said something he did not intend. Maybe he did intend it as it was said. Neither of us know what W meant. I simply question it and you have accepted it in its best possible meaning. I have no problem with that.

You stated, "I'm a big fan of Bushisms, but not of misinterpreting them."

So, if I have this straight, you just misinterpreted an interpretation. I'm no fan of that either.

If I have misinterpreted his statement, please, by all means, post a link and set me straight. Again, no quotes for a reason....I did not remember the exact quote, only the thoughts/general idea I came away with.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

I have never minded when Bush says sumpin' that can be called stupid. I still believe the man follows his convictions and I agree with many of those convictions, so I support him. On the other hand when someone like Kerry misspeaks it is obvious to me that is the only time you know his convictions. To me there is a huge difference . . .

BTW, if you consider what Bush was sorta quoted as saying in CJY's original post objectively, it appears to me that he wants to know what specifically would additional troops be expected to accomplish. Spin it as you wish.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Hey PW we only have ONE CIC. There is a reason for that. If congress doesn't like it, defund it. That is their power. But they are cowards and won't do a thing. Have a nice day.

 

[CJY]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Come on QC, you are no more objective than I when it comes to W.

 

[QC]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Probably not. I'll throw out a small challenge though. Note something significant that he has done right. Shouldn't be that tough, even a broken clock is right twice a day, right? I'll answer with something significant he has done wrong without the advantage of 20/20 hindsight . . .

 

[Plainsman]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

All we here from the left is the President Bush just stays the same course. He has been getting advice on what the military needs and wants to handle the war and how to proceed. Maybe those voices needed to be replaced to hear new idea's on how to win (I know that word scares the left, so sorry for using it) in Iraq.

So he changes things and is still getting tha same old whine from the left. The guy can't win no matter what he does, it all about hating President Bush, plain as day. And it's a sad thing that some can't or won't get over it.

I respect the man because he does what he says he's going to do. He just doesn't talk the talk like many in politics do, both right and left. He doesn't let the "polls" influence his decisions, he does what he believes is best for the country. And if a dem had the same convictions and guts, I'd stand up for him as well, but we all know that won't happen.

 

[treedancer]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Quote Qc

I'll throw out a small challenge though. Note something significant that he has done right. Shouldn't be that tough, even a broken clock is right twice a day, right? I'll answer with something significant he has done wrong without the advantage of 20/20 hindsight . . .


I was rather proud of him here, also believed him . Still believe that he did the right thing in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-MuEms00w

 

[CJY]

Re: W's objective(s) in Iraq

Well, you have a much easier challenge. And, I never said I was objective. There is a reason for it.....I don't believe he has done much if anything correctly since taking office.

I don't know that we are safer today here in the continental US than we were prior to W taking office, but he may deserve some credit for no further attacks on US soil since 9/11. Could be a coincidence though, I don't know. With our borders and ports as such, I tend to believe it may be more of a concidence than anything else, because the security of our borders and ports are certainly not the deterrent.

He did send the military to get Hussein...mission accomplished. Many would argue that it came at too steep of a price though. Guess it depends on the side of the fence in which you stand.

Some would argue national unemployment is down, a good thing. Others would point to the fact that per capita income has gone down with it. It certainly has not maintained equal growth compared to inflation.

Anything remotely having a chance to be considered well done was later turned on its head by W. Examples, Homeland Security, specifically the OBL task force(he shut it down), and I already talked about ports and borders.

He has not sold nukes to KJI, a very, very, very good thing. I will absolutely give W credit for that.

Right now, that's the best I have. I'm open, change my mind QC.