This story is archived
Bush says critics must offer alternative »
Posted by: STONERS 2 years, 11 months agoPresident George W. Bush made clear on Saturday that he was going ahead with his plan to send more troops to Iraq despite an angry reaction in Congress , and accused his critics of failing to offer an alternative.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 371
-
bubba2
Jan. 14, 2007, 12:50 p.m.There IS an alternative!
We WITHDRAW our troops and REDEPLOY. Everyone that disagrees likes to ignore this and continue the empty argument that Bush's opponents "don't have a plan".
Iraq is in a C-I-V-I-L W-A-R! Our troops are only glorified policemen and women trying to control some of the violence while being caught in the crossfire.
Iraq needs to take care of ITSELF. If we continue to stay there, they will NEVER support themselves.
The only foreign "terrorists" in Iraq are a few from Iran that are helping the Shia and a few from the Saudis (yes, our 'allies' ...) to help the Sunni. (but you NEVER hear the white house talking about that one ...) The rest are LOCALS who are fighting each other for control of their country.
More people will die in Iraq REGARDLESS of whether we stay or not. We need to get out and bring our troops home to take care of THIS country.
-
doppich
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:03 p.m.Actually, Bush said, "...offer an alternative that has a better chance for success." For many of us, "success" means bringing them home alive, so I agree with your alternative. But for Bush and the Bushites, "success" means getting to January 20, 2009, without acknowledging failure.
-
LordyLordy
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:54 p.m.It's called "the stripe down my back is yellow". Just pull out, redeploy your troops somewhere else. Give it up to Iran and Syria. Sounds like Viet Nam to me. We had the war won, then the wackos convinced our enemy they were winning, so instead of guns, they used the wackos as mouthpieces...worked then, and it looks like the same old tactic again.
What more than 9/11 do you need to realize these radical terrorists are OUR enemy, no matter where they come from, whose mothers breasts they fed on, if they even had mothers? Because Jimmy Carter's Administration did nothing in Iran, the sore continued to fester, and each administration inherited the sore. Only a Texan would say, We've had enough. Its time to get out the can of whoopass! Of course we can withdraw our troops, but the next strike will again be in NY, LA, Dallas, Florida, or Miami? I guess if you didn't live there and lose anyone, you could care less?
-
jeffery1
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:21 p.m.Clinton went after Bin Laden prompting Bin Laden to rataliate. This was the warning that Bush chose to ignore, presented in a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001, thus leading directly to the 9/11 attacks. At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden while Bush focused on Saddam. Bush kept troops out of Afghanistan for use in Iraq thus allowing Bin Laden to escape. Bush then invaded Iraq, ignoring Afghanistan and thus allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda to rebuild.
Now the ONLY hope is to engage in regional diplomacy with Iran and Syria, but you wouldn't understand diplomacy at any level.
You right-wingers are great. Keep showing people why you should never hold power again. You guys haven't done anything right, ever.
-
bubba2
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:35 p.m.Give it UP!
Bin Laden is in AFGHANISTAN, or apparently now in PAKISTAN (supposedly our ally) - he is NOT in IRAQ! Never HAS been!
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had NO connection to Al Qaeda, and had NO WMDs that were any more recent than 1991!
ONE MORE TIME --
The ONLY foreign "terrorists" in Iraq are a few from Iran that are helping the Shia and a few from the Saudis (yes, our 'allies' ...) to help the Sunni. (but you NEVER hear the white house talking about that one ...)
The rest are LOCALS who are fighting each other for control of their country.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 8:13 p.m.According to OBL and history, that was Reagan who encouraged the terrorists to attack Americans in 1983. Then it was the Republican Congress that wanted to cut and run from Somalia after Black Hawk Down, but smartly Clinton stood firm and didn`t bow to the cowardly cons or the war lords. Please study a little bit of history before posting.
Clinton was the first and still the only one who has seriously gone after OBL. Remember, Dubya has had the only legit chance to get OBL but he let OBL go and let all the bin ladin family go after 9/11.
-
betruthful
Jan. 14, 2007, 10:35 p.m.Ike5266 - Bush said a few months ago that more troops would just make the Iraqis depend on us more and rejected the militaries request for more troops. When will you join the rest of the world and stop blaming Clinton for all of Bush's mistakes and incompetence. Go back over all the statements made by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Chrystal Rumsfeld etc.
-
betruthful
Jan. 14, 2007, 10:46 p.m.ike5266 - Do you even realize that Bush pulled the special ops team that was tracking down Bin Laden (from Afghanistan). Do you remember he said " I don't know where Bin Laden is and frankly I don't really care and don't think about it much". Clinton warned the Bush people about Al Quaeda and they ignored it completely. Boy and you still refer back to Clinton!! You ignore actual facts and events and simply rant.
-
AmpLee
Jan. 14, 2007, 11:09 p.m.Osama Bin who? Is that that one tall guy with the beard that used to be in the news all the time?
-
TrueSkeptical
Jan. 15, 2007, 4:13 a.m.It is Bin Laden (and the likes) who are laughing to you. Don't you see how much we have embolden them by going to Iraq instead of chasing them in the place where they really are?
-
rimbaud
Jan. 14, 2007, 11:05 p.m.The sects in Iraq must be given an incentive to stop the violence (although, once you arm a bunch of thugs and hoodlums as your "army" or "militia", it's not likely you will retain control over them). The incentive is that the USA will get its troops out of the way.
What's the BS about needing to train Iraqis? They have been holding off the World's greatest military force for years. al-Maliki (and the common shias) prefer the protection of the Mahdi Army to that of our troops or the USA-Trained police.
What's the BS about the Iraqis needing our help in rebuilding their country? Now that Bechtel is out, maybe we can replace Parsons and Halliburton with Iraqi contractors, and get the job completed and at a fraction of the cost.
We should demand al-Maliki to negotiate a cease-fire and long term truce by offerring all parties the removal of US Troops. That way, Iraq get the Peace it needs for reconcilation and the USA gets what it needs: OUT!
-
NoSpinDave
Jan. 15, 2007, 2:04 a.m.WRONG. The democrats have NOT presented REDEPLOY as an official plan. Your drunk Sen. Kennedy has presented this idea, but your party does not have the balls to get behind it...and for good reason. Even the biggest dove's of your party know its a DUMB IDEA that will only mean people have died in VAIN!
One fact I probably agree with you on is Bush's plan to send 21,000 troops over is just as f'ing dumb. He should send 210, 000 and end this crap in 30 days!
BTW - Before I get the canned Barbra ( I set women back 100 years) Boxer "you dont have any childen, you dont know what its like, blah, blah, blah" crap please be advised I have both family and friends serving in Iraq right now so I am not making that statement lightly.
-
Destry
March 4, 2007, 5:15 p.m.I have a viable alternative. Lets get this clown out of office and try again with a real leader with a brain.
-
-
rathskeller
Jan. 14, 2007, 1:35 p.m.Agree 100%, but to accomplish this somedubya and puppetmaster Cheney have to be removed from office. Impeachment now or wait two years, sad, but true...
-
LordyLordy
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:58 p.m.They don't care what kind of impact that would have on America. They're apparently in bed with the Iranian's, who get up every morning and after prayer, chant death to Americans. In this case they've been brainwashed to say impeach Bush. No constructive ideas, no solutions, just criticism.
Many of us who aren't even Republicans wanted Bill Clinton out of office, and he lied before jurys and grand jurys and yet remained. And what kind of an idiot declares that he is going to kill Bin Laden, then warns them he is coming. Madyln Albright convinced Bill Clinton to do that, and they have the nerve to criticize Bush. At least you know where he stands. That's more than I can say for most of our congressmen and congresswomen at the moment.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 8:30 p.m.How do you know?
The fact is, you and none of the other apologists know because there has been no investigation.
Investigate, and we could take down all the crooks, incompetents, liars, and yes men amongst this admin. If we had started a few years ago when it became apparent that we were so horribly lied to, we wouldn`t be having this debate now. Unfortunately the yes men in the Republican do-nothing/rubber stamp congress didn`t have the courage and integrity to stand up for the consitution, the congress, or our country.
"The truth is never unpatriotic", Ben Franklin
-
cushi
Jan. 15, 2007, 10:28 a.m.Actually, it works for me because impeachment proceedings can be started on him right away, too!
-
-
tchef
Jan. 14, 2007, 1:42 p.m.He has had several plans and suggestions given to him from both sides. He has rejected them all. The Iraq study group was one of them. The major suggestion put forth by them was to engage in a diplomatic discourse with Iran and Syria wich he totally rejected. That is just one example.
-
-
bubba2
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:40 p.m.It just so happens that several alternative plans have been offered in the last couple of years. But there aren't many people paying any attention to them if they don't come from Republicans.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 8:41 p.m.ike,
Is it so hard to admit you`ve wrong?
You are a frequent poster here and so you know the names Powell, McCain, Murtha and so forth.
By ignoring the multitude of plans put forth from before this ill-planned invasion ever started, you are only hurting your own credibility.
And do your own homework, we`ve given you plenty of links along the way to get you started. The fact is, you refuse to read and learn what you don`t already believe.
No wonder you support Bush, he is just like you - ignore reality and stick to your agenda and rhetoric no matter who and how many die or make other sacrifices.
-
-
uncle-dave
Jan. 14, 2007, 2:06 p.m.President Bush's stuborn streak continues. His "with us or against" us attitude has cost the lives of many brave American soldiers. There have been valid alternatives offered, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Sadly President Bush's obstinace will send more victims to the slaughter.
-
jordan11
Jan. 14, 2007, 4:13 p.m.President Bush's stuborn streak continues. >>>>
I don't know what's crazier. bush, the American people, the judicial branch, or the Congress. Maybe we're all crazy. What has been set into play that allowed all of this to happen? If bush and his pals had tried to pull this in earlier days, they'd have been run out town on a rail. People like OReiley and limbaugh would NEVER have been given an ounce of 'prominence', crazies like robertson and falwell would have NEVER been given air time & respect in the media, and the trolls who spew their vitriolic rhetoric would have been spit on. What happened to this country???
-
-
-
not2needy
Jan. 14, 2007, 2:07 p.m.He has had alternatives offered from lots of different sources, however he refuses to accept any of them. He is trying to discredit Congress and they have only been there two weeks. So much for his bipartisan cooperation!
-
aniokly
Jan. 14, 2007, 2:37 p.m.It is called leadership. President Bush leads, a core value Democrats can only dream about. Congress is not in charge yet. Their very narrow win last November does not give them room to operate. It is fun to watch though.
-
ybdogsct
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:55 p.m."t is called leadership. President Bush leads, a core value Democrats can only dream about."
Then, maybe we should start holding Bush accountable for poor leadership in:
1) the failure to capture Osama
2) the distortion of intelligence to justify the Iraq war
3) the failure to find Iraq's alleged active WMD program and operational ties to Osama
4) the botched Hurricane Katrina relief
5) the Abu Ghraib detainee torture scandal
6) skyrocketing energy and health costs
7) Republican scandals (Foley, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff, DeLay, Haggerd, Corker, George Allen, Trent Lott, etc.)
8) failed No Child Left Behind education policy
9) record high deficits that will take decades to pay off
10) the failure to listen to Shinseki and have more troops in Iraq to prevent sectarian groups from seizing power
11) the failure to have an exit strategy for Iraq
12) launching a war in violation of international law and the UN charter
13) the Harriet Meyers debacle
-
ybdogsct
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:06 p.m.cont.
14) squandering of international good will post 9/11
15) losing millions of taxpayer dollars that have gone unaccounted for, have been wasted on no-bid contracts, or have been used to pay companies like Haliburton who have been shown to overcharge the government for services in Iraq
16) violating Geneva Conventions and USMJ by maintaining secret CIA prisons around the world
17) allowed Scooter Libby to reveal the identity of Valerie Plame
18) violating the 4th Amendment by instituting a warrantless wiretapping program
19) used gay marriage as a political wedge despite the fact that Mary Cheney is pregnant and is planning to raise a child with lesbian partner Heather Poe
20) supporting the teaching of Creationism, while opposing Global Warming and Stem Cell Research
21) the failure to implement the security recommendations of the 9/11 committee
-
ybdogsct
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:10 p.m."Congress is not in charge yet. Their very narrow win last November does not give them room to operate."
It gives them enough room to dictate the agenda and launch oversight investigations. Oh, and Congress holds the purse strings.
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Press Briefings/Nov 15 06 - Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Current Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.htm
"ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
-
not2needy
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:36 p.m.ani:
Yeah he leads alright, he is leading us straight to slaughter, like the Pied Piper he is.
-
bubba2
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:48 p.m.Bush isn't leading ANYTHING.
Bush is the WORST president in the history of this country. He has broken the law and violated our Constitution - you know, that document that he SWORE to "protect and defend".
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 14, 2007, 2:58 p.m.ALTERNATIVE - President Bush and his inner circle have shown absolutely no leadership qualities. They should quietly resign or be loudly impeached. That's an alternative for a start!
-
Will1313
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:57 p.m.in many other countries they are handed a pistol and given a private room to "do the right thing".
-
-
bubba2
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:58 p.m.What is it that we 'win' if we stay? Waht is it that we would 'lose' if we leave?
NOTHING, except we will LOSE more AMERICAN TROOPS to DEATH or DISMEMBERMENT if we stay.
The Iraqis need to TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY! We have made a HUGE mess out of it but we cannot fix it for them because THEY want us OUT!
-
Watchemoket
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:20 p.m.Boy, GV, you seem to have a problem posting a comment without using a snide, condescending tone directed toward anyone who doesn't agree with you and the current Administration. No reasonable discussion - just lash out and (as I expect with me) make a personal ad hominem attack in response. This link was previously posted here: http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html
Please check it out. You may not like the name of the site, or the advise that is offered, but I think you'll find that the authors of the articles listed are reputable and generally well thought of.
Liberals do not "have a vested interest in the defeat and humiliation of this country," but we (at least I) believe that this country is based on Constitutional laws, which should not be bent for expediency, and that we should not wage war unless it is the last rational alternative to protect vital US interests. 'nuff said.
-
joemont
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:34 p.m.So let me get this straight---That means that everyone that voted FOR the War before they voted against it was wrong?
Go Jayhawks!!!
(:>)
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:12 p.m.My suggestion to those hawks and conservative, PLEASE SIGN UP AND GO TO IRAQ. We need you conseratives to protect us and our president. Stop the rhetoric and sign up or else shut up. Put your mouth where your heart lies.
-
-
-
enharmonix
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:27 p.m.Hmm, seems to me they already have...
"Hello, I am on my second tour to Iraq like most other soldiers. ... [S]eeing all the support that we have despite what is on the television makes it a little easier for me. It means a lot that everyone is showing their support for us, it really helps us keep our heads held high while we fight in a war that is not very popular back home..."
-- Terrill Lantz, SGT U.S. ARMY, Apple Valley, Calif.
"Thanks for your support of us please don't stop and try to not listen to the media. They lie to you every day. They never tell you the good stuff we're doing for Iraq. We get the news too and a lot of us aren't very happy [when] they attack [the] president on stuff they don't know about..."
--jason lancaster/MM2 E-5/ USN, webster, N.Y.
Over 2000 messages at http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsy
-
-
Destry
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:17 p.m.I have a solution for the Iraq war, send Bush, Cheney, and Ms Rice to Iraq with loaded weapons in full combat attire. If we loose them, oh well.
-
-
LordyLordy
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:05 p.m.Only if you send Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Madlyn Albright, Janet Reno, Rosie O'Donnel, and Jane Fonda along with them. Can't you just see the sight. That would just scare the heebeejeebies out of all of them!
Lock and Load!
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:28 p.m.WILL NOT WORK, Remember we couldn't find Bush last time when he was in the National Guard. I do not think he would be found to go to Iraq!
Cheney, don't send him, he will shoot our troops by mistake.
Ms. Rice, can't say anything bad, she does have class.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:31 p.m.I gave you a `good` rating for the first two comments, but have to disagree with the last.
Rice is a pathetic excuse for a yes woman and paper pusher. What exactly has she done besides fail at the cost of thousand s of innocent lives and lie to the American people.
As NSA chief she was asleep at the wheel despite the warnings from the Clinton admin, the aug 6 warning detailing possible terrorist hijacking IN USA, and all the warnings from domestic and foreign intelligence about an immenent attack in America. Her response, nobody knew they would fly the planes into buildings. F-me.
Her claim to fame as Sec of State; overseeing zero diplomacy to stop NK, to stop the massacre in Lebanon, to fix Iraq, to deal with Iran, to deal with Rwhanda/Darfur, etc.
No, she goes to meetings, reports to Bush, and doesn`t do a GD thing. I could have bought a tape recorder for about $10 that could do her job as good as she does it.
-
-
-
lfergie812
Jan. 14, 2007, 10:52 p.m.Any plan presented to Bush is only going to be placed in the same file cabinet as the bipartisan committee's plan that was just presented. Whether a democrat plan would work or not won't be known until 2009. And as for the democrats not having a plan, what have they been telling the WH for the last 6 months? Start getting the hell out of Iraq, they don't want us there.
-
AmpLee
Jan. 15, 2007, 12:14 a.m.I like the chorus, but you may want to work on the lyrics-and beware of copyright infringement, as I've heard this tune a million times from hundreds of people, very repetitve people.
Don't we all know by now that the mess this administration WILLFILLY and CAPRICIOUSLY created with Iraq HAS NO PLEASANT ALERNATIVE?
-
AmpLee
Jan. 15, 2007, 12:19 a.m.What would you like to hear from an alternative? Diplomacy? No, you guys don't like that one. Pullout and save american lives and families from suffering? No, that would mean 'Iran will take over the region' and we will be 'abandoning the iraqi people'. Flood the area with troops? No, you guys don't like the idea of your sons and daughters being drafted into a warzone. Just let the troops already there 'do their job' and 'take the gloves off'. I am not sure what that means, but I kinda think it means let the military kill a bunch of folks, bringing 'peace' of an eternal variety to a large number of Iraqis. Democracy at gunpoint, I guess.
Stay. That's the one you fellas like. Stay and police the area. Stay and get shot in a crossfire. Stay and 'aquire' Iraqi oil. 'one tour ain't enough jack, you better make it three'...
Stay the course.
I guess I coulda just wrote 'stay the course' over and over again, but I like mixing up words and rearranging them in different order.
-
-
LordyLordy
Jan. 14, 2007, 7:10 p.m.I'm really glad there are people in this country, that when they suspect you are helping the enemy, or that you are an enemy spy, that will check up on you before you can do any damage to this country, especially the terrorist kind.
The only time I've seen what you describe is when we have enemy soldiers and enemy terrorists caught in battle. They aren't being tortured, but given three meals a day, prepared by chefs, and after prayers every morning, they get to relax the rest of the day. Gee whiz miss molly they didn't get treated that well back in their country, and the last time my girlfriend asked me what I wanted to eat? Here just eat it. I believe I lost a dishrag that way. It was great deep fat fried in the frybaby though.
-
Watchemoket
Jan. 14, 2007, 9 p.m.What world do you live in, LL? "The only time I've seen what you describe is when we have enemy soldiers and enemy terrorists caught in battle." What battles have the hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere been captured in? How do you define "enemy Terrorists"?
How do you KNOW where and how any of the detainees were "captured"?
How many times has the Bush Administration obstructed FoI inquiries, and how often have they spied on 'suspected terrorists' without Court Order or due process of any kind?
Do you understand that anyone (and any group) that has expressed opposition to Bush's political agenda is subject to being spied on without any judicial oversight?
Please - come on back to the real world. It is not a good deal to give up your rights (and make no mistake - these rights belong to everyone, even if you think you don't need them) in return for perceived security. No Deal.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 10:58 p.m.to paraphrase a great american...
Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.
-
-
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:44 p.m.Ironic but a con was the only one to introduce a bill to cut and run.
Dems have many opinions and alternatives for phased withdrawal. Listening costs a lot less than you think.
-
Lurch
Jan. 14, 2007, 9:46 p.m.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jose american arrested&btnG=Google Search
Take your pick.
Wow, that was so hard I wonder if I`ll ever be able to do it again.
LOL.
-
NelsonR
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:53 p.m.Thisisfact - I think they gave you your answer. Personally I am not a Democrat but a free thinker who wants nothing from the party, an independent. Lighten up, I think my above post was quite hilarious. Without humor within politics you have totalitarism.
-
kymbolini
Jan. 14, 2007, 5:57 p.m.the only alternate is to retreat and watch and let the civil war take over , then once the civil war has stabalised to a level acceptable to a joint global strike force , go in and flatten the place and terminate every form of resistance
we all need to stop the ****** foot method and get bloody serious
i believe a nuke will wake the iraq trouble makers up
it will also show the iraqn nutters that the global community will not stuff around
for the people who are high with human rights , give them a clear warning for the children to leave the capital and then vapourise the place
-
dance4others
Jan. 14, 2007, 10:30 p.m.i sure hope you're kidding about the nuking...that is way over the top and unreasonable, not only is it unecessary, but it will hurt them, us, and the rest of the world.
-
-
kymbolini
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:15 p.m.removing rotten apples from the box is also the only way for a
peaceful world
maybe you love to associate with rotten apples ?
-
kymbolini
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:19 p.m.that is why thousands of your country men have been killed trying to do just that
the troops , 9/11 , etc
i am aginst any for of war but serious actions are required
-
evelyna
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:17 p.m.Where does he get all of the money when other programs are running out of it.
-
kymbolini
Jan. 14, 2007, 6:27 p.m.america come's across as a all talk and no real action gang
the time is right for global cleansing with the help of all our friends
major decisions need to be made and those decisions need to be serious removed from homeland and emotional traints along with any form of economic evaluation
god removed bad apples within his chosen people , he wiped them out a few times until they got on the program
the bible cannot be wrong
The first 183 comments are shown. Show all 371 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
