Rebublican Cut-n-runners. . .

T

TFinalshot

Guest
Cant say these ole boyz or liberal republicans. . .

New GOP Bill Challenges Bush Iraq Policy
GOP Senators Draft Bill Requiring Bush to Narrow Mission of U.S. Troops
By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush by mid-October to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said.

Bush has asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, delivers a fresh assessment of its progress.

Warner, R-Va., and Lugar, R-Ind., are well regarded within Congress on defense issues. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee before stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.

At the Pentagon, meanwhile, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight on their own has dropped to a half-dozen from 10 in recent months despite heightened American training efforts.

Without providing numbers, the White House had acknowledged in its report to Congress Thursday that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces an issue that determines to a large extent when the United States may be able to reduce its forces there.

Pace, however, also said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem is partly attributable to the fact that the Iraq units are out operating in the field.

Appearing at a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pace said that "as units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment."

The Warner-Lugar proposal is the first major legislative challenge to Bush's Iraq policy endorsed by the two senators and lent a more bipartisan imprint to congressional dissatisfaction with the war now in its fifth year.

Earlier this year, both Lugar and Warner expressed grave doubts about Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq. But both have been reluctant to back binding legislation that would force the president's hand.

The legislation the pair is working on would direct Bush to present the new strategy to Congress by Oct. 16 and begin implementing it by Dec. 31.

The proposal also would seek to make Bush renew the authorization for war that Congress gave him in 2002. Many members contend that authorization which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was limited to approval of deposing dictator Saddam Hussein and searching for weapons of mass destruction.

(This version CORRECTS SUBS lead to correct that bill would require Bush to submit a plan for constricting mission; ADDS 4 grafs, bgng, The Warner-Lugar ... etc., to UPDATE with details.)

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
 
Maybe I missed it in this report, but I didn't see them advocate immediate troop withdrawal like the left are calling for. Please help clarify where they support the cut and run chickens%#$ garbage from the likes of Murtha. I missed it, and I even reread the article you posted.

PRO
 
Tfinal;

Thanks for the post. What that seems to be is a well thought out plan for our military involvement in Iraq to curb the increase of terrorism in Iraq from other countries and from inside, and stay out of any internal civil war between the two major factions that are bent on killing each other. It will also allow us to keep faith with the Kurds by not abanding them after they were our main support in bringing down the Iraq dictator.
It does not predicate a "cut and run"" like our dems seem to want. The most glaring factor is that it was thought up by two GOP congressmen who have the common sense to work out a reasonable plan that may have to be implemented if the current plans fail to make progress. Where in hades is any plans by the Dems. in congress except for their "pullout retreat".
Why havn't any Dems. been able to come up with any common sense plans that they promised the American people. So far all they have come up with is "cut and run" because not a one of them can figure out how to win this battle.
I would not be surprised to see the above idea, by those two GOP congressmen, take hold and backed by the American people. If it does, it will set the Dems. back that much further for failing to keep their word and coming up with a viable plan of their own.
RELH
 
Warner is up for re-election in 08... a cut from a recent article:

"Republicans currently are rated as in solid shape to hold their seats in New Mexico and Virginia. But those races would become much more competitive should veteran incumbents Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and John W. Warner of Virginia ? who have indicated they will seek re-election ? reverse themselves and retire"

Lugar is from Indiana, a state that is only marginally Red and one in which he needs a "moderate" appeal. You really do need some context when you do these kinds of "see your guys are against bush too" type threads. The Dems recently set up to allow all the pres candidates in the party vote for troop withdrawal so that they'd not have to "explain" their vote to the nut base, while many senators up for election did what they needed to do and voted NO.

There is still such a thing as positiong and politics and it's pretty thin to pull at one or two individuals in either party as evidence of a sea change in the thinking of the party as a whole... in an election cycle to boot.
 
Oh yea, I see now, every things great, it's just some political spin. . .I got it. . . Could it be that the people of this country dont trust the current leadership and think it's time for a change, na, that cant be it. . .
 
Interesting how the debate now is, OUR cut & run plan is better than YOUR cut & run plan & NOBODY is being held accountable for the freaking mess were in. Condi ?luv dat man of mine? & Cheney ? I live under a rock? will drop poor ol?e George like a hot IED, wait & see.

RUS
 
Heck! The Dems have been doing that backstabbing, cut your throat among themselfs for ages. Wait and see as the election gets closer and watch the wolves in the Dem. party come out and attach each other. Hillary will get a crap load from her own party and we will get new information on her backroom dealing because members of her party will leak it to draw away her support. This coming election is going to get down and dirty before it is over.


RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-13-07 AT 07:00PM (MST)[p]BRUHAHAAA! I love it! For crying out loud! Look how we are picking our leaders .... F'ing internet & media, TV etc. No one is willing to read and do research including me ... Oh well! ya get what you pay for.

RUS

Want to edit the above rant .... we're way more informed than our parents, be that good or bad!
 
you guys are a riot! anything other than a clear victory was going to be the death of us, now a republican plan to get out and cut our losses is a plan sent from heaven. if this plan had been drafted by dems it would be just another " cut and run " plan you'ld have whined about. is this a plan for a clear victory or not? com'on?
 
Dude, there you go again and put your liberal Dem. spin on it and get away from the meat of the topic. The dems are the ones who have only come up with a cut and run by pulling the troops out period. The article Tfinal posted is not a cut and run, but a alternate plan to protect our security and interests in Iraq and get away from any civil rife that the two major parties there have. This will hopefully decrease our military deaths and injuries. Your reading comprehension is still terrible, alot of us have stated in prior posts there may have to be other plans if the one Bush is using does not work. You have chosen to ignore this because it does not fit your liberal argument.
anyone with one iota of common sense knows the military will have contingent plans in the event of plan "A" not working and so will our goverment.
As for your statement, if this plan had been drafted by dems, it would be just another cut and run. NO !!!! it would not be, but the bottom line is the fact no Dem. has come up with any plan except pull out, and this plan posted by Tfinal was not drafted by any Dem. in congress. so far the Dems have sit on their butts and done nothing but point fingers. something that you are very good at also. Well point your finger at your hero Dems who have failed our military and our people by being stumps on a log and doing "NOTHING" to protect our interests and security. As for clear victory, we will see in the future, that is if your dems grown a pair of wavels and a backbone and see something though for one time.

RELH
 
Bravo RELH, they say every cloud has a silver lining and you scratched one up. now we don't need a desisive victory just a few troops left to keep an eye on things. I was born at night but it wasn't last night, this is an all out cover your butt and put the best spin possible on plan, I love it. I don't care who takes credit for ending this collosal failure as long as it gets done.
 
Dude;
You know darn well that I have never accused you of being born last night, but do not ask me about who I thought just came in on the pumpkin wagon. sleep tight tonight, my heros are protecting you, since your's failed you.

RELH
 
Pretty simple, Bush is now a lame duck and the 08 elections are fast approching. Dem or Rep there all lower than a snake in a wheel rut.
 
RELH , nobody's questioning the dedication or valor of our troops , it's the mission they've been sent on. while I appreciate all their efforts only the ones hunting for Bin Laden are doing me any favors, I never asked any of them to go to Iraq and I'm not asking any to stay.

If you need any more proof things in Iraq are a mess, just the other day while American troops were arresting an Iraqi police officer for aiding the enemy the Americans were opened up on by Iraqi police waiting for them. no Americans were killed this time but this isn't uncommon. troops say they can't trust the police or even some of the Iraqi army because they don't know who's side they're on, one said we're training and arming the enemy half the time. yeah this is going to turn out well. you call them your hero's, your pawns is more like it, hero's deserve enough respect to be pulled out of a hopeless situation.
 
I am sure thankful people didn't listen to rhetoric like being spwed by dude during WWII. Just think what you would have said after losing several thouosand soldiers in one month. I have no doubt you would have calling for an immediate withdrawal. We lost more soldiers in ONE month during WWII than we have lost in four plus years in Iraq. Lost cause my eye!

PRO
 
>I am sure thankful people didn't
>listen to rhetoric like being
>spwed by dude during WWII.
>Just think what you would
>have said after losing several
>thouosand soldiers in one month.
>I have no doubt you
>would have calling for an
>immediate withdrawal. We lost more
>soldiers in ONE month during
>WWII than we have lost
>in four plus years in
>Iraq. Lost cause my eye!
>
>
>PRO


Back then we were all on the same page and there wasn't all this politicl correctness. My father and both his brothers went to europe and didn't come home for 3 years and I never heard any of them complain about it, proud as heck to have fought for America till the day they died.
The war in Iraq would have been over long ago if politicions and weak liberals would stay out of it.
 
Please explain how "politicions and weak liberals" are in charge of the war.

PLLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSE.
 
Zigga you beat me to it, almost 6 years they've been in full control of our government and now this mess is the " liberals" fault.

In WWII we had a clear enemy and a clear goal, guess what it took less time too, and we won. what did WWII have in common with Iraq again?
 
as per deaths, of the 40,000 men and women coming back from Iraq wounded, it is likely that 80% of them would not have lived had it not been for our medical teams and new technology. Sure you can say being alive is better than being dead. The enemy always desires to wound rather than kill, it takes more money and more people to keep the alive which takes resources from the fight. Without flack jackets and armer, you could add maybe another 25k to that nearly 4k that now are dead. And what about the total civilian, children and innocent human lives lost? what about the civilian fighters, they are not included in those numbers.

Comparing deaths per war is just plane stupid.
 
Poor, silly, PRO, doesn't understand the difference between WWII and Li'l Georges vendetta ... do some reading ...

RUS
 
"What did WWII have in common with Iraq again".
WWII taught us and others a great lesson. Do not believe the peace mongers when you have dictators in countries that decide to take over other countries. Then regroup and give lip service to wanting peace until they are strong enought to wage war on a bigger scale. Does this sound like a dictator in Iraq???
Then after everything is done we have to get involved to the point where we lose thousands of GIs in one battle unstead of 4 years. I think that should answer your question, but I am sure it is not the answer you wanted to hear.

RELH
 
Rus;

Maybe along with Pro you should do some reading also, I would reccommend a good book on world history, you seem to have forgotten your history, or is it your blind hatred for Bush that makes you have a very short memory.
RELH
 
RELH ... I don't hate Bush or anyone else ... what is your recomendation for a good read? As far as history goes, I suspect I've lived a little more of it than you & Pro have.

RUS
 
Let me throw a couple of good books out there for you guy's. Winds of War, War & Remberance, Johnny got his gun, ummm ... 13th Valley, Flags of our Fathers. I'll think of somemore but I'm pooped.

RUS
 
RUS, per usual you FAILED to grasp my point. Let me type slower for you. In WWII we lost how many thousands of soldiers? You libs always refer to the number of killed and wounded as a reason for bring our troops home. I am merely pointing out how absurd such an opinion is, and I can only imagine how you would be foaming out both sides of your pieholes over the extreme lose of casulties for a so called needless war back in the early 1940's, maybe your real name is Neville

PRO.
 
Rus;
so you think you have lived a little more history then I or Pro may have done. How old are you and are your ears dry?

RELH
 
RELH your comparison of Iraq and WWII made my day. a two bit dictator with UN inspectors crawling all over his country, his imports and exports controlled by his enemy, and knowing he could be destoyed at will was a similar threat to what Germany and Japan were in WWII? you're too funny!

Even if we were to take you seriously, why in WWII when Japan bombed Pearl did we go after Japan? could it be because Japan bombed Pearl? you think? ok if you're still with me how does this play into why we're in Iraq? and why did we make Al Qaida and Bin Laden a side show ? Al Qaida is as strong today as it was on 9/11 they tell us, unless my history is wrong Japan wasn't as strong 5 years after they made their attack? what gives?

I should mention FDR and Truman were BOTH democrats , so why did the dems kick butt in WWII? and why are they now responsible for the republican failure in Iraq? similarities???? do tell.
 
dude,

If you had been a women in europe in 1946 you would have had a shaved head.

JB
 
Dude;

I almost headed this off in my post, but I knew that with that mind set of yours, you would come back with something like this and I decided you let you put your foot in your mouth again.
Prior to us entering the war, we played a role of not getting involved with Japan's and Germany's conquest of other countries, even when Japan made attacks on us in China by sinking one of our Navy river boats. There were other incidents. As you and your Dems are doing now, we made protests thought our dipomats and allowed those countries to get bolder and bolder because we did not want to get involved in a war over THERE.
Japan became so bold, after we placed a embargo on them, that they attacked us by bombing Pearl harbor with the idea that they would completly distroy our navy and our means of coming back at them. THEY EXPECTED OUR GOV. TO SUE FOR PEACE AFTER ATTACKING BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS RECORD OF TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK!!! this is documented information obtained after the war. When FDR and congress declared war on Japan, they also declared war on Germany and Italy, those two did not bomb us at Pearl Harbor.
Now I hope even a liberal like you can stop and look into the future and see what was down the road if Iraq would have become stronger by taking over Kuwaite, S. Arabia and massed a fortune and leverage on us in the control of the oil fields. He tried once to develope nukes and would do it again with help from Russia or China and ten years down the line we have to deal with him and his hatred of us Infidels after he is now the second or third largest standing army in the world, instead of the 4th. as he was when we first went at him. And now he has nukes we have to deal with. Can that fog you have in your head even see this or am I just pissing in the wind on a log.
I do not know where you are getting your twisted information that Al Qaida is as strong today as they were on 9/11. I have acually heard that alot of their top men have been killed, their training camps have been bombed to hell and back and that they have been on the run and having a very hard time putting together a major strike like they did before and on 9/11. Are you privy to information that we do not have that they have killed hundreds of american citizens like they did in the past when they attacked our embassies, our ships in harbor, the world trade center. Instead they are down to small squad ambushes, using women and children for fodder as suicide bombers, and half the time they can not put together a strike without getting caught before hand as happen in England and elsewhere. Now if you call that being as strong as they were before, you do need to grab your neck with both hands and pull your head out of your behind and take a look around you to see what is going on.
You trying to compare FDR to your Dems today is a big laughting matter, that man had more guts then all the Dems in congress today. You must not be aware of your own history where FDR wanted to get involved in WWII long before Pearl Harbor. Are not aware of the hush hush meetings he had with Churchill and his frustration with his own party members that did not want to get involved in a war. Gee!! that sounds like the problem our President has today. somethings never change do they.
Dude your arguments have been getting more and more like the ramblings of the village idiot and because of that impairment I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ME OR ANYONE ELSE SERIOUSLY. That would require some common sense on your part.
While we are at it, I would like to know if you do hire illegal aliens for work. But, I will understand if your decide to invoke your fifth amendment rights and not answer on the grounds it may incriminate you in a crime. After all some of your heros were good at invoking that right.

RELH
 
"I do not know where you are getting your twisted information that Al Qaida is as strong today as they were on 9/11." Where have you been?

This is from a neo conservative author. . . .


Scary: al Qaeda Threat Strong as Ever
by Ericka Andersen — 07-12-2007 @ 07:24 AM

Despite the blockage of two major terrorist attacks -- first at Ft. Dix and second in Picadilly Circus -- it seems like many Americans have lost their respect for the overwhelming and dangerous threat of al-Qaeda and other operatives. It seems that an actual incident on our soil is the only way many people will realize the danger. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration and the DOD and the DHS have worked hard to keep these bratty, ignorant people safe. Today, a reality check is in play:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.




With six years behind them, terrorist organizers have had ample time to set up and plan intricate attacks. Americans are not patient and as more time passes with no actual attacks, they become numb to the possibility of another 9/11-style hit job. To the terrorists, 9/11 was like yesterday and their infinite patience in creating a supreme comeback will not falter.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.



Democrats and some Republicans are continually calling for troop withdrawal. But troop withdrawal doesn't mean the war is over or that we are out of harms way. Robert Cox's op/ed in the DC Examiner this morning said, "To my friends on the anti-war left...:If we are not going to fight al Qaeda in iraq when we know it is there, then where and when do they propose we should fight it? To paraphrase Willie Sutton: You fight al Qaeda in Iraq because that's where al Qaeda is."

Americans tucked safely away in their comfortable small towns and hip big cities must recognize this threat. Counterterrorism analysts say this is true and who are we to challenge them?
Source: Right Angle -- http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=23598
 
RELH once again you over simplify things to the point you're simple. first off with the technology we have today idiots like Saddam can't have butter on his toast without us knowing it, it's the terror cells we're letting get stonger as T's post explains that are our real threat.when and if Saddam had become a true problem he could have been taken out quickly just as he was. this brings us back to the same old argument, if Iraq was so important what about N. Korea , Iran ,Syria and the other countries we know are a threat not a precieved one? we've even turned Russia back into a less than freindly power with our foolish tactics. the fact remains were no safer today than we were before the invasion of Iraq, some say less safe, I still see no comparison between that and winning WWII.
 
Some folks just can't grasp the simple fact that in order for us to survive and live free, we're occasionally gonna have to stomp on some bad guys. Unfortunately, we're gonna lose some good guys in the process. Way it's always been and the way it's always going to be.
The U.S. will have a military presence in the mid east for many, many years. Be it Iraq or elsewhere. Rightfully so. Get used to it. Too much is at stake over there to just leave it to the "natives" if you will. Americans who openly bash and criticize (protest) in times such as these really don't know whats good for them. I realize it's their right and is the popular thing to be doing right now, but it's still wrong. Say what you want in private and do you're "protesting" in the privacy of a ballot booth. In war time, maybe we should scrap "diversity", and start showing some "unity". One mans opinion.
 
Dude:
Your buddy Tfinal answered your question why Iraq was so important, but I do not fully agree that Al Quiada is as strong as they were at 9/11. As for Iran, Syria, do you not think that they were next on the list for some good old fashion butt kicking.
North Korea has shut down their reactor, I think they were seeing the light if they did not. I do not think Iran will see the light until they get a brilliant flash in their faces.
As for the comparsion with WWII, I think our Gov. is trying to prevent you from seeing the comparsion by it becoming WWIII if we do nothing and let things go on as they have been.
It's your right to agree or disagree with this assessment, you will not be the first that guessed wrong and found yourself in a war that you did not want and tried to prevent.
There is a time to talk, and there is a time to fight, we have done enought talking over there.

RELH
 
Sorry! Couldn't resist ... there is only about 4 people in the world wasting time with this thread anyway. That includes me!

"You know, I guess I'm like any other political figure: Everybody wants to be loved." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 13, 2007

"I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle. He's bigger than that." --George W. Bush, on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as quoted by the Sun newspaper, June 27, 2007

"Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that." --George W. Bush, on the immigration reform bill, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2007

"This process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political." --George W. Bush, discussing the controversy surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 11, 2007

"These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved." --George W. Bush, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 11, 2007

"Bush goes to Hel. That's what a lot of people want." --George W. Bush, on his visit to the Hel Peninsula, Gdansk, Poland, Jun. 8, 2007

"There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007

"My relationship with this good man is where I've been focused, and that's where my concentration is. And I don't regret any other aspect of it. And so I -- we filled a lot of space together." --George W. Bush, on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007

"What I'm telling you is there's too many junk lawsuits suing too many doctors." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 10, 2007

"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2007
(Watch video clip)

"I'm honored to be here with the eternal general of the United States, mi amigo Alberto Gonzales." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2007 (Watch video clip)

"Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a commander guy." --George W. Bush, who apparently is no longer "The Decider," Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 (Watch video clip)

"Wisdom and strength, and my family, is what I'd like for you to pray for." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence." --George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

"And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying, some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work." --George W. Bush, in an interview with Charlie Rose, April 24, 2007

"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about." --George W. Bush. Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007


Got a Bushism?
Send it to [email protected]

Email This Page to a Friend

"My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision maker." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"Politics comes and goes, but your principles don't. And everybody wants to be loved -- not everybody. ... You never heard anybody say, 'I want to be despised, I'm running for office.'" --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"I said to her, make sure the rug says 'optimistic person comes to work.'" --George W. Bush, on his instructions to First Lady Laura Bush in choosing a rug for the Oval Office, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." --George W. Bush, on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It matters how -- the nature of the government in which people live." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007




"My attitude is, if they're still writing about (number) one, 43 doesn't need to worry about it." --George W. Bush, on his legacy, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"A good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington, D.C." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like -- or to the developed world, to people like -- in the United States." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

"Suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission." --George W. Busy, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

"And my concern, David, is several." --George W. Bush, to NBC's David Gregory, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

"The solution to Iraq -- an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself -- is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

"That's why we are inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007
"They're innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water." --George W. Bush, on British sailors who were detained by Iran while on patrol in the Persian Gulf, Camp David, March 31, 2007

"Some call this civil war; others call it emergency -- I call it pure evil." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007

"I'm a strong proponent of the restoration of the wetlands, for a lot of reasons. There's a practical reason, though, when it comes to hurricanes: The stronger the wetlands, the more likely the damage of the hurricane." --George W. Bush, New Orleans, March 1, 2007

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007



"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

"And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table." --George W. Bush, interview on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Jan. 16, 2007

"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." --George W. Bush, Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007

RUS
 
"per usual you FAILED to grasp my point"

As usual my friend, you failed to make a point!

RUS <smile>
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom