Bush admits Iraq "miscalculations"

[nakedemperor]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=572481&section=news


Bush: "I don't think you give timetables to dictators."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=572481&section=news


Bush: "I don't think you give timetables to dictators."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote it corrrectly!!!----it's "timelines" ! I would assume this to mean that you don't tell them when you are going to do certain things. Sounds wise to me!

 

[freeandfun1]

just to set the record straight, here is the quote that numbnuts misquoted.

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.

 

[nakedemperor]

Quote it corrrectly!!!----it's "timelines" ! I would assume this to mean that you don't tell them when you are going to do certain things. Sounds wise to me!

I would what Bush meant by "timeline" was either deadline or timetable, because giving a "timeline" to a dictator doesn't really make any sense. You can't GIVE a chronology to a person. Unless he mean he doesn't think you should speculate as to when the dictator is going to die.

Hmmm... anyone remember the LAST time time we gave a dictator a timeline and told him when we were going to do something?

But I guess you have to be more *sensitive* and you have a lot more to lose when a dictator actually HAS nuclear capabilities. But now he just looks like such a flaming hyprocrite. Bring 'em on! Let's try democracy... Shock and awe! We shouldn't give him a timeline...

Kind of like an overzealous Yale frat boy amped about beating Harvard and then going mute when the Michigan front five walk by. :whip3:

 

[dilloduck]

I would what Bush meant by "timeline" was either deadline or timetable, because giving a "timeline" to a dictator doesn't really make any sense. You can't GIVE a chronology to a person. Unless he mean he doesn't think you should speculate as to when the dictator is going to die.

Hmmm... anyone remember the LAST time time we gave a dictator a timeline and told him when we were going to do something?

But I guess you have to be more *sensitive* and you have a lot more to lose when a dictator actually HAS nuclear capabilities. But now he just looks like such a flaming hyprocrite. Bring 'em on! Let's try democracy... Shock and awe! We shouldn't give him a timeline...

Kind of like an overzealous Yale frat boy amped about beating Harvard and then going mute when the Michigan front five walk by. :whip3:

damn your getting desperate here-----are you saying Bush is a hypocrite for not attacking NK NOW ?

 

[insein]

I fail to see the hypocracy. America in general gave Saddam 12 years to comply with UN Sanctions to disarm or prove that you have disarmed. He never did. Bush finally gave an ultimatum to show proof of disarmament or be invaded. Saddam called the bluff but unfortunate for him and very fortunate for the Iraqi people, Bush wasnt bluffing.

Now we begin the process a new with Iran and NK. We've been talking to them. We will go through the diplomatic process with a dictator despite the fact that we all know where we will end up with a dicatator, invasion. Dictators live by their own set of rules. UN sanctions might as well be toilet paper with writing on it to them.

 

[007]

...Yale frat boy...

I'll bet that part warms up your loin's doesn't it...


So you tell me... hell, tell us ALL, who is it, anywhere in history, that has had the capability to 100% ACCURATELY predict a war, it's outcome, and what will follow?

NO ONE!! So whatever point you and your liberal media are so painfully trying to make isn't worth horse piss.

So wait for your next liberal marching orders. This issue is dead.

 

[nakedemperor]

Now we begin the process a new with Iran and NK. We've been talking to them. We will go through the diplomatic process with a dictator despite the fact that we all know where we will end up with a dicatator, invasion. Dictators live by their own set of rules. UN sanctions might as well be toilet paper with writing on it to them.

Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. has nothing to do with the process of disarmament in Iraq. The successful process I might add. Cheney and Wolfowitz were authoring Pentagon papers about invading Iraq in 1993. Immediately after 9/11 Bush said, "Iraq, Saddam, find the connection!" The Bush administration came into power and immediately after 9/11 set a TIMETABLE (timeline, as our semantically-challenged president called it), completely independant of diplomatic efforts, for the Iraqi government to discover and destroy their non-existant anthrax, serin, VX, etc. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that they gave a TIMETABLE and an ultimatum to one dictator, and now he's saying you shouldn't give one to ANOTHER, nuclear-powered dictator. Its black and white!

 

[nakedemperor]

damn your getting desperate here-----are you saying Bush is a hypocrite for not attacking NK NOW ?

No, I'm saying he's being a hyprocite for being a LAMB in the face of a dictator who ACTUALLY has nuclear capabilities. "Bring it on!!" when attacking the Iraqi regime that did NOT have WMD (makes you wonder why they felt secure being so gung-ho)...and "Wait! Diplomacy!" when dealing with another BRUTAL dictator with WMD.

 

[dilloduck]

No, I'm saying he's being a hyprocite for being a LAMB in the face of a dictator who ACTUALLY has nuclear capabilities. "Bring it on!!" when attacking the Iraqi regime that did NOT have WMD (makes you wonder why they felt secure being so gung-ho)...and "Wait! Diplomacy!" when dealing with another BRUTAL dictator with WMD.

whew its getting deep in here-----they are 2 different countries and pose 2 different threats !! should we blow the hell outta Cuba too?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

nakedemperor

So I guess you'd be for an ultimatum and possible invasion of Iran and/or NK? And if not, then what are you trying to say?

 

[Merlin1047]

No, I'm saying he's being a hyprocite for being a LAMB in the face of a dictator who ACTUALLY has nuclear capabilities. "Bring it on!!" when attacking the Iraqi regime that did NOT have WMD (makes you wonder why they felt secure being so gung-ho)...and "Wait! Diplomacy!" when dealing with another BRUTAL dictator with WMD.

This is getting tiresome. Your obviously partisan attacks on Pres. Bush are completely lacking in credibility. It is readily apparent that your criticism is not motivated by any rational assessment of facts but simply by petty partisan propoganda.

If this were Slick Willie, you'd be waving the flag and cheering about what a wonderful person he was to admit a mistake and that he had the courage to take a new approach to a problem.

The disgusting part of liberal bitching is that it is motivated exclusively by your desire to denigrate the President. Nowhere in your shrivelled little souls do you find room to consider what is best for your country. Or perhaps you simply don't give a damn.

 

[insein]

This is getting tiresome. Your obviously partisan attacks on Pres. Bush are completely lacking in credibility. It is readily apparent that your criticism is not motivated by any rational assessment of facts but simply by petty partisan propoganda.

If this were Slick Willie, you'd be waving the flag and cheering about what a wonderful person he was to admit a mistake and that he had the courage to take a new approach to a problem.

The disgusting part of liberal bitching is that it is motivated exclusively by your desire to denigrate the President. Nowhere in your shrivelled little souls do you find room to consider what is best for your country. Or perhaps you simply don't give a damn.

ITs readily apparent that his line of attack stems greatly from F:9/11. I can read his rhetoric directly from MM lines in the movie. Im afraid we'll be debunking this at least another 1000 times for another 1000 idiots that wonder into our midst spouting off the gospel according to Fat ass.

 

[nakedemperor]

nakedemperor

So I guess you'd be for an ultimatum and possible invasion of Iran and/or NK? And if not, then what are you trying to say?

No, I'm not saying we should invade North Korea, I'm merely commenting on the double-standard of Bush tolerance/intolerance of dictators. It begs questions about the motivations involved in going to Iraq. Why have we not invaded North Korea? It is a dictatorship with nuclear capabilities and a leader with a proven track record of aggressiveness. Doesn't this sound like Iraq was made to sound like 2 years ago?

So why does he believe we shouldn't give this dictatorship a timeline, just like he did with Iraq?

And no, this does NOT stem from Farenheit 9/11. Michael Moore doesn't warm my loins anymore than the President does.

Moreover, Merlin, Bush never admitted he'd made a mistake, he said he'd MISCALCULATED. Iraq WAS a mistake, but the president would never admit it. The lack of WMD and a substantive link to al Qaeda leave liberating Iraqis as the only real benefit of the war, which begs the question, WHY NOT OTHER DICTATORSHIPS? It's shortsighted to think that liberals denigrate the president merely because we hate him for no good reason and we hate America. We try to point out why we were mislead and misguided. Pointing out the similarities between Iraq and North Korea is just another way of trying to explain why Bush *should* admit a mistake, and not stubbornly cling to idealogue theology as he has done so brashly and uncomprimisingly.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

No, I'm not saying we should invade North Korea, I'm merely commenting on the double-standard of Bush tolerance/intolerance of dictators. It begs questions about the motivations involved in going to Iraq. Why have we not invaded North Korea? It is a dictatorship with nuclear capabilities and a leader with a proven track record of aggressiveness. Doesn't this sound like Iraq was made to sound like 2 years ago?
So why does he believe we shouldn't give this dictatorship a timeline, just like he did with Iraq?

Proven track record of aggressiveness eh? What country has Lil Kim invaded? Does he have designs on remaking Asia in his likeness the way Saddam thought he was going to create the "Great Arab State"?

And no, this does NOT stem from Farenheit 9/11. Michael Moore doesn't warm my loins anymore than the President does.

Yeah uh huh

Moreover, Merlin, Bush never admitted he'd made a mistake, he said he'd MISCALCULATED. Iraq WAS a mistake, but the president would never admit it. The lack of WMD and a substantive link to al Qaeda leave liberating Iraqis as the only real benefit of the war, which begs the question, WHY NOT OTHER DICTATORSHIPS? It's shortsighted to think that liberals denigrate the president merely because we hate him for no good reason and we hate America. We try to point out why we were mislead and misguided. Pointing out the similarities between Iraq and North Korea is just another way of trying to explain why Bush *should* admit a mistake, and not stubbornly cling to idealogue theology as he has done so brashly and uncomprimisingly.

How were you misled & misguided? Never once has Bush stated "we are attacking Saddam because of 9/11" That's something you guys have dreamt up and have ran with it ever since. You guys are already having a cow about Iraq, are you advocating an invasion of Iran & North Korea now?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

The lack of WMD and a substantive link to al Qaeda leave liberating Iraqis as the only real benefit of the war, which begs the question, WHY NOT OTHER DICTATORSHIPS? It's shortsighted to think that liberals denigrate the president merely because we hate him for no good reason and we hate America. We try to point out why we were mislead and misguided.

1) Many Democrats said Saddam had WMD and I don't see you saying that they should apologize.

2) There are plenty of links to al Qaeda. I don't know what you're looking for here.

3) As I have pointed out many times, the Democrats had access to the same intelligence as Bush. If Bush's claims were obviously flimsy, why did they vote to allow the use of force?