Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Obviously the war is going well enough for the President to feel confident to start this process.
At what point do we start admitting that we are winning this war?
In the speech, the president will say he understands Americans' deep concerns about U.S. involvement in Iraq and their desire to bring the troops home, they said. Bush will say that, after hearing from Petraeus and Crocker, he has decided on a way forward that will reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos, according to the officials.
The address will stake out a conciliatory tone toward Congress. But while mirroring Petraeus' strategy, Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that now-unforeseen events could change the plan.
What crap! It dosent say he is pulling troops, its a bullshit statement that he will reccommend we reduce by 30,000 9 months from now and ONLY IF we can. So its a well we MIGHT do it later IF we can. Wouldnt that just take back the "surge" troops and still keep the original amounts of soldiers there? So maybe in 9 months we wont have to keep up to surge levels, but of course we DONT know that we can but IF we can we will......
Actually the article highlights for me that the whitehouse realizes that the majority of the US public are AGAINST the war and they need to be appeased. So lets make a non-binding statement saying there is a possiblity in the near future ....
He really said nothing but made a statement in hopes of pacifying the public.
From your link
Its the same ol thing in american politics...maybe soon, if conditions permit, we could possibly.....in other words, SAYS NOTHING.
Appeasing the public is not just Bush's perview. For all the rhetoric about pulling out the troops, the Dems/libs have been awful reluctant to cut of the funding. Guess they are not as comitted to their "principles" as they profess to be.
Now you are just creating a strawman...when did I ever say that democrats werent responsible for this mess as well? I never said they weren't and I wasn't poking at you here; I was merely making an observation.
My point is that the title of all this is misleading...he isnt beginning to pull troops at all...he only said he MIGHT start in 9 months IF the situation warrants...in other words NOTHING. He said nothing definitive nor binding and it equates to hot air. We agree. It's called politics!
I also said he is doing this because the whitehouse (the bush admin) realize that the MAJORITY of the american public do not agree with the war or the troops continued presence there SO he is trying to appease the public while NOT actually doing what they want. I would also guess this is to help his partners in crime...the democrats who are also feeling the pressure of not coming through on the platform that got so many of them elected last time. Again, I agree. Obviously, the American public get to vote soon and I bet Bush wont get in.
Spare me the partisan garbage, I cant stand the democrats or republicans...they both answer to the same corrupt puppet masters.
There are doctors and medication that helps with delusional paranoia Ruby.
To be fair, Ruby's comment is pretty straightforward. Politicians (yes even the President) do this crap all the time.
However it is delusional to believe that some secret society runs all politicians no matter the party. Which is what she said ( ok she said republican and democrat, but that is just as ludicrous as all)
Spare me the partisan garbage, I cant stand the democrats or republicans...they both answer to the same corrupt puppet masters.
Her last post....
Ruby said..
TOTAL for 2001-2002 Election Cycle $3,015,086
Gave $600,000 to Lobbying Firm; Could Save Billions. Lobbyist disclosure records show the Walton family paid Patton Boggs LLP, an influential Washington-based lobbying firm, $600,000 since 1999 in an effort to repeal the estate tax. In 2005, the Walton family would have saved $32.6 billion if the estate tax were repealed. [Public Citizen, "Spending Millions to Save Billions," April 2006]
RetiredGySgt tries to speak FOR me all the time and always fails miserably.
Yep I mean those who FUND the politicians. That would include special interest groups, large business interests, unions, foreign govts etc.
For instance here is a link that shows how many got money from pro-Israeli groups and how much.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306036.html
Thats from JUST one particular interest.
Walmart has donated to candidates to further their agenda of getting the estate tax repealed among other issues.
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/political_influence/
Its easy math to see just from these few examples what a great investment it is for these companies. I mean the Israel lobby gave over 3 million BUT they receive billions fromthe US annually....thats a good return by ANYONES calculations.
Walmart spent 600,000 but recieved over a billion back in tax payer benefits and that dosent include what they stand to gain on the policy changes they are after and have had some success with so far....such as estate tax repeal and charter schools. The charter schools are big for them...they want to own schools and make sure to educate our young population in ways that are beneficial to them (which is quite smart for ANY large business to do, from a profit standpoint).
You cant blame the corps...its their function, to do all they can within the law to increase their profits and shape things in ways that help them do that. Its OUR fault its legal and that we dont stop it and its our govts fault for selling out instead of doing a good job for the american people.
As long as there are politicians there will be special interest groups. I am convinced that every politician has their price. It is just a matter of how much.
Well we can make the price by creating reforms that outlaw this stuff and make them accountable to the people only. The citizens can be their only source of power and that way...they DO work for the people.
Convincing the public its inevitable and cant be changed or stopped is how they make sure to keep this status quo. I truly hope you arent falling for that.
The reality is that one has to be pretty damn wealthy to even run for local office these days. In my mind, that automatically puts every single candidate, regardless of party affilliation, out of touch with the common man.
There is only one way the general citizenry of this country can hold politicians accountable and that is by voting according to their own principles. Unfortunately, we, as a people, cannot agree on what those principles are!
Heck, we can't even agree on interpretation of the Constitution and rely on lawyers (another despicable bunch!) to tell us what it says, though it is written in pretty clear language.
The day a group of candidates comes along that has the best interest of this country and its people in his heart, is the day this country will truly change course. until then, we will have the status quo: a divided country lead by partisans and self indulgent power seekers.
I dont disagree with anything you said there, but I would add that we can push for the reforms needed so that it dosent require wealthy and well connected people to even be a viable candidate. We need publically funded campaigns as well.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1831
That link highlights specific issues to work on and support that will help reform the system and give more control back to citizens and help cut out the link between the corps and other special interests to our elected officials.
Election reform wont happen. Those in power from BOTH sides of the aisle will never pass any kind of reform.
