May 1, 2003
Yep, he really said that as a part of this speech."In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement."
Aug. 31, 2010
Well, at least he has enough sense not to commandeer an aircraft carrier and stand in front of a giant banner.This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began.
Sept 5, 2010
American officials say that U.S. troops helped repel a complex attack by a group of heavily armed militants against a Baghdad military headquarters.Yeah, we turned over security. The Iraqi Army can't defend one of its headquaters in the middle of Baghdad without calling on the US army. Two, count em' two terrorists apparently got inside, and the Iraqi Army couldn't deal with it without calling in 'suprressive fire', and 'support from helicopters, drones and explosive experts'. That's not really the fault of the Iraqi Army. They were originally designed as a force that couldn't operate without US support.
The fighting comes five days after the U.S. said it formally ended combat operations in Iraq.
A U.S. military spokesman said the Americans helped provide suppressive fire Sunday while Iraqi Army soldiers located two terrorists who had entered the compound.
Twelve people were killed in the attack. None of them were Americans. Lt. Col. Eric Bloom also said the Iraqi military asked for support from helicopters, drones and explosives experts.
Oh, and if you thought that electing the Democrats would get us out of Iraq anytime soon ....
The United States likely will need to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to keep a lid on sectarian tensions and to bolster Baghdad's fledgling military, experts and former officers say.
American officials privately acknowledge that the US military presence in Iraq will almost certainly be extended, even though a security agreement in force requires all US forces to depart by the end of 2011.
So tell me, exactly which names on an American ballot do oppose the war? An American voter gets a 'choice' between a pro-war Republican who openly says these wars are fantastic, and a pro-war Democrat who says these wars are awful, but still continues the wars on the same path as the Republicans.
Here was a statement from Bush on how he saw the future of the Iraq War.
George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd US President, in a Nov. 30, 2005 speech titled "Remarks on the War On Terror" in Annapolis, MD, stated:
"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."
Now, for all the hot air from Obama and the Democrats about how they oppose these wars, does it really sound like anything has changed with their election? Aren't Obama and the Democrats still running Bush's plan to the end?
And remember, for all their talk about ending the Iraq war, all they really did was to send the troops over to Afghanistan.
Turns out they promised a change we could not believe in.
So, what's next. Electing Republicans won't stop these wars. And obviously, neither will electing Democrats