Headline "Bush agrees to speedy turnover in Iraq" but statements are extremely vague.?
915854
Here is the translation:  We will hand over security to Itaq as soon as we can but we are staying there forever.
792450
There is no 'Rosetta stone' answer for Iraq.. no easy answer. I think it is pointless to waste time on the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' in the rearview mirror. Important what is at hand in the present. With that said, it achieves a great deal getting out. The most important - saving lives of both our troops and the innocents caught in the middle.\n\nThe question should be redirected (from the premise), 'What would be achieved by STAYING in Iraq?
723281
Could you give more details, that statement is rather vague.
257464
There is to much to copy and paste so go here.\nhttp://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/tl/tl012575.htm
776751
I'm afraid some people only understand military might.\nhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061110174646\n\nBush knows it and tried to handle terrorists in the right way. Hard to say how the Left will respond, but we're stuck with them.
1058003
As you can tell by the other answers, the word is not getting out. If you follow the below "GOOGLE" advice, you can find hundreds of stories on the below article.\n\nIt turns out that three years after the invasion, the translators finally finished translating the tapes of Saddam Hussein's "Oval Office" conversations. Amazing that countries, such as Russia, that fought to block the invasion of Iraq, had actually sold WMDs to Saddam and was about to be caught red handed.\n\nIraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.
740060
I GUESS ITS HARD TO SAY I AGREE WITH THEM HARD TO UNDERSTAND THINGS.\n\nEXCEPT I DON'T AGREE WITH BUSH DECIDING A SINGLE DARN THING.
697058
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html\n\nIts not so much Bush's speech but his back-peddling answers to the questions that followed that makes one doubt his honesty and integrity.\n\nThe war and Rumsfeld issues were part and parcel of the election.  Nobody can deny that.  I would understand a decision to keep quiet the acceptance of the resignation of a key player just prior to an important election.\n\nBut, on the same hand - that being the avoidance of riling the masses and votes being cast out of anger and/or fear -, the President should not have made any statements to the effect that terrorists win, America loses if Dems gain power in Congress.  Truth doesn't run both ways, only lies and deception.\n\nRumsfeld has stated frequently that he has tendered his resignation in the past, but Bush refused to accept it.  Only now, Bush talks of "fresh perspective".  Balderdash.\n\nThis wasn't a presidential election, Bush had no votes to lose.  But, his base is now opening their eyes.  I sure hope their awakening is due to their respect of their constituents/former constituents and not just self-preservation.\n\nI hope these next two years don't leave George lame.\n\nI would rather have the two branches working together instead of fighting each other.
786845
Yes, the situation looks bleak, but Kissinger is not over there and does not know exactly what is going on\n\nI say, i will believe that military victory is impossible as soon as the generals in Iraq say such.\n\nI respect the man, but he has no idea what is really going on, and neither do i
815223
The administration said a year ago that the Iraqi army/police would be ready to take over. Now they say that it will take 12-18 more months for the Iraqis to be ready. And what will they say at that time? And how many more Americans will die will we wait for the Iraqi's to be "ready."  Is this "supporting" the soldiers? That is what liberal are against.  At least I am.
1073859
I believe it was Sunni's who made the offer.  And this is another political move by the Sunni's. After they turned in Zarqarwi, they gained political seats, most importantly, Minister of Defense.  I haven't seen Pres. Bush's comments on the proposal.  This is the make or break time for the Iraqi government.  I hope something positive comes from this.  On the one hand, if Bush negotiates, he is negotiating with the terrorist and people will say they won.  If he doesn't, then he isn't really trying to get the troops out.  No matter what everyone is in an awkward position.  Hopefully, the end result no matter what is stability in the Iraqi government.  So I hope he talks to the Sunni's, even if they are pointing terrorism at us.  However, this doesn't solve the problem of terrorist from other countries.  Perhaps this will make the Sunni's obligated in helping to combat foreign terrorists.
872154
I read that.\n\nWasn't that awesome.\n\n\nBush wouldn't dare attack him.\n\nI love it when the Troops put the smackdown to the alchoholic in chief.
842518
What it's basically saying is that Bush is trying to help Al-Maliki (the Prime Minister) govern Iraq and gain control over the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, but that nothing is going to stop the Sunnis and the Shi'ites from fighting.
843632
I heard all the talk, they try to make you feel that you are a rat jumping from a sinking ship. At least the Democrats want to set a timetable to get out of Iraq. I feel this is a good idea. One it would force the new leader in Iraq to get his police force in line.
369698
I don't know, not psychic, nor am I one of the President's advisers.  I do know this, when the troops were first sent into Iraq, the President said that this will not be a short conflict.  He said that we will be in it for the long haul.  If I am not mistaken, he said it could take as long as 10 years to complete the task.
996312
This is the first I've heard of this.  Two years is still a long time for the troops to be there, but without fighting?  That's very interesting, and it probably won't happen.  If the "insurgents" are talking to the Iraqi government, who is then relaying the information to the US, that's even more interesting.\n\nIt will be worth watching this unfold since Bush refuses to sit down and talk with terrorists while the left has always been for negotiating with them.  Quite interesting.
324082
Yes. Bush Sr asked that troops be sent over there to remove the Iraqi occupation from Kuwait, not to remove the Iraqi leader. Once the Iraqi Army was removed and Kuwait was returned to normal, our job was complete. He did what he asked the troops for and got out.