Late in the conference, when asked what Iraq's role was in the World Trade Center attacks, the president said, "Nothing."

But he went on to suggest that by overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States could forestall future acts of terrorism by defeating resentment with hope, "and the best way to do hope is through a form of government."

***

Good job on "do"-ing hope W.

Honestly, his dangerous nonsense knows no bounds.

I liked the CNN headline today: Bush: Leaving Iraq now would be a 'disaster'

So what would that make staying in Iraq?

Fucking moron.

What NASA should be working on is a cheap, tangible form of hope that they can make available in stores. Once you can walk into your local Wal-Mart and pick up hope on clearance for $3, the terrorists will have no chance.

Nevermind, I guess this is close enough:

My walmart pharmacy all ready carries this - but you need a prescription.

i like how it's a "form" of govt... it could be any damn thing, but it will "do" hope.

What we need in Iraq is a military strongman, somehow who can impose order on the country.... Hmmm?

exactamundo!

how long before you guys get a new president?

Is bush running again or what? I kinda got bored with current affairs this year and have lost all global knowledge.

The next president will take office January 20, 2009. The election is the first Tuesday in November 2008.

Bush cannot run for President again.

I see. But is there some kind of Bush-equivalent that will simply seamlessly replace him?

2008 will be like a dog show, but instead of dogs it will be a bunch of Political Has Beens and Never Will Bees sniffing each other's asses and shitting all over the floor.

wait, that's 2012.

haha American jokes.

I don't get it.

jesus, he looks like even more of a moron than george.

sometimes i wonder about the people on this board

i hate Bush as much as the next non-american, but hes right on this occasion. There has to be an American presence there for awhile longer.

You've made a mess of Iraq, and going in was a mistake in the first place. But leaving now would be utterly stupid. It would create a power vacuum for local militias and warlords, taking away any forward momentum the country still possibly has, and be the perfect conditions for creating new....badddamadddamm....terrorists.

it's his brother Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida. A 'potential' candidate further down the line.

i dont know how you can miss these things, i don't watch the news or read a newspaper more than once a week

I make an effort to know as little about America as they do the rest of the world.

ahh i see

the Australian Way

Exactly right, sir.

My problem at this point is that I was told by the anti-war people that this war was all about oil, and yet now the Iraqi's are having to import oil for gasoline and cooking oil.

In all seriousness, Iraq has the third largest known oil reserves in the world; oil companies have recently enjoyed record profits. How's about using some of that money to get this oil production going (including hiring a private army to protect it if necessary) and lets RAPE this country and suck as much oil out of it as possible before these crazy bastards drive us out. Because, lets face it, these people are obviously not worthy of the wealth lying beneath the surface of their own country.

That way, when I am putting 35 cent gas into my massive truck, I'll at least feel like this little incursion was worth something.

Why do you wonder? Because I have a different opinion than you? According to some polls, more than 30% of Americans believe we should pull out w/in the next 18 months. And Britian's already considering a reduction of forces.

Commander: UK may cut Iraq forces

Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Posted: 8:29 a.m. EDT (12:29 GMT)

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain may cut its force in Iraq in half by the middle of next year after handing over security responsibility for the south to Iraqis within nine months, a senior British commander said on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters on condition he not be identified, the commander said Britain would leave "quite a significantly smaller force than we've got now, but probably in the region of 3,000 to 4,000 people based in a single location."

Britain handed over responsibility for one of the southern provinces it controls to Iraqi forces in July, and the commander said it hoped to hand over a second province next month.

Most of Britain's 7,000 troops in Iraq are based around the second city of Basra, where the commander said a transition to Iraqi control could take place in the first quarter of 2007.

"These are all conditions-based, subject to a variety of factors, but in terms of the tactical plan and the competence of the Iraqi army, it is perfectly feasible," he said.

He said the first thousand British troops could start returning home in the next 4 to 6 months, in part representing forces being drawn down from Maysan province, where Britain has already begun moving out of its main base.

The 3,000 to 4,000-strong British force would remain in the Basra area after the handover "to protect our investment" in security in the mainly-Shi'ite south and show support for U.S. troops still facing security problems in other parts of Iraq.

"We anticipate there is not going to be a political appetite to saying 'alright, we're done' while there is still unfinished business in the centre of the country," the commander said.

Britain has maintained a force of between 7,000 and 8,000 troops in southern Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The mainly Shiite south has been far more peaceful than Sunni-dominated and ethnically mixed provinces in the center of the country.

But Basra has seen a surge in violence over the past year, which British officials blame on rival Shiite factions battling for control of the city, which is at the heart of one of Iraq's main oil-producing regions.

The British commander said the main security concerns are local militia, such as offshoots of the Jaish al-Mehdi -- the Mehdi Army -- of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

"The mainstream Jaish al-Mehdi are not a particular worry, but there are rogue elements, some of them rather alarmingly close to government structures."

As my sister kept saying over my shoulder as I was pulling the one-armed bandit, "Cash out! Cash out!"

I don't think we can afford this mess anymore.

how many civilians is saddam accused of slaughtering? and how many have died since we've been there?
just wondering what the totals are here.

That was the idea from the beginning- oil money from Iraq's reserves was supposed to finance the war. But insurgents have decimated the oil infrastructure, so now they need to import it.

We needed at least double the number of troops from day one, but it would probably be polical suicide to send more troops now. It's sickening to think how the execution of a war is so politically driven.

Stay or go, we're f'ed either way.

yes, this is just a guess, but the kurd massacre that Saddam is being tried for presently charges him with slaughtering 10's of thousands of kurds alone. So, I am guessing the number of killed are not remotely comparable.

someone queue the drumroll -- zing!