Article

2006-03-22 Home Front: Politix

Bush says fighting in Iraq could outlast his presidency

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-03-22 01:18|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 From the article's lead sentence:

"President Bush made the new and risky admission at a press conference Tuesday that the war in Iraq might not end on his watch..."

From Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address:

"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

What part of that didn't the author comprehend? And what part of what SecDef Rumsfeld said-- that Iraq would be a "long, hard slog"-- didn't she get?

Carolyn Lochhead is either a dimwit with the attention span of a month-old puppy, or she's a lying bitch who writes Democratic Party propaganda cynically disguised as "news."

I'll take "lying bitch" for $500, please...

Posted by Dave D. 2006-03-22 09:20|| 2006-03-22 09:20|| Front Page Top

#2 "President Bush made the new and risky admission at a press conference Tuesday that the war in Iraq might not end on his watch"

"Bush made his comments at the White House as the war entered its fourth year with no end in sight."

For the record Bush did NOT say the war would continue past his term. In response to a question about whether there would come a day when there would be no more troops in Iraq he replied that it would be up to future governments and future governments of Iraq. Considering the fact that the Jihad types dont want as much as one boot on their soil that statement could be considered explosive even as it was intended. But to extrapolate that Bush sees the war continuing from a statement about troop deployment is a complete load. BTW the US continues to have troops in South Korea decades after combat. Are we still at war in that theater?

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-03-22 10:43|| 2006-03-22 10:43|| Front Page Top

#3 correction:

future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-03-22 11:08|| 2006-03-22 11:08|| Front Page Top

#4 US continues to have troops in South Korea decades after combat. Are we still at war in that theater?
Technically, yes. We have only a cease-fire agreement (a Hudna by any other name...) between the US/UN and North Korea.

We also still have troops in Germany and Korea 60 years after fighting ended there. What's the big deal? The entire Left Coast has this totally unrealistic "understanding" of politics and the military, and are incompetent to write about those subjects. Unfortunately, the most incompetent all work for newspapers and television stations.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-03-22 13:01|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-22 13:01|| Front Page Top

#5 I saw this on the local news this morning. Stupid media people, yes, but they are finally being forced to notice that this really is a long term thing, ie it will not end when Bush leaves office. Hopefully this will make his successor's life a bit easier, as President Guiliani can just point to this and previous speeches as explanation why we are still over there. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-22 17:48|| 2006-03-22 17:48|| Front Page Top

00:00 RWV
23:58 Phil
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:32 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:27 SPoD
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:24 SPoD
23:20 SPoD
23:18 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:17 Alaska Paul
23:15 SPoD
23:11 SPoD
23:07 Phil
23:00 SPoD
22:48 djohn66
22:32 trailing wife
22:29 Zhang Fei
22:27 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Zhang Fei
22:17 Zhang Fei
22:08 bombay
22:06 trailing wife
22:05 JAB