Bush's "plan" speech

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
The essential question here is not our Iraq policy, because we cannot and do not have one.

The essential question is "Will such speeches raise the public's confidence in Bush's approach in Iraq?"

The answer is no.

And the answer is no for two reasons:

1. Bush is a terrible speaker, so he is unconvincing; he's a drunk leading a funeral procession.
2. Since we have no Iraq policy nothing can be explicated.

I saw the speech and would say that Bush is the Shaquille O'Neill on Kerry's team.

-Robert
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Blair steps it up a notch over Bush

Still doesn't add much to the meaning of "sovereignty", though.


British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's chief ally in Iraq, said Tuesday that as of June 30 the new Iraqi government will have veto power over some military operations by coalition troops in Iraq.

Blair, going further than President Bush went in his speech Monday night, told a news conference in London that "if there's a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," he said.

"That doesn't mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something that our troops don't want to do," he told reporters. "The political control shifts, the operational issues have to be decided under various agreements . . . it may be decided on an operation-to-operation basis."

But he was emphatic that "the change of sovereignty is a change of sovereignty. That is my position and the position of the U.S. government."

Bush, in his speech and in the proposed resolution submitted to the U.N. Security Council, left open such sensitive questions as what happens if Iraqis do not want foreign forces to launch new offensives, for example.

And those questions--the extent of real Iraqi authority after June 30--the date set for a limited turnover of authority from the U.S. led Coalition Provisional Authority--has emerged as a major issue in the U.N. Security Council, which is being asked to give its imprimatur to the post-June 30 design.

The resolution would authorize U.S.-led multinational forces to "use all necessary measures" to keep the peace and fight terrorist elements challenging the interim government. Its mandate would be subject to review by the Security Council within 12 months or by a transitional Iraqi government to be elected by January 2005.

France, Germany, Russia and China have expressed misgivings about the resolution, saying it does not offer full sovereignty to Iraqis. Envoys from those governments said the resolution would not resolve many key political issues, including the extent of Iraqis' control over their security forces in the months ahead and the duration of the multinational force's stay in Iraq.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said the new Iraqi government "must be able to make decisions over security issues, or else it won't be truly sovereign," wire services reported Tuesday.

France has said the resolution should make clear the interim government has a say over what actions are taken by U.S.-led forces once sovereignty was handed over next month.

It also wants the new Iraqi government that will emerge from subsequent elections to be able to decide whether international forces remain in the country.

Russia's Interfax news agency said Tuesday that Russia wants further work on the resolution, which it says leaves many questions unanswered, the Reuters news agency reported, quoting a Foreign Ministry source.

"The document leaves Russia and other members of the Security Council asking many questions and needs further work," Interfax reported.

The 15-nation Security Council will resume negotiations on the draft on Wednesday. U.S. and British officials said they hope to have the resolution adopted by early next month.

Blair said that transferring "operational authority" for security to Iraqis was essential to convincing the Iraqi public that coalition military initiatives were in their interest, rather than in the interest of an occupying power.

Now, he said, "every time there is an operation by British or American troops to restore order, this can be presented" as the action of an occupier.

That, he said, allows violent "elements" to be seen as an anti-occupation force rather than as anti-democratic force. A shift of responsibility for security decisions should make the true motives of insurgents "very visible to people."

Also Tuesday, the president of the Iraqi Governing Council said Tuesday that a proposal U.S.-British blueprint for a post-occupation Iraq falls short of expectation, wire services reported.

Ghazi Mashal Ajil Yawer did not elaborate when he spoke to reporters after a meeting of the U.S.-appointed body. He said the council welcomed President Bush's statement Monday night at the Army War College that the occupation will end on June 30 as expected.

On the draft blueprint submitted to the U.N. Security Council, al-Yawer said: "We found it less than our expectations."

He said he hoped that input from the Governing Council would be incorporated into the final version of the resolution.
 

DaFinn

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
4,725
0
0
Bush plan.

---

Cliff notes: I have no plan.

He did not have anything new to say... no new plans.
 

onelove

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2001
1,656
0
0
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's chief ally in Iraq, said Tuesday that as of June 30 the new Iraqi government will have veto power over some military operations by coalition troops in Iraq.

Blair, going further than President Bush went in his speech Monday night, told a news conference in London that "if there's a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," he said.

"That doesn't mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something that our troops don't want to do," he told reporters. "The political control shifts, the operational issues have to be decided under various agreements . . . it may be decided on an operation-to-operation basis."

But he was emphatic that "the change of sovereignty is a change of sovereignty. That is my position and the position of the U.S. government."

interesting in light of Powell's prior stmt that US troops would leave if asked. not exactly a reversal, just an obvious tension b/c the troops will be a necessary evil for a long time to come.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I thought his speech was good. They also did a hell of a job on his makeup as they covered up most of that road rash he suffered when he fell off his bike. The only visible mark was on his left eyebrow.
 

onelove

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2001
1,656
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I thought his speech was good.
ya know, you're right - enunciation was better than normal, no slurring and only tripped over the expected hard words. the weekend cram session must have eliminated all the "nuke-u-ler" references from the speech. remember, practice makes perfect - we're all hooked on phonics!
 

SmokeRngs

Member
Apr 30, 2004
80
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
If they are a terrorist caught, say, here in the States or in Iraq where there's a conventional theater of war, then, yes, they should be afforded the rights under the Geneva Convention.

As many have said, including John McCain, we must take the higher moral ground. We must be better then they are.


Now, answer my question.

Terrorists are not afforded any protection under the Geneva Convention. Neither are enemy combatants that are not in uniform. Therefore, why should they be protected according to the Geneva Convention.

Your statement is self defeating. The Geneva Convention does not provide the rights to those you say should have them.
 

SmokeRngs

Member
Apr 30, 2004
80
0
0
Originally posted by: DaFinn
Bush plan.

---

Cliff notes: I have no plan.

He did not have anything new to say... no new plans.


Amazing, first there is no plan at all, then there are no new plans. The second statement does not follow from the first. I think you should rethink your position. You are obviously confused.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
So the US identifies a target it wants to attack, perhaps insurgents or a stockpile. They are ready to go, and the Iraqis tell them no. The US immediately stops, right?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
Originally posted by: conjur
If they are a terrorist caught, say, here in the States or in Iraq where there's a conventional theater of war, then, yes, they should be afforded the rights under the Geneva Convention.

As many have said, including John McCain, we must take the higher moral ground. We must be better then they are.


Now, answer my question.

Terrorists are not afforded any protection under the Geneva Convention. Neither are enemy combatants that are not in uniform. Therefore, why should they be protected according to the Geneva Convention.

Your statement is self defeating. The Geneva Convention does not provide the rights to those you say should have them.


Oh, then all of these courts martial are fake?

You should stop posting to keep from embarrassing yourself.
 

Dufusyte

Senior member
Jul 7, 2000
659
0
0
US troops will occupy Iraq as long as there is oil in Iraq.

The purpose of taking over Iraq was to secure the energy security of the US.

(in case you did not know)

Please do not be fooled by official statements, as they are designed to obscure the obvious.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
U.S., Britain Differ on Iraq Operations

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and Britain appeared at odds Tuesday over how much control Iraq's caretaker government will have over American-led military operations after the handover of political authority on June 30.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S.-led troops will do "what is necessary to protect themselves." In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iraqis should have the final say over any major military operations.

The apparent difference underscored one of the many pieces of unfinished business as Iraq begins a new era with the selection of interim political leaders who will run the government until elections are held by early next year. The White House says the new leaders will be named by early next week and perhaps sooner.

Bush administration officials said Iraq's new government will have a consulting and coordinating role over U.S. troop operations that still needs to be defined. Britain agrees, yet Blair said significant offensives, such as the U.S. assault on the city of Fallujah last month, would not take place without the consent of the new government.

Powell said at a news conference that Iraq's interim government will have full sovereignty, and so it will "have a role to play, obviously" in the activities of U.S. forces who will still be on the ground after June 30. The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq who will continue to serve under U.S. command after the turnover of political power.

Powell said that "if it comes down to the United States armed forces protecting themselves or in some way accomplishing their mission" in a way not in accord with the Iraqis, the U.S. forces "will do what is necessary to protect themselves."

In London, Blair stressed that British troops would not be under the control of the interim government after the transfer of power. But he said the "final political control as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way - that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government."

A senior Bush administration official in Baghdad said the issue over who has the final word about the activities of U.S.-led coalition troops after sovereignty is transferred would be the first one addressed by the United States and members of the interim government once its leaders are named.

The administration official said the list of names for the interim government had been narrowed, but that no final decisions have been made. "We're down to a handful of names for each of the positions and in some cases a smaller number than that," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Separately, a senior U.S. diplomat, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, U.S. diplomat Robert Blackwill and some members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council met Tuesday to "crunch names."

A U.N. Security Council resolution calls for a multinational force that would work in concert with the Iraqi interim government through "consultative and coordinating mechanisms."

Meanwhile, the United States' effort to get a new U.N. resolution approved showed little sign of inducing other countries to offer more troops.

Pakistan said it was considering the U.S. request but only for a special force to protect U.N. facilities in Iraq. France repeated its strong refusal to ever send in soldiers.

Washington's previous calls for more contributions have largely been rebuffed, and suggestions that Muslim or Arab nations should play a military role in Iraq have not yielded positive responses. War opponents Germany and China praised the draft resolution, but Germany, France and Russia are likely to press for the United States to give the interim government more say over U.S., international and Iraqi armed forces.

Following his prime-time speech on Iraq Monday night, Bush rallied for international support. He spoke by phone Tuesday morning with French President Jacques Chirac, one of the fiercest critics of U.S. policy there.

"What President Chirac and others have said is they want to make sure that the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government is a real transfer and that's what we want," Bush said in the Oval Office. where he met with seven Iraqi men whose right hands were cut off by members of Saddam Hussein's former regime. "I had a great conversation with President Chirac," Bush said. "We share the same goal: a free and stable and peaceful Iraq."

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush and Chirac mutually noted there is "broad agreement" on the outlines of the new resolution but said the two leaders also agreed that "adjustments" must be made in some areas. He wouldn't elaborate.

The draft resolution does not specify how much say Iraq's new government will have over foreign and Iraqi forces, nor does it set a timetable for U.S. forces to depart. Chirac's office said the French president told Bush that the degree of Iraqi control over security and the nation's vast oil reserves "must be studied closely."
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: conjur
Sen. Biden interviewed by Chris Mathews after Bush's propaganda nailed it:

President Bush must lead!
President Bush must get on a plane and meet with the heads of the major powers
He must pick up a phone and make the calls
Get a NATO face on the occupying force since the Iraqi security personnel training will take at least 3 years according to all those in charge of it that Sen. Biden has spoken with

Bush gave no details on the handover nor on the security training

When the Iraqi people wake up on July 1, what will be different? Nothing.

Full sovereignty? What did Bush mean by that? Does that mean the new gov't will have control over the U.S. troops? Over the "coalition" troops? Will it be able to enact its own laws and enforce them?

Only more questions remain after Bush's speech.


Oh, and he sloughed off the Abu Ghraib disaster as that of a couple of idiots. How about acknowledging that you knew about the plan to violate the Geneva Convention, Mr. President????

Are terrorists entitled to protection under the geneva covention?

What terrorists? Just because Bush calls them terrorists doesn't mean the Iraqi citizens defending their homeland are terrorists. They were captured through the course of normal warfare operations, including house-to-house searches. And the prisoners were 70-90% wrongly arrested and were innocent.

70-90% where did you come up with these numbers ?

Red Cross came up with their numbers based on investigation on-site and questioning of US officers.

I believe most of them have been released now.
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: conjur
Sen. Biden interviewed by Chris Mathews after Bush's propaganda nailed it:

President Bush must lead!
President Bush must get on a plane and meet with the heads of the major powers
He must pick up a phone and make the calls
Get a NATO face on the occupying force since the Iraqi security personnel training will take at least 3 years according to all those in charge of it that Sen. Biden has spoken with

Bush gave no details on the handover nor on the security training

When the Iraqi people wake up on July 1, what will be different? Nothing.

Full sovereignty? What did Bush mean by that? Does that mean the new gov't will have control over the U.S. troops? Over the "coalition" troops? Will it be able to enact its own laws and enforce them?

Only more questions remain after Bush's speech.


Oh, and he sloughed off the Abu Ghraib disaster as that of a couple of idiots. How about acknowledging that you knew about the plan to violate the Geneva Convention, Mr. President????

Are terrorists entitled to protection under the geneva covention?

What terrorists? Just because Bush calls them terrorists doesn't mean the Iraqi citizens defending their homeland are terrorists. They were captured through the course of normal warfare operations, including house-to-house searches. And the prisoners were 70-90% wrongly arrested and were innocent.

70-90% where did you come up with these numbers ?

Red Cross came up with their numbers based on investigation on-site and questioning of US officers.

I believe most of them have been released now.

Add to that the fact that many of these "terrorists" abused in the jail are now out and about speaking about the abuse.

Zephyr
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |