Posted on 03/22/2006 7:36:58 AM PST by rightinthemiddle
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. But defying critics and plunging polls, he declared, "I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out."
(Excerpt) Read more at adelphia.net ...
Yet, all the headlines today seem to be about this topic.
Here's what Bush said, in context:
QUESTION: Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for success. If you did not, you would pull the troops out.
And so my question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there is they're caught in a crossfire and a civil war? And can you say to the American people -- assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
The decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution.
Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war -- our job is to make sure that civil war doesn't happen, but there will be -- but if there is sectarian violence, that's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition help, to separate those sectarian forces.
Third part of your question?
QUESTION: It was: Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when; I'm not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
BUSH: That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.
QUESTION: So it won't happen on your watch?
BUSH: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable.
I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.
The transcripts will catch the media in the lies every time
You'd think they'd learn by now .. but noooooooooo
"Thanks for your help" ping
The transcripts catch them, but who hears about it?
The Average Joe reads the headlines and says, "Man, that's bad. Bush sucks."
Why would they? There are never any repercussions for their actions.
The transcripts catch them, but who hears about it?
The Average Joe reads the headlines and says, "Man, that's bad. Bush sucks."
Oh they learned, but aside from us, who's gonna call them on it?
That's where we come in ...
I'm a stay at home mom .. who attends the play groups and spend days at the park and school functions .. and talk with other parents about lots of issues .. including politics
One way or another .. the media will be held accountable for their lies
Some people may disagree with Bush's policies, but at least with Bush, you know where he stands on pretty much all the issues. He doesn't change his views to fit polls or please the media, you have to respect him for that. Plus, it's true that Bush never actually said that the troops would be removed from Iraq during his presidency.
Man, this really burns me. Even the crew on Special Report/Fox News got this wrong.
It's on the front page of our paper today. Bush had a good press conference, but this it what comes out of it. We, and many others, complain that he's not getting his message out...how can he? The press will blatantly lie about anything he says.
Who on earth didn't know this? Come on now.
What I also can't figure out is how the left gets away with spinning in both directions. If there's a troop drawdown or a rumor of plans to withdraw in a few months, the left gleefully jumps up and down with a "ha ha! we're leaving! you suck Bush!" attitude. In other words, the left starts from the premise that drawing down is bad news. On the other hand, if - as happened here - there's a quote indicating we'll be there for a long time, the left spins it like "oh woe is us, he's saying the troops will be there for a long time". In other words, the left starts from the premise that leaving troops there is bad news.
But which is it? Is it good or is it bad, by the left's lights, to keep a presence in Iraq?
The only real answer is, "if Bush wants it, it's bad", of course.
Wanna Bet .. their ratings and subscriptions are dropping like a brick .. Newspapers are having to cut job or sell off ownership and TV stations are losing their ratings
There are repercussions
Why would anyone with a vested interest in the success of the opposition "learn" anything?
Iraq is a step forward. The country that is the media's template for what we should do is Iran - an enormous step backward.
Instead of debating when we will "leave" Iraq, we ought to be asking when we will project our power from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran. That is the question IF you care about America. (which they don't).
Perhaps the news reports what it reads between the lines? Don't we all read between the lines sometimes?
Apparently, they're not severe enough.
We've had a constant military presence in Germany for over 60 years... it's a quagmire!
Perhaps the news reports what it reads between the lines? Don't we all read between the lines sometimes?
__________
"Reading betweem the lines" is not reporting...that editorializing. Reporting is based on facts; I learned that much with my writing major/journailism minor. The press is assuming what it wants to hear.
The headline is a complete distortion.
They are severe
Our problem is that it's not happening fast enough .. but it is happening
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.