Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

George Bush is, was and will always be King of The Slippery Answer. I do not believe he has a straight bone in him. I believe that when history is finally written, George Bush will be seen as the worst president that United States has ever had.

The only reason G. Bush keeps making the statements he does is not for the Iraqi people but to try to convince the U.S. people that spending vast amounts of money (to enrich the industrial/military complex) and sending U.S. soldiers to be killed is for their benefit.
with all the graft and corruption involved in this debacle the only ones suffering are the US forces and innocent bystanders.

Changing the reasons for the chaos in Iraq is not unique to George Bush, we have an equally confused lame duck in Downing St. Was it WMD, regime change or because the army had nothing to do that week?

My question is when will the American voter realize that this administration has done nothing but mislead, misinform, and misguide them? When will they wake up to the reality of what is happening with Iraq, Afghanistan, the "War on Terror", and so on? The mid-term elections might prove the American public has awakened from a long, restless political nap, but I don't count on it. The rhetorical machine is in overdrive and I sadly predict that the gullible, un-informed, uneducated body politic, that is the American voter, will be persuaded once again by this awful administration that if they "stay the course" and "adapt and win" with them then all will be well. Don't believe it!

So the Republicans think that the Democrat strategy is just "cut and run"? Hmmm. Mind you, it's got to be a better strategy than "Open your mouth and shoot yourself in the foot. Again. And again. And again...."

I still can't believe he got elected twice. I can't wait until I've graduated so I can proudly institute a "cut and run" policy of my own; promptly relocating overseas.

Tis pity that George Bush himself might not be airbrushed from history before the fact. King of the Slippery Answer, yes. Sobering that he does not write his own answers. Will he be seen as the worst president? What I find most remarkable is that, unlike other wretched presidents (we have had a few), he seems to have absolutely no redeeming characteristics.

I believe your comments are pretty inflexible. First of all, the media is only going to focus on all the negative activities in Iraq. That is a fact - most people are in the communications business to make money (and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is no exception); therefore, media are only going to publish the gory news to get ratings. I have spoken with many soldiers returning from Iraq saying that there were many good things going on in Iraq that were not reported.

Secondly, "stay the course" does not mean we are pursuing one and only one strategy in war. This idea is inherently ignorant and flies in the fact of the fact that America (like all other countries) has been at war in the past and learned that war is chaotic, constantly changing and you have to be flexible. "Stay the course" means we have a job to do and let's get it done. It's an overall statement defining the ultimate goal - it's not a specific military gameplan.

"Stay the course" has turned into a negative soundbyte because the media in both the U.K. and the U.S. have associated everything negative with it to the public (see the first paragraph above). The natural course of action for any administration faced with an ugly soundbyte is to stop repeating it. You can associate negativity with absolutely any phrase even if the original meaning of the phrase was something wholly positive.

Evidently, 'w' and his followers are technically challenged; they haven't heard of video tape yet. Give them a few decades, they'll catch up.

In the meantime, 'w' will tell you what to believe and when to believe it. When you actually believe you are 'little god jr'; you are infallable.

It sounds exactly like George Orwell's 1984.

So "stay the course" has gone the fate of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

Of course, George Bush isn't the only one who's denied using that phrase. His ally Joe Lieberman is denying it as well...

I wonder if Bush would have stayed on course if his children were sent to fight in Iraq?

My son-in-law is on his third diploiment in Iraq. He has a fantastic attitude regarding fighting for our country. It is too bad most people cannot even stnd up for our country within our country. We have not only lost our Godly back-bone (Forgetting our constitutional resonsibilities etc...), but we let people walk on, kill, destroy other peoples property, with no conscience at all. The US is a what's in for me society and not carring for others. Our Fore-Fathers would have most certainly not only required us to keep God in our schools and government, but to fight for our country with the slightest threat (Twin towers) to us and I believe they would have supported these other nations. I think the constitution needs to be read again and again by all people.

Terri Moore

He is the worst President the USA has ever had and his legacy will negatively effect the entire world for generations to come.

I've never understood how this awful man has any support whatsoever in America. It's maddening that reporters seem unable to question his lies.

The current media world appears to be smothered by a mental block against asking pertinent questions that haven't been already vetted in some other venue. Let's look at all this from 'our' POV. If the Democrats achieve a majority in the U.S.Senate are they going to impeach this puppet/fool and follow it up with wholesale arrests in the Republican Establishment? If not, why not? Access. The media claim to 'have to' pussyfoot before these monsters to maintain access. Exposes do not require access. Do your job.

This is really no surprise, Bush will say or do anything to keep his rubberstamp congress in power, look at the candidates he's been supporting, (George Allen). He knows, or should I say Karl Rove knows, that America has a short attention span, why do you think he waited until two weeks before the election? The only problem for Bush may be motivating his audience, the ignorant, to actually go out and vote in a mid-term election.

A change in rhetoric from President Moron, who hopes and prays that his fellow countrymen are as stupid as he is? It will take more than a change in rhetoric to get the USA out of Bush's War.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and over two thousand soldiers have died in three years of staying the course. Al Quaeda terrorists are safer in Iraq then any where else in the world, now that Saddam has gone. Christians and Jews who were tolerated under Saddam's regime are now persercuted. Oh and still no sign of a WMD. He may have been an evil tyrant, but has anyone (apart from the terrorists) benefited from Saddam's demise?
How will George W. Bush be remembered? As the fool who's 'War on Terror' did more to aid and abet terrorists than anything Osama Bin Laden or Al Quaeda could have dreamed off.

Mustafa, you have hit it on the head. Are we fighting Eastasia or Eurasia? I'm sure the Thought Police are on their way...

Honestly, if "stay the course" means, as one writer has put it, that we stay until our objectives are achieved (I believe it was the destruction of WMDs), then why is it that George Bush now states that he has never uttered the words?

It's not perplexing to me at all, and I can't imagine it's perplexing to anyone else. He has a history of lying whenever it suits him to do so, regardless of the stakes, and especially when the stakes are preserving his grip on unchecked power. At last, his lies-as-headlines no longer fool the majority of Americans. High time. The rest of the world wised up long ago. It's time to call a lie a lie. I wonder what will happen to this "change" after the election? Where's the fine print? We've seen this ploy before. But he is right on one thing: To say that what he has done is not working is an understatment; there is going to be a change in November, and God help us, a complete change.

Are you kidding, Terri? How is fighting in Iraq fighting for our country? Did Iraq ever do anything to us? No, in fact, we are the ones who supplied Saddam with the weapons he had back when he was killing all those poor people we are now fighting for. Back then he was our biggest ally in the mideast.

Talk about walking on people and their property, the Iraqi people are much, much worse off now than they were under Saddam. We have destroyed the country and for what? Do you hontestly think there are fewer terrorists now than there was five years ago?

Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden. In fact, they were enemies until we got involved. Bin Laden and the people who blew up the towers were mostly Saudi Arabians. That society is much more brutal and repressive than Iraq ever was. How come we didn't go to war with the Saudis? Could it have something to do with the close ties between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia? Their oil? Money changing hands? There must be a good reason, what is it?

How can you say our forefathers would have certainly kept God in our schools and government? Are you forgetting it was the founding fathers who wrote in the Constitution that the church must be kept out of the government? The only thing I agree with you on is that the Constitution should be read again and again by everyone. But you'd better read it quickly. Bush is destroying it as fast as possible.

The forefathers did not write to keep the church out of the government.. they wrote to stop the government establishing a state religion.

Who is he kidding?
Iraq has nothing to do with our safety here. The only people it is important to are the authors of the doctrine spelled out in the documents available at www.newamericancentury.org.

Look for yourself, you'll find nearly everyone in this administration, past and present, has contributed to this motly, damning and frankly, insane collection of documents spelling out as early as 1998 "their" plans for my country - and Iraq's.

They will follow us here, he says?

You mean they don't have maps and don't know where America is? Does this mean that once our troops leave, and turn left at Israel, they will wind up in Africa? Food for thought...

We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?

Wow! Another astonishing nugget I've heard from them, you mean the terrorists won't or can't just "go around" Iraq? Didn't know we were able to tell Al-Queda how to fight?

Democracy?

Come on! It is so blatently clear that "democracy" is only acceptable if it results in Pro-US governments.

We need to end this stupidity and start working on stuff that is really important to us.

I seem to remember that a major American city was destroyed recently and that the diaspora from that event iis still extant. That would be a good place to start.

Of course, that city wasn't destroyed by terrorists, was it...

No one should find it the least bit surprising that this administration should even in mid-sentence try to change the reasoning for their actions. The way they tried to convice people of the necessity of the war in Iraq was built entirely on the concept. Especially when they would refuse to comment on anything that questioned their explanations.

Interestingly, Paul Wolfowitz (not sure of the spelling) was a member of George Bush, Sr's cabinet as well. At the time a much more junior member who was reprimanded for producing a document outlining how the US government should retain it's standing as the only remaining superpower by whatever means necessary (Political, Military, or Financial). It also stated how the US should make use of it's military and financial muscle to make over the world in it's own image.

Manifest Destiny on a global scale.

What is surprising to me is how someone as inept as George W. was able to so easily get approval for, and acceptance of, his policies which have the effect of making his own family, their friends and associates extremely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the world.

Did we go to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons? Seems to me that none of the justifications offered have been borne out by fact.

In my mind though, we have a responsibility for the mess that we have made. To pull out of the situation now seems to me to be simply abandoning that responsibility and abandoning the people of the region to the cruelty of those who will assume power.
After abandoning Afghanistan after the war with the USSR, Lebanon after the war with Israel and in general, using the entire region as a dupe to be manipulated for financial gain (read: oil), we should be extremely wary of confirming the low opinion so many of the region's populace have of the west.

After reading the above comments, I'm glad Bush is in charge and not these armchair bash bash bash left wingers. If they had been in charge we would be speaking German or Russian by now.

It seems to me that his "staying the course" is still an operable slogan, he certainly isn't admitting that he has changed his mind,scary as that is. He is still seeing as his mission a free, stable, democratic,functioniong Iraq ,or so he says. Why he believes that that is how it'll be when he declares the job accomplished is certainly grandly delusional. Sadly more people will die and Iraq will become a de facto failed state, run by tribal warlords and Iran
The biggest blunder in our nation's history.

There has never been a country in the world that has been in so many wars than the US.
Guys democraty cannot be fep by force as wanted by GWB.It has to take into account the tradition ,the culture and many many different issues in a society.Bush "stay the course and bring them on" has been the rudest and most arrogant words a president can ever say.Why is that no the US talks a lot about the Int'l community in regards of Iran an N.Korea whereas he is the same guy to shoot up at UN as Irrelevant.Am sure the history always teaches a lesson even to the most arrogant.

You are all libral freaks who know nothing about anything. You say you know about politics and war, but as I recall your country couldn't even maintain control over a group of rebels now know as the Americans the super power. I back or president and his policies on the war in Iraq

Jim (32): Don't worry, rebel jim, you've still got your guns, hunting dawgs and wild turkey. Why don't you volunteer? The administration has a serious worlwide shortage of torture advocates.

Rumsfeld summed it all up in his own words (if you follow the jist):
"It seems to me that it's up to all of us to try to tell the truth, to say what we know, to say what we don't know, and recognise that we're dealing with people that are perfectly willing to, to lie to the world to attempt to further their case and to the extent people lie of, ultimately they are caught lying and they lose their credibility and one would think it wouldn't take very for that to happen dealing with people like this."

Bush was blessed to have had master craftsmen in his team who never failed in their endeavour to pitch one spin after another.

So is this new Bush 'talk' another spin? Another lie? Another rhetoric?

'Staying the course' is a superb war time strategy and one would almost follow the 'course' if not asked by a blatant liar. Whats his end game plan? Victory in ME as defined by Bush and his foggies is almost impossible, so then why even to strategise a new 'course'. C'mon guys, be reasonable and admit that the whole Iraq episode was a badly scripted effort and pull out. Stay with that 'course'.

Your dialogues are very amusing but I must interject that while you debate the merits of spreading democracy in the middle east there are a couple of facts you seem to perpetually overlook.
1-Like the Hamas of the Palestinans, the peoples will never be given a voice in the west.
2-They were fine be4 we came and can manage to agree on a government without our supervision, especially by the great Coalition Military.
3-People are dying by the thousands, hundreds of thousands, and more, all the while you try to remodel their house. Regardless of what 'benefit' you give them it will be a fraction of the weight created by the deaths attributed to the occupation.