Bush Admits He Made Iraq Safe for Al Queda

The lunch rises.

I think he's absolutely right when he uses this information to show the risks and dangers of giving up on the fledgling al Malaki government and pulling out of Iraq immediately. But Bush's ill-advised decision to invade Iraq and his poor management of the occupation/rebuilding phase are among the primary reasons these risks and dangers exist in that country. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too on this.

I don't think anyone really trusts Bush to handle Iraq properly at this point, even within his own party. This is just one more reason why the country really needs new leadership. Let me join the growing chorus singing "January 2009 can't come fast enough."

When all else fails....BIN LADEN! BIN LADEN! BIN LADEN! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

It's like, in the rules or something. And America will swallow this like Linda Lovelace.

I just woke up and read the article on CNN, and I was gonna start a thread... glad someone beat me to it.

Seriously, this is so fucking absurd. Someone, somewhere, in some position of authority that can get the attention of the public needs to call these motherfuckers out.. I mean really call them out on this blatant use of double-think. I mean what the fuck?!

And I'm not even one of you die-hard pinko commies. These motherfuckers need to be impeached, on principle, just to show all politicians that they cannot act like criminals, and speak like retarded children with impunity.

The press should've fucking humiliated Bush for that comment. Not just called him out on it, humiliated him (i.e. caused him to cry on the podium and run to the nearest batch of brandy).

You're right. This busted plot is a better example of how to work with other countries to root out and capture or kill terrorists. But this, along with all of the IED's, kidnappings, beheadings, and the like show that terrorists view Iraq as fertile ground for striking at US interests. If we pull out immediately, it isn't very likely the current government in Iraq would have the means to keep from being overrun by those extremists. That fault lies with the Bush Administration's rush to and mismanagement of the war. But a pull-out at this point leads to even greater chaos in the Middle East and the very real threat that extremists who want to strike out at the West gain control of large portions of Iraq and its accompanying resources. Again, a problem for which the Bush Administration is largely to blame. I don't want to see the US there forever or even next week, to tell you the truth. But I also don't want to see us pull out in a manner that will destabilize the region even more.

No. It won't be more effective. Saddam, for all his brutality (and likely because of it), was a stabilizing force in Iraq. But al Malaki's government, with proper support, could be the best chance right now for a democratic government that can keep cells like that from materializing in the future. Maybe it's more faith than that government deserves, but I believe it should have some more time to succeed before we pull support.

The problem is, Bush has already led America through 4 years of Iraq war; how much more time will it take for the plan to stablize Iraq to consider a "success", and US can start pulling its support? And why should we believe anything Bush has to said, esp. when he is now trying to justify US presence in Iraq with his ridiculous claim that he is keeping the terrorists out with the troop surge(when the reverse is true)?

A a bloody five-year occupation, how can it possibly succeed when it does things like give western oil companies control and profit from Iraq's oil for the next 30 years? You can kind of see why Iraqis at large don't really trust it.