I guess we know who the US will not be turning over sovereignty to come July 1.
Of course, nobody in Washington, or even at the CPA has the first clue to whom we are going to turn over “limited” sovereignty.
I forget, is this Reason # 1,234,359 or 1,234,360 Bush and the other clowns must be thrown out of the White House November 2.
huh? Are you blaiming Bush for the terrorist murder? My favourite football team lost a match yesterday - can I blame Bush?
I dunno, Rune is Bush the chief executive/commander–in-chief of your favorite football team?
I thought Chalabi was the head guy. Too bad.
Anyway, my favorite part is how they’re replacing a Shi’ite with a Sunni. :smack:
No, but I’ll blame Rumsfeld.
The military was providing security for this guy.
And Rummy toured the place 24 hours ago.
From the linked story:
Since Salim has been replaced, wouldn’t we still be planning on turning over sovereignty to the IGC? Not sure what the OP means in his statement.
It’s still unknown if Salim was the target of this attack, or a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I was being somewhat facetious, dead men can’t govern. Granted, there is no indication that Salim would have ben a major part of the transitional government July 1.
I am reasonably certain that the US will transfer “limited sovereignty” [wonderful term, kinda like “limited pregnancy”.] Less than six weeks to go, but the way things are going one wonders if any Iraqi will actually want the job.
What is it we’re supposed to be “debating” here? Whether Bush can be held personably responsible for every goddamned thing that happens in Iraq? I swear you lefties get less and less coherent as the November election day gets closer and closer.
Yes, Bush is a fuck-up; yes, there are many things Bush can be attacked for legitimately; no, this ain’t one of them.
I got a thorn stuck in my finger yesterday. Damn bush.
No, we’re blaming Bush for invading Iraq without having the slightest fucking clue what he was going to do once he ousted Saddam and got U.S. forces in there. (Or more precisely, for letting Rumsfeld talk him into doing it.) And yes, Bush IS responsible for everything that happens in Iraq. You don’t just topple a government and then say, “Gee whiz, guys - I didn’t know there was gonna be turmoil.” Duh. He’s responsible because many warned that this was not going to be a cakewalk, and he didn’t listen. The problem of not being ready to transfer power to the Iraqis already existed. This is just more shit hitting the fan.
Thorn bush? 
No, it’s more like: “Bush shoved a thorn in my finger, and now it’s infected. Oh well, Bush can’t be responsible for every microbe.”
Try looking up “confirmation bias” then attempt to re-rationalize.
Use Google if you haven’t an adequate dictionary.
(Not that I expect any change in the course of your brain loop.)
About a year ago someone tried to break into my house. I ran onto my porch, shotgun in hand screaming “I’ve got a gun motherfucker”. The person got into a truck and drove away.
My door was damaged.
It required about $50 of my own money to repair it.
That is the fault of the Spotsylvania County Sheriff’s Department, and by extension the Governor of Virginia, and by extension the United States government, and by extension the fault of none other than President George W. Bush.
IMPEACHMENT!!!
Morons.
Umm, okay. But I gotta ask again, “What are we supposed to be debating here?” The key word being “debate.” That is, after all, the purpose of this forum. If we’re just here to pile blame on Bush for every goddamned thing that happens in Iraq, it’s gonna become a pretty tedious place—like it’s already becoming.
Ahhh, but what if the Governor of Virginia announced a plan to release all persons convicted of breaking & entering from prison? And what if the President came out publicly in support of said plan? And what if there were people who said, “But crimes related to breaking & entering are going to go up, how are we going to deal with that?” And what if the Governor ignored those comments and release the convicts anyway? Could you blame the Governor then?
See above. Is Bush directly responsible for the assassination? No. Should Bush be criticized for starting a war to overthrow a government without any reasonable plan for replacing that government? Yes.
Oh, for the love of Pete. Add “thick” to the list of traits many lefties are showing in greater profundity as the November elections draw nearer.
You see above. Especially here:
And that has fuck-all to do with anything the OP wrote about, anyway. The OP has not a single thing to say about Bush’s plan, or lack thereof, in re post-Saddam Iraq. Any inference of such belongs solely to the subsequent respondents. My gripe is that *there’s no debate here.
Man you guys are f’in crazy. There’s just no way to debate with you people.
You don’t hold the President responsible for every murder in America because that is ludicrous, because you recognize that one man cannot watch over 290 some million people every second of every day eventhough he IS our chief executive.
Just as ONE MAN cannot look over the 20m+ Iraqis, either.
Let me extend this logic out a little.
If Monica hadn’t had sexual relations with Bill and if Bill hadn’t of lied about that – Gore would be President. If Gore was President, rather than Bush, we would not have went into Iraq. Hence – this is Clinton’s fault.