not that it matters, but Bush: No regrets over Iraq

[Chardok]

What a gigantic piece of crap waste of carbon sequestration this "George W. Bush" creature is. Even when asked if he is regretful or remorseful over causing the death of thousands of his countrymen and countless other civilians in a pointless exercise he calls a "War on <ideology here>" he is stone-faced and irreverent in his reply when he says "No.".

MESEBERG, Germany (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush claimed Wednesday that he had no regrets about the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein in 2003 and reiterated his determination to force Iran to halt its nuclear program.


U.S. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel walk in the garden at Schloss Meseberg Palace.

Bush, making the final official visit to Europe of his presidency, was speaking at a press conference in Germany after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

He said he had told Merkel that diplomacy remained his preferred choice for dealing with Iran. (Oh, what a wise peacemaker he is.) But he added that "all options are on the table" and said Tehran needed to "verifiably suspend" its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful.

"The message to the Iranian government is very clear: that there's a better way forward than isolation and that is for you to verifiably suspend your enrichment program and the choice is theirs to make," Bush said. ( Translation: Fix it or we'll bomb you lol.)
On Tuesday the U.S. and the European Union on Tuesday issued a joint declaration urging tougher action against Iran over its nuclear program.

It said the U.S. and EU would implement previously passed Security Council resolutions on Iran and stood "ready to supplement those sanctions with additional measures."

Sanctions in place should be enforced, Bush said, and allies should work together for additional sanctions if Iran "ignores the demands of the free world."(Like he knows anything about "Free")

Merkel said that further sanctions would follow if Iran failed to meet its commitments. "We again said we want to give room for diplomatic solutions, we want to give diplomacy a chance, but we also have to stay on that particular issue."

Leaving Germany, Bush flew on to Italy Wednesday where he was due to hold talks with Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi and visit the Vatican to meet Pope Benedict XVI.

Bush can expect a warm reception from Berlusconi, a staunch U.S. supporter who committed Italian troops to Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion and who returned to power in elections earlier this year.

Paying tribute to Bush in an article for Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people, Berlusconi wrote: "Personally, I will always remember him as a friend." Read the article at Time.com

Asked about Iraq, Bush said "substantial" progress had been made in helping the country, adding that efforts in Iraq would "change the Middle East for the better."

"Removing Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place," (Of course, removing a lot of other people would help, too. Why was saddam special?) Bush said. But he admitted once again that he regretted the tough rhetoric he had used in the run-up to the conflict which had made it appear he was eager to go to war. (No, asshole, you regret that people called you on your eagerness to send anyone but YOURSELF to war)

In an interview with UK's Times newspaper Wednesday, Bush said using phrases such as "dead or alive" and "bring them on" had not created an impression of a man of peace.

He also said he had found it painful "to put youngsters in harm's way," BULL FUCKING SHIT ASSHOLE adding that he had an obligation to make sure lives had not been lost in vain.

"One of the lessons of Iraq is that in order for a democracy to develop or for an economy to develop there has to be a measure of security, which is now happening," he said.

Bush said he also believed that the U.S. would develop a bilateral strategic agreement relationship with Iraq, a pact now under negotiation.

[Coyote]

I look forward to the coming months with great trepidation. The script ramping us up to Iran is exactly the same that we saw for Iraq.

The "liberal" media (Hah!) is completely ignoring the list of charges in the impeachment issue-- God forbid anyone see, laid out in plain language, what exactly this goddam failure has done. Enough is enough!

[Shroom Man 777]

Why can't he just send Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Iraq's current leader, give the Iraqi military some nerve gas, and them have them kill the Iranians with WMDs and then cockblock some limp-dicked UN Human Rights Commission's concern on Iraq's use of WMDs against the Iranians?

[Gandalf]

I look forward to the coming months with great trepidation. The script ramping us up to Iran is exactly the same that we saw for Iraq.

So do you think they're actually looking to try invading Iran?

[General Zod]

I look forward to the coming months with great trepidation. The script ramping us up to Iran is exactly the same that we saw for Iraq.

So do you think they're actually looking to try invading Iran?

Why else would Bush be making a brouhaha over Iran gaining enriched uranium? They used WMDs for a pretense to invading Iraq after all.

[Gandalf]

Why else would Bush be making a brouhaha over Iran gaining enriched uranium? They used WMDs for a pretense to invading Iraq after all.

I figured it was tough talk to get everyone's mind off Iraq and motivate the sheeple as they did in the '04 election.

[The Spartan]

Saw a report earlier today that he's "regretful" that he used such beligerent language in the lead up to the war because it gave people the wrong impression that he was eager to go to war.

Of course, the fact the he'd said that he wanted to go to war with Iraq as far back as, what, 1999 had nothing to do with it...

[Coyote]

I look forward to the coming months with great trepidation. The script ramping us up to Iran is exactly the same that we saw for Iraq.

So do you think they're actually looking to try invading Iran?

Absolutely. Between Iranian WMDs, and the "supporting the terrorists" line, they're itching for a fight and they want to justify it any way they can.

[Darth Wong]

At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this year's federal election in the US may actually be a de facto vote on invading Iran.

[Patrick Degan]

Isn't it amazing how easy it is to get through life when you're unburdened by anything as inconveniently troublesome as a conscience?

[Pablo Sanchez]

At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this year's federal election in the US may actually be a de facto vote on invading Iran.

I think that, whereas some people want to invade Iran, at this point it isn't even a feasible military operation. The forces that we would need to invade and occupy Iran just don't exist, or at any rate are completely tied up already in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration probably planned to already be in Tehran right now, based on their wet dreams about Iraq being a functioning and stable democracy by the end of 2004. I mean, with control of Iraq and Afghanistan we could invade Iran on two fronts while bombing them from our bases and carriers in the gulf, so we basically have them strategically encircled.

But I think any incoming Republican government would have to face a lot of opposition from the military itself to get an invasion of Iran off the ground. Remember that Bush had to replace General Casey in January 2007, because Casey didn't support the surge strategy while Petraeus was its biggest booster. They aren't monolithic--but I think they would be, in the face of calls for a military operation that can't even be done with existing forces. To successfully invade Iran, the USA would have to reinstate the draft and drastically increase military procurement (that is, actually go on a war footing), which would be rather politically unpopular and probably beyond what the posturing tough-guy GOP is willing to do.

[MKSheppard]

I'm thinking the attack on Iran will be given over to the USAF and USN; and we'll get to see a strategic air attack on Iran's WMD infrastructure.

[Patrick Degan]

At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this year's federal election in the US may actually be a de facto vote on invading Iran.

An actual invasion might not be necessary. It could well suit the purposes of Neocon America, Inc. to simply hit Iran with airstrikes so as to create a permanent enemy to justify a permanent U.S. presence in the region. The added state of tension which would cause oil to shoot through the roof pricewise would also benefit Bush's oil speculator buddies no end. Also, it creates a situation which would either a) sustain McCain through his presidency or b) wreck Obama's.

[Darth Wong]

At this point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this year's federal election in the US may actually be a de facto vote on invading Iran.

I think that, whereas some people want to invade Iran, at this point it isn't even a feasible military operation. The forces that we would need to invade and occupy Iran just don't exist, or at any rate are completely tied up already in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration probably planned to already be in Tehran right now, based on their wet dreams about Iraq being a functioning and stable democracy by the end of 2004. I mean, with control of Iraq and Afghanistan we could invade Iran on two fronts while bombing them from our bases and carriers in the gulf, so we basically have them strategically encircled.

But I think any incoming Republican government would have to face a lot of opposition from the military itself to get an invasion of Iran off the ground. Remember that Bush had to replace General Casey in January 2007, because Casey didn't support the surge strategy while Petraeus was its biggest booster. They aren't monolithic--but I think they would be, in the face of calls for a military operation that can't even be done with existing forces. To successfully invade Iran, the USA would have to reinstate the draft and drastically increase military procurement (that is, actually go on a war footing), which would be rather politically unpopular and probably beyond what the posturing tough-guy GOP is willing to do.

Yes, but if the GOP wins, they would try to find some way to militarily attack Iran, even if it's not a ground invasion. It still seems to me that if you vote McCain, you're voting to send the US military to Iran, in some form or other.

[Singular Intellect]

I don't recall, does Iran have large sources of oil that the US might after as well?

[Darth Yoshi]

Yes, actually. Part of their funding for the Iran-Iraq War back in the 80s came from oil exports, as I recall.

[SirNitram]

IIRC, there's some tankers full of Iranian crude sitting around, doing nothing.

Why? It's Iranian Crude. So sulfur-encrusted it's viscousity is probably close to oil shale.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Source?

[SirNitram]

Source?

Just rumours, but honestly, this is Iranian sulfur-crude. Nobody with sense will touch that until the wells actually run dry.

[Pelranius]

It just occurred to me that the Bush Junior Administration is quite like Blackadder the Third.

Bush is a combination of Baldrick, the Prince Regent George and the Duke of Wellington, while Dick Cheney is Butler Blackadder with an eating disorder.

[Surlethe]

Nobody should be surprised; this is the man who thinks being on the front line of spreading democracy and freedom (at gunpoint) is 'romantic'.

Also, I noticed this:

He said he had told Merkel that diplomacy remained his preferred choice for dealing with Iran. But he added that "all options are on the table" and said Tehran needed to "verifiably suspend" its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful.

But it's unforgivably naive to say that you'd sit down and talk with them, right?