NEWS: Bush Warns of Worsening Violence in Iraq, Afghanistan

In today's radio address President Bush warned that deadly violence in Iraq and Afghanistan could worsen in the weeks ahead, as both countries head toward national elections. According to the following article more than 200 Iraqis have been killed in recent days by bombings and other violence that have cast doubt on plans to hold elections in January...




The article also states that President Bush will speak at the U.N. on Tuesday and host a series of meetings with foreign leaders including Karzai, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and on Thursday, the president has scheduled a news conference with Allawi in the White House Rose Garden.

Could this be a subtile but obvious way for the President to let the world know that we are in trouble and it is going to get worse before it gets better?

Is it a plea for U.N. support?

Can the U.S.A. continue to control these violent countries without more international support?

In time either it gets better or worse, and so far things look bad, over 200 killed in Iraq alone in one week. Our goal was liberation, yet we seem to have liberated the terrorists and set them loose on the Iraqi and Afgan people.

Is this kind of urban war beyond the control of the U.S.A.?

Related Link:

Radio Address By President Bush to the Nation

Related News:

Iraqi car bomb kills 23 in Kirkuk

New wave of Iraq bombings

Death toll for week tops 250

[edit on 19-9-2004 by UM_Gazz]

good post Gazz and i think the questions you posed at the bottom are really good ones

to me, it does sound like he is in deeper than he thought he would be (meaning about the war, maybe he didnt anticapate the violence which is being witnessed to be continuing more than a year into it).

and with him challenging other world leaders to create a safer world, he is relying on others to help by that statement

200 dead iraqis in one week is bad, and its going to continue until something happens which stops it.

its a real shame for all the inocent iraq's afghansiton people that are caught up in all this

rynaldo

HE SHOULD BE WORRIED COUSE ALL ACTIONS OF HIM WHERE BASED ON LIES /GREED AND REVENGE!!
YOU CAN CALL BUSH THE ONLY REAL TERRORIST FOR SURE!
HE SHOULD BE BROUCHT IN COURT FOR MAKING THE WORLD UNSAVE!

Originally posted by ressiv
HE SHOULD BE WORRIED COUSE ALL ACTIONS OF HIM WHERE BASED ON LIES /GREED AND REVENGE!!
YOU CAN CALL BUSH THE ONLY REAL TERRORIST FOR SURE!
HE SHOULD BE BROUCHT IN COURT FOR MAKING THE WORLD UNSAVE!

Kill the caps. Is that all you post in?

wat i tried to say is:
all foreighn nations should leave Irak!
the Iraki's are capable enouch to rebuild there countrie...
its an illusion to think that they can be transformed to an western "democratie" couse the understanding of "democratie"was killed when oure troops illegaly occupied irak....

quote
The article also states that President Bush will speak at the U.N. on Tuesday and host a series of meetings with foreign leaders including Karzai, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and on Thursday, the president has scheduled a news conference with Allawi in the White House Rose Garden.



Well we can say that bush is aware that his actions have prompted the downfall of Iraq and Afghanistan.

His arrogance in the matter cannot be denied any longer US needs help and needs help fast.




quote
Doubts also surround elections due Oct. 9 in Afghanistan, where U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai survived an assassination attempt on Thursday.



Bush also sees that living Afghanistan without unfinished business was a big mistake, US cannot even control Afghanistan.


quote
Text"Terrorist enemies are trying to stop the progress of both those countries, and their violent and merciless attacks may increase as elections draw near," Bush told radio listeners.



It�s easier to blame the terrorist for the mess in those two countries that to take responsibility for his war fiasco.


quote
More than 200 Iraqis have been killed in recent days by bombings and other violence that have cast doubt on plans to hold elections in January.




He does not care for the Iraqi people safety just the oil fields and them I wonder its he so blind that he thinks that the people in Iraq is not taking notice of this and more hatred is going to come out it.

He left unfinished business in Afghanistan, no bin-laden to please the American public, and now one of the most costly wars to the US tax payer is going on in Iraq and the country is so angry to the US that is hard to be compassioned toward them when they are killing our soldiers.

US needs help all right it needs help to guard itself from his own president.






[edit on 18-9-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Could this be a subtile but obvious way for the President to let the world know that we are in trouble and it is going to get worse before it gets better?

It couldn't have anything to do with Kerry spending the week talking about Bush "Living in a Fantasy World" on Iraq could it?

Kerry forced Bush to drop the spin and admit the problem. He's been ruthless on Bush this past week about not being honest with the American people about a number of situations, most notably Iraq.

From Thursday:

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- President Bush is "living in a fantasy world of spin," failing to tell U.S. troops or the American people the truth about the situation in Iraq, Democratic challenger John Kerry told National Guard veterans Thursday.

CNN reported this theme with much rotation on cable yesterday, and FOX used it to show "Kerry Desperation."

Well, lookey what we have here now. Bush woke up on Saturday and agreed with Senator Kerry.

Take that right wing media.



[edit on 18-9-2004 by RANT]

Well, is this just Bush confirming what Al Zawahiri said in his video on Al Jazeera television?

Marg, can you or someone else fix that quote? I can't even read what you were trying to post.

i find it kind of funny that i bunch of people think that an address scheduled to take place a long time ago and the attendant hosting of leaders of nations was somehow prompted by what kerry said a week before the event.

Originally posted by keholmes
i find it kind of funny that i bunch of people think that an address scheduled to take place a long time ago and the attendant hosting of leaders of nations was somehow prompted by what kerry said a week before the event.

I find alot of things funny in the news today.

I find it funny the United States Navy supported Kerry's Vietnam service records on Friday while George Bush produced a note from his father supporting his service.

I find it funny North Korea vowed it will never cease it's nuclear weapons program as it is revealed the Donald Rumsfeld sold North Korea the program!

And I still can't get over how funny it is that it took a week of Kerry sniping at Bush spin on Iraq improving to finally get Bush to admit his fantasy world posturing was wrong in his radio address this morning.

So yes Saturday morning cartoon fans, alot of news is indeed funny today.

Well Rant more will come out as the elections get closer, bush administration is so dirty that only bin-laden resurrection can get the public away from finding out.

With so many blind people in this world, it's hard to believe that human civilization has made it this far. Even 200 deaths in one week doesn't compare to the daily routine of old Saddam nor would it compare to the horrors that might follow if we were to pull out and allow that place to become yet another oppressive Islamic state. I think that Saddam may have even stated to one of his aides that Iraq only needed a population of 5 million (their current population is around 24 million).

Anything that the U.S. does these days is "evil" to most people these days, because no one ever likes the "big dog". I don't like Bush any more than most of you, however I won't let my personal bias influence my view of the world and REALITY. If anything... Iraq is a much much better place than it was 5, 10 or even 20 years ago... and that's with guns blazing, bullets flying and bombs exploding.

Well let see,

Just like MWD's mass graves are hard to find,

US had accomplished to kill more Iraqis since liberation than Saddam throught a life of reign and if US is not close enough it will be at the rate Iraqis has been killed every day.

So sad that the truth is still too hard for some to grasp.

Then I wonder who the true terrorist is .

[edit on 18-9-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by veritas93
With so many blind people in this world, it's hard to believe that human civilization has made it this far. Even 200 deaths in one week doesn't compare to the daily routine of old Saddam nor would it compare to the horrors that might follow if we were to pull out and allow that place to become yet another oppressive Islamic state. I think that Saddam may have even stated to one of his aides that Iraq only needed a population of 5 million (their current population is around 24 million).

Anything that the U.S. does these days is "evil" to most people these days, because no one ever likes the "big dog". I don't like Bush any more than most of you, however I won't let my personal bias influence my view of the world and REALITY. If anything... Iraq is a much much better place than it was 5, 10 or even 20 years ago... and that's with guns blazing, bullets flying and bombs exploding.

That's a very interesting opinion and one George W Bush puts forth often, but it assumes alot of things.

Mainly that all the "Saddam atrocities" (both real and imagined) which happend at least over 15 years ago warranted the complete overthrow of Saddam during the first Gulf War, which never happened.

The problem with the latest W justification now (since it's no longer WMD's) is a much more strategic Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense told George HW Bush then about containment versus occupation:

"I'll never forget," he said, when Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell "came over and said it was time to end the fighting -- mission accomplished.

And as it turns out the Bush 41/Clinton era of UN supported containment worked (see WMD's or lack thereof). And in the estimation of the man that knew of Saddam prior atrocities best (as he and President Reagen could accurately be awarded MVP "assists" on providing the means), the edler Bush said as recently as 1998 of overthrowing Saddam then:

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what?

"Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world?

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

And as it turns out he was right. It is disaserous. It is worse for Iraqi's than the past 15 years. And it's worse for American soldiers and taxpayers than it's been in 30 years! Containment WORKED ...despite the best efforts of Dick Cheney running around the world in the 90's on behalf of Halliburton speaking out against US policy of containing dictators and Rumsfeld seeking to sell nuclear programs to rogue states like North Korea.

Under Saddam at least the insurgents were his problem. As some fundamentalists (the same we're fighting today) were surely unhappy under a secular dictator during that time and subjected to continued atrocities of a less severe nature (like Rumsfeld's Abu Gharib torture).

Any of this getting through? Invading Iraq was a mistake. The world increasingly says so (see Kofi Anon/UN). Bush's father said so. And here's the kicker... more and more Iraqi's say so with bullets every day. To illustrate the point even more clearly, where exactly is Osama Bin Laden three years and $200 billion later as full blown Iraqi Civil War looms on the immediate horizon?



[edit on 18-9-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT
I find it funny the United States Navy supported Kerry's Vietnam service records ����.North Korea vowed it will never cease it's nuclear weapons program as it is revealed the Donald Rumsfeld sold North Korea the program! :�������Kerry sniping at Bush spin on Iraq improving to finally get Bush to admit his fantasy world posturing was wrong in his radio address this morning.

�������.And as it turns out the Bush 41/Clinton era of UN supported containment worked (see WMD's or lack thereof). ������������. It is worse for Iraqi's than the past 15 years. And it's worse for American soldiers and taxpayers than it's been in 30 years! Containment WORKED .................Any of this getting through? Invading Iraq was a mistake. The world increasingly says so (see Kofi Anon/UN). Bush's father said so. And here's the kicker... more and more Iraqi's say so with bullets every day. To illustrate the point even more clearly, where exactly is Osama Bin Laden three years and $200 billion later as full blown Iraqi Civil War looms on the immediate horizon?

just a few points of fact�.
They didn�t actually support they just declined to investigate.
Rusmies company only won the contract I believe it was DOE that actually sold it to N. Korea�although good find.
I still can�t find any admission of anything although it was funny that it had a link to the secretary who would have typed memos declaring them fake.
And I still can�t see how you think containment was a successful policy�we flew more combat missions over Iraq than were flow on either end of the policy�.we bombed Iraq almost daily for over a decade�..I�m not sure how that was successful. and bushies father was refering to invading Iraq then.......as you can see even though the world (see kofi the appeaser) was consistenly telling him to toe the line he refused to. obl, Probably Pakistan�care to invade?

Originally posted by keholmes
And I still can�t see how you think containment was a successful policy�

For proof, see lack of WMD's.

And if you're interested in debating the failure of Bush's Foreign policy, I suggest rereading the title of this thread. It's a clear reversal of his "we're winning" mantra and a fundamental signal to expect more failure in Iraq.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT
For proof, see lack of WMD's.

And if you're interested in debating the failure of Bush's Foreign policy, I suggest rereading the title of this thread. It's a clear reversal of his "we're winning" mantra and a fundamental signal to expect more failure in Iraq.

Actually, I was just answering your post, that said if your apologizing for going off topic, I guess I shouldn�t have followed and I apologize�I don�t support bushy foreign policy, or the foreign policies of the last decade; so if you want to debate foreign policy start a thread I�ll post. That aside my original post regarded the title of the thread by pointing out that there is no clear reversal or fundamental signal, it appears to be continuation of current policy warn, warn and warn again.

Everyone has their opinion on any given topic, and this is a topic where people have very strong opinions one way or the other.

What I found striking about this news and motivated me to write it up in the above report, is that the President seems to be in a way admitting how bad things are now in Afghanistan and mainly Iraq.. Something everyone has known for some time now.

But for Bush to warn that the future in these nations could be worse was a shock to me... I am wondering on many levels what that means.

Is he asking for votes?.. (I am the man for the job)

Or is this a way to let the public know in advance of a major military offencive in these nations to combat the "terrorists/insurgents".

I can think of too many questions.. But the fact remains that this is in a way an admittion that things are bad and could be getting worse.

A good or bad move.. only time will tell.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
�..
What I found striking about this news and motivated me to write it up in the above report, is that the President seems to be in a way admitting how bad things are now in Afghanistan and mainly Iraq.. Something everyone has known for some time now.

But for Bush to warn that the future in these nations could be worse was a shock to me... I am wondering on many levels what that means.
����

I kind of thought that what he said is an acknowledgement and preparation for the American public who don�t pay too much attention. As we saw with Spain, al qaeda understands how to affect the democratic process and win by withdrawal�.the difference being that we can�t withdraw; their stated position is the end of America. But with those two countries there is the chance that they can alter the outcome like Spain because the citizens might be under the misguided (see france) impression that they can stand on the side-lines.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by RANT
For proof, see lack of WMD's.

And if you're interested in debating the failure of Bush's Foreign policy, I suggest rereading the title of this thread. It's a clear reversal of his "we're winning" mantra and a fundamental signal to expect more failure in Iraq.

Actually, I was just answering your post, that said if your apologizing for going off topic, I guess I shouldn�t have followed and I apologize�I don�t support bushy foreign policy, or the foreign policies of the last decade; so if you want to debate foreign policy start a thread I�ll post. That aside my original post regarded the title of the thread by pointing out that there is no clear reversal or fundamental signal, it appears to be continuation of current policy warn, warn and warn again.

Sincere apologies if I came off as saying "get back on topic" as that's not at all what I meant. I think it's all related.

That's interesting though you see this as more of a continuation of warn, warn, warn from Bush. There's certainly support for that on the Homeland Security front and his 9/11 re-election strategy.

I was leaning more toward his specific statements on Iraq and the War on Terror abroad (which is partly how he now justifies the invasion). Those statements fluctating between mission accomplished to tough times ahead to were winning to we can't win to we absolutley can win to the latest (dare I say it?) flip flop to expect violence to worsen.

I think we all know it's going to get alot of worse for years to come not weeks, though at least Bush admits that much now. Tune in next week though?

And UM_Gazz, you're speculations are right on target. Who really knows?

From a reasonably objective standpoint where both sides somewhat have to politicize everything, a genuine rationale for Bush admitting the looming threat today was to remove a successful Kerry talking point of the prior week that Bush won't face reality. Bush really had no choice but to come out like this today. It's politics.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by RANT]