[Winstonm]

Quote

Bush vows to keep troops in Iraq until asked to leave
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg / The New York TimesPublished: November 30, 2006

AMMAN: President Bush Thursday proclaimed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki "the right guy for Iraq," and said they had agreed to speed the turnover of security responsibility from American to Iraqi forces.

Bush said, "We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done so long as the government wants us there."

Quote

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It would seem to me that when the democratically elected majority votes for withdrawl and the U.S. refuses, this changes the status of the U.S. from liberation forces to occupation forces.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Bush said, "We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done so long as the government wants us there."

Does this mean Bush will now go away voluntarily???

[Winstonm]

Quote

Bush approval rating down to 24%
The latest CBS-New York Times poll said the president has dropped to 24 percent in his approval ratings on his handling of the war.

When you get to zero do you get to start over?

[Al_U_Card]

You've heard the expression from Nero to Zero.....uhhh I think that's how it goes...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 14 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

It would seem to me that when the democratically elected majority votes for withdrawl and the U.S. refuses, this changes the status of the U.S. from liberation forces to occupation forces.

i'm not sure of the nuances of their gov't, but is it that farfetched to believe that >50% of their legislature could vote for something and that something not occur? doesn't the same thing happen here, and aren't we glad of it?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 15 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 14 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

It would seem to me that when the democratically elected majority votes for withdrawl and the U.S. refuses, this changes the status of the U.S. from liberation forces to occupation forces.

i'm not sure of the nuances of their gov't, but is it that farfetched to believe that >50% of their legislature could vote for something and that something not occur? doesn't the same thing happen here, and aren't we glad of it?

Jimmy, we can believe anything we wish. The only point I am making is that Bush (as well as C. Powell) said that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqi government asked us to leave.

Now >50% of those elected have done so.

The question remains: whose interests are we serving by staying?