WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — "President Bush announced tonight that he was sending more than 21,000 American troops to Iraq to quell the sectarian violence there, as he conceded for the first time that he had provided neither enough troops nor enough resources to halt the country’s descent into chaos over the past year.
Mr. Bush’s speech to the nation differed sharply in tone and substance from his previous insistence that the United States was making progress toward building a workable Iraqi democracy, and he acknowledged that his previous strategy was based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about the power of the shaky Iraqi government.
The president described his new strategy as an effort to “change America’s course in Iraq,” and he gave no indication that the troop increase would be short-lived. Mr. Bush also acknowledged that a renewed effort aimed at bringing security to Baghdad would also bring about more American and Iraqi casualties.
“Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me,” Mr. Bush said, in his most direct such admission in an American-led war that has lasted nearly four years and claimed more than 3,000 American lives.
But he rejected all calls to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that the strategies advocated by newly empowered Democrats, restive Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group were a formula for deepening disaster. "
does anyone else feel the need for a large scotch on the rocks after the speech tonight? i'm heading to liquor cabinet right now....
There was this thing this guy showed me a few years ago. It was this liquid fuel that held hydrogen. When you introduced a catalyst, the hydrogen was liberated and could be burned, if the catalyst was removed, the hydrogen wasn't present and the liquid didn't burn. So when you went to the fuel station, you would put in new stuff and take out the spent fluid. So if there was a crash, there was no worry of the thing exploding (biggest worry with hydrogen). They've also said that one thing that we need to do, is not change the WAY we get fuel. I.e. our culture is used to gas stations, so one consideration is that people 'need' to fuel their cars. Plugging in, or having some apparatus at home just doesn't feel right to most people. But if car culture stays the same, but the fuel is different, it's more likely to catch on.
well, dawid, hate to be cynical here, but i think a lot of the reduction in bumper stickers has to do with the fact that the presidential elections are long over... although every now and then you still see a few quacks with the bushcheney04 stickers on their cars, as if they thought the election was still going on
I would like to see legislation requiring removal of political bumper stickers 10 days after the election, similar to the lawn signs.
On a daily basis I see kerry/edwards stickers, which I think most people leave on as a "don't blame me" announcement. Just westerday saw a "W - the president" sticker. It was on a Toyota Corolla, which surprised me slightly. My favorite is the "No War for oil" stickers on Land Rovers and Escalades. I need "You are the problem" stickers to plaster over those.
umm...the election was over two years ago. if you haven't bought and/or leased a new car since then obviously you are one of those loser democrats...probably that's the proper analysis of the situation
That water cell h2o -> hho is not going to change a thing. Sure, it can be done, but it's basically just using electrolysis.
You can only get out less than you put in and, for the process to be physically possible, you need electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. This electricity is generated in the usual ways, so while it could present an alternative to using oil directly, it won't reduce our dependancy on it.
Jul 1, 07 6:22 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
we're going to keep at it...yeah!
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — "President Bush announced tonight that he was sending more than 21,000 American troops to Iraq to quell the sectarian violence there, as he conceded for the first time that he had provided neither enough troops nor enough resources to halt the country’s descent into chaos over the past year.
Mr. Bush’s speech to the nation differed sharply in tone and substance from his previous insistence that the United States was making progress toward building a workable Iraqi democracy, and he acknowledged that his previous strategy was based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about the power of the shaky Iraqi government.
The president described his new strategy as an effort to “change America’s course in Iraq,” and he gave no indication that the troop increase would be short-lived. Mr. Bush also acknowledged that a renewed effort aimed at bringing security to Baghdad would also bring about more American and Iraqi casualties.
“Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me,” Mr. Bush said, in his most direct such admission in an American-led war that has lasted nearly four years and claimed more than 3,000 American lives.
But he rejected all calls to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that the strategies advocated by newly empowered Democrats, restive Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group were a formula for deepening disaster. "
does anyone else feel the need for a large scotch on the rocks after the speech tonight? i'm heading to liquor cabinet right now....
iraq? that's like 10000 miles away. there's still a war going on?
he's a dork...... seriously..... i'm not sure how the rest of the world/congress/senate/etc lets him do this shyt.......
i did find a link to a motor that ran on water though...converts h2o to hho .......; so no more gas/oil to be consumed
There was this thing this guy showed me a few years ago. It was this liquid fuel that held hydrogen. When you introduced a catalyst, the hydrogen was liberated and could be burned, if the catalyst was removed, the hydrogen wasn't present and the liquid didn't burn. So when you went to the fuel station, you would put in new stuff and take out the spent fluid. So if there was a crash, there was no worry of the thing exploding (biggest worry with hydrogen). They've also said that one thing that we need to do, is not change the WAY we get fuel. I.e. our culture is used to gas stations, so one consideration is that people 'need' to fuel their cars. Plugging in, or having some apparatus at home just doesn't feel right to most people. But if car culture stays the same, but the fuel is different, it's more likely to catch on.
remember when bush beat kerry in 2006, everyone had those damn "bush/cheny 2006" or "W 2006" stickers on their suburbans and bmw's......
now, i've noticed a significant decline of them over the years, anyone else notice this phenomenon?
2004... i mean
well, dawid, hate to be cynical here, but i think a lot of the reduction in bumper stickers has to do with the fact that the presidential elections are long over... although every now and then you still see a few quacks with the bushcheney04 stickers on their cars, as if they thought the election was still going on
you're probably right....
I would like to see legislation requiring removal of political bumper stickers 10 days after the election, similar to the lawn signs.
On a daily basis I see kerry/edwards stickers, which I think most people leave on as a "don't blame me" announcement. Just westerday saw a "W - the president" sticker. It was on a Toyota Corolla, which surprised me slightly. My favorite is the "No War for oil" stickers on Land Rovers and Escalades. I need "You are the problem" stickers to plaster over those.
umm...the election was over two years ago. if you haven't bought and/or leased a new car since then obviously you are one of those loser democrats...probably that's the proper analysis of the situation
they let him do it cause they are all republicans...even the dems
when goin gets tough, tough goes fishin.
Orhan, you can't post that image without me posting this...
my nephew is in kuwait right now, waiting to become part of the surge. i doubt if they're fishing.
Wait, WhatToDo that picture is photoshopped right?
...
...
Right?
That water cell h2o -> hho is not going to change a thing. Sure, it can be done, but it's basically just using electrolysis.
You can only get out less than you put in and, for the process to be physically possible, you need electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. This electricity is generated in the usual ways, so while it could present an alternative to using oil directly, it won't reduce our dependancy on it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.