posted on January 10, 2007 07:16:40 PM new
Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq? * 50740 responses
Yes. The United States can still win this thing militarily; a sizable increase in troop strength, and help from the Iraqis, will turn the tide
33%
No. Define "win." After nearly four years, neither our country nor Iraq is better off. More troops going out means more body bags coming back.
67%
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
posted on January 11, 2007 08:29:27 AM new
"""""A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low _ 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove.""""
posted on January 11, 2007 09:13:02 AM new
I'm just so glad that he's our Commander-In-Chief.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 09:26:02 AM new
Well, of course you're glad linduh...you enjoy death, slaughter, maiming as long as it isn't YOU.
You obviously approve of lying and corruption.
"There probably is a level of US commitment that could bring Iraq's chaos, violence, and insurgency down to more manageable levels. However, the cost of such a "victory" would render it pyrrhic.
And it would not produce a reliably stable democracy. Are we prepared to contemplate an occupation by 300,000 American troops lasting 15 years at a total cost of perhaps $3 trillion and 8,000 American lives?
This might eventually render Iraq as stable as Egypt or Pakistan -- but we would also have to prepare ourselves for a surge in international terrorism as rebels, suppressed in Iraq, sought out American and Western targets elsewhere.
posted on January 11, 2007 09:57:39 AM new
Minority - yes, with my CIC as the final decision maker. Works for me.
Think your gutless dems are going to stop funding these wars? I don't. They're full of hot air....no action.
======================
Gates ups troop numbers for Bush Iraq plan
Washington Times
Jan. 11, 2007 at 10:47AM
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded to President George Bush's call for more troops in Iraq Thursday by increasing Army and Marine recruiting targets.
At a White House news conference, Gates announced the Army will seek out 65,000 more soldiers, and the Marines will increase in strength by 27,000, the American Forces Press Service reported.
"We should recognize that while it may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way," Gates said.
The Army has a current strength of 512,400, and the Marines have 180,000. Under Gates' proposal, the Army's end-strength will grow to 547,000 and the Marines to 202,000.
Bush said Wednesday night he would send 21,500 more troops to imbed with Iraqi troops in and around Baghdad to put down sectarian fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims that has the city in near-lawlessness.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
"There probably is a level of US commitment that could bring Iraq's chaos, violence, and insurgency down to more manageable levels. However, the cost of such a "victory" would render it pyrrhic.
And it would not produce a reliably stable democracy. Are we prepared to contemplate an occupation by 300,000 American troops lasting 15 years at a total cost of perhaps $3 trillion and 8,000 American lives?
This might eventually render Iraq as stable as Egypt or Pakistan -- but we would also have to prepare ourselves for a surge in international terrorism as rebels, suppressed in Iraq, sought out American and Western targets elsewhere.
posted on January 11, 2007 10:03:53 AM new
ROFLMHO helen's getting back into her sandbox now
I'll play.
Gates ups troop numbers for Bush Iraq plan
Washington Times
Jan. 11, 2007 at 10:47AM
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded to President George Bush's call for more troops in Iraq Thursday by increasing Army and Marine recruiting targets.
At a White House news conference, Gates announced the Army will seek out 65,000 more soldiers, and the Marines will increase in strength by 27,000, the American Forces Press Service reported.
"We should recognize that while it may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way," Gates said.
The Army has a current strength of 512,400, and the Marines have 180,000. Under Gates' proposal, the Army's end-strength will grow to 547,000 and the Marines to 202,000.
Bush said Wednesday night he would send 21,500 more troops to imbed with Iraqi troops in and around Baghdad to put down sectarian fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims that has the city in near-lawlessness.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 11, 2007 10:22:19 AM new
Bush was a pale and scared looking little man giving an empty speech and it reinforced my belief that he is still as clueless and spineless as ever. He did not look like a leader who was taking charge, certainly no one to be proud of or put their faith in.
posted on January 11, 2007 10:26:01 AM new
"""Minority - yes, with my CIC as the final decision maker. Works for me. """
I don't understand your support of killing and mutilating Americans for democracy in Iraq but hate the thought of democracy in America. Quite an anti-America sentiment!
posted on January 11, 2007 10:40:29 AM new
Know when to fold 'em
Bush's surge reshuffles tactics when U.S.
really needs to deal itself a new hand
BY WILLIAM ODOM
The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said that war is always a gamble. President Bush stepped up to the Iraqi poker table in the spring of 2003 and won a couple of big hands. Flush with the cash and a cry that, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," he failed to pick up his chips and go home. Instead, he has hung around for the last 3½ years, betting on lousy hands - pairs of twos and threes and numerous inside straights.
With his debts totaling more than 3,000 troops killed in action, over 20,000 wounded, and nearly half a trillion in cash tossed into the sump hole, he claims to be launching a new strategy. But is he? Or is it merely tactical tinkering?
To me, the answer is clear: Increasing the U.S. force level by 21,500 troops, adding a billion or two dollars of new aid, and setting progress markers for the Iraqi government to meet look far more like tactical tinkering.
If 132,000 U.S. troops cannot pacify 26 million Iraqis in more than three years, how can 153,500 do the job in a few months? If more than $18 billion in reconstruction aid has failed to fix the situation in Iraq but let it get worse, why would a few more billion finally fix it this year? If the Iraqi government has failed to meet its past markers of progress, why will it succeed in meeting new ones?
Is there really an "Iraqi government" - or is it merely a collection of would-be politicians beholden to warring factions? Why has it not dawned on the President that the Iranians, Al Qaeda and Iraqi clerics are dealing the cards here?
For the President, a real strategic change would be to quit the game, set up his own poker table, and stack the deck to ensure a return on his money.
What would that look like? The first step would be to redefine U.S. interests and war aims. Of the President's three initial aims - destroy Saddam's WMD, overthrow him, and establish an Iraqi liberal democracy - two are accomplished (the first, we now know, happened even before the invasion).
Write off the democracy goal as a draw, declare a tactical victory, and withdraw in good order. Of course a terrible mess will be left, but more troops and money can only make it worse, not better. The new strategic aim must be regional stability, not democracy in Iraq. The United States alone cannot achieve it. It will need help. And other countries will not help while we are bogged down in Iraq. They enjoy our pain.
But once they see U.S. forces departing, they will be frightened. The aftermath of our departure will cause them far more pain than it will us. Not only will the countries in the Middle East become more cooperative, but so will the Europeans and others.
Why? Because none of them can lead a global coalition. The Europeans will be asking us to lead, and the others will see it as the least-undesirable alternative.
Precisely how to orchestrate such a coalition to reestablish regional stability will be a challenge, but it will be a new poker game with more favorable odds. The old game has expanded Iran's influence in the region, allowed Al Qaeda to build more cadres and reduced Israel's security. It's time to reshape the game. That means salvaging our strategy, not toying with tactics.
William Odom, retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
posted on January 12, 2007 07:10:45 AM new
"""mingotree
posted on January 11, 2007 10:26:01 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""Minority - yes, with my CIC as the final decision maker. Works for me. """
I don't understand your support of killing and mutilating Americans for democracy in Iraq but hate the thought of democracy in America. Quite an anti-America sentiment!""
Why didn't you address this , linduh????
Do you consider the deaths in Iraq a "blessing" like you do 9/11??
You REALLY HATE America and Americans , don't you???
posted on January 12, 2007 03:24:55 PM new
"Why Bush Will Keep Us in Iraq"
Because the liberals/dems don't actually have the courage of their convictions.
Or...to put it another way....they SAY they're going to get us out of Iraq...but they won't DO anything about it. LOL LOL LOL tsk tsk tsk
====================
Another op-ed piece from someone who CAN see that the dems are 'all TALK' no show.
The Looming Democratic Party Civil War
Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war.
It's about to happen to the Democratic Party.
Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.
The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action.
Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.
So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad - a circular one - and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s.
The battle lines are the same:
The new left vs. the party establishment.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back, or cut off entirely, funding for the war.
The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with. It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as Moveon.org. It has plenty of political leaders - like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the party's congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so.
The congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq.
They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the administration to retreat.
Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the commander in chief over his wartime powers.
So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present.
It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a congressional stage. But this theater is not going to appease the left.
They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings. They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.
The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like. It will be the 1960s all over again.
As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress.
But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets.
One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the party's congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq.
Moderate candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry.
Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9/11 debates.
Now a new entrant is in the field:
the new left.
==========
Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 12, 2007 03:33 PM ]
posted on January 12, 2007 07:04:33 PM new
Okay....mingo, I'll pay.
SHOW us a list of republicans that are calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq.
THEN you could also show us he list of 8-9 who don't agree more troops should be sent. Will they get a vote to KEEP the President from sending more????
I don't think so.
They don't have the power to over-ride any President's WAR POWERS.
Please clue in at some point.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 08:14:27 AM new
You'll "pay " for sure, linduh, we'll all pay for the "decider's" decision...for years to come....Now if you would only educate yourself by listening or reading something besides AnnMan Coulter and grudge you'd see there are Republicans who are not falling in line with their Supreme Dictator's wishes.....
January 10, 2007
Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.
The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.
“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”
The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.
While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.
They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
Video
“We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”
On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq.
posted on January 13, 2007 08:19:08 AM new
""""My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president.
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."
posted on January 13, 2007 08:25:53 AM new
Republicans Against the 'Surge'
by Robert Novak
Posted Jan 01, 2007
Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a "surge" of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What's more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.
President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."
What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with George W. Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add more troops.
The recent McCain congressional delegation was composed of sophisticated lawmakers who have made many previous visits to Iraq. They do not minimize the severity of sectarian civil war. They left their meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doubting any "sense of urgency" after advising him that he must disarm the militias. They recognize that the national police, corrupt and riddled with radicals, constitutes an unmitigated disaster.
McCain long has called for more troops in Iraq. He was supported within the delegation by his close ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the only Democrat on the delegation (though he now calls himself an "Independent Democrat" after losing the Democratic nomination in Connecticut and being elected with Republican votes). But Sen. John Thune calls his support for the surge "conditional." Sen. Susan Collins returned from Baghdad opposing more troops. Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, the only House member on the trip, is described as skeptical.
How big and how long should a surge be? The 7,000 or 8,000 additional troops that were first mentioned now have grown to at least 30,000. Congressional advocates talk privately about a new infusion of manpower ending about halfway through this year. But retired Gen. Jack Keane, who has become a leading advocate of additional troops, wrote in The Washington Post last week: "Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three to six months would virtually ensure defeat."
I checked with prominent Republicans around the country and found them confused and disturbed about the surge. They incorrectly assumed that the presence of Republican stalwart James Baker as co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group meant it was Bush-inspired (when it really was a bipartisan creation of Congress). Why, they ask, is the president casting aside the commission's recommendations and calling for more troops?
Even in Mississippi, the reddest of red states where Bush's approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops. What is happening inside the president's party is reflected by defection from support for his war policy after November's election by two Republican senators who face an uphill race for re-election in 2008: Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman announced his opposition to more troops after returning from a trip to Iraq preceding McCain's.
Among Democrats, Lieberman stands alone. Sen. Joseph Biden, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, leads the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it. Bush enters a new world of a Democratic majority where the big microphone he talks about is smaller because he must share the stage.
Just as the president is ready to address the nation on Iraq, Biden next week begins three weeks of hearings on the war. On the committee, Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, Russell Feingold and Barack Obama will compete for intensity in criticizing a troop surge. But on the Republican side of the committee, no less probing scrutiny of Bush's proposals will come from Chuck Hagel.
Mr. Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report, a political newsletter he founded in 1967 with Rowland Evans. Click here to get a free subscription. """"""""""""""
Even "Sprinkler" Norm Coleman a REPUBLICAN water boy for bush is against the "surge"........
Now linduh are you going to ignore this mistake of yours like you did the New Orleans post you seem to have forgotten?
posted on January 13, 2007 09:52:57 AM new
LOL mingo.....even all the dems and liberals recognize a FACT that you refuse to acknowledge.
It's: "Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes"....
Which will do NOTHING. It's this CIC's decision to make.
Unless HE changes his mind....and he hasn't because he's a make of conviction.....no one else has ANY power.
Your gutless liberals are going to have to use their POWER....which they're chickening out on doing....to stop funding the war. Period.
THEY are disappointing those who put them in power....we're ALL aware of that. They have no BACKBONE....only false promises they made to get elected.
The radical left is going to CHEW THEM UP...and spit them out if they don't stop funding these wars.
Well see how many republicans go against this President on the 'surge'....but it STILL won't change a thing. It's STILL his decision to make.
And on standing alone???? LOL He's been doing that since shortly after we removed saddam from power. He fights our enemies....and he's got some of the gutless dems going against him.
He's a strong man....he doesn't make his decision on what the 'polls' say....like the dem got so used to clinton doing.
Nope....we're going to be sending more troops to give this at least one more shot....and I would think that ALL Americans would want to see us succeed......not fail.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 10:47:49 AM new
linduh, I'm not surprised to see your support for a total dictatorship for America. Your posts have always shown a strong Fascist bent. It does beg the question....why were you opposed to Saddam's dictatorship???????
"""Linda_K
posted on January 13, 2007 09:52:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL mingo.....even all the dems and liberals recognize a FACT that you refuse to acknowledge.
It's: "Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes"....
Which will do NOTHING.
(Mingotree: Wanna bet? Re: next election)
It's this CIC's decision to make.
Unless HE changes his mind....and he hasn't because he's a make (Mingotree: make(?)) of conviction.....no one else has ANY power.
Your gutless liberals are going to have to use their POWER....which they're chickening out on doing....to stop funding the war. Period.
(Mingotree: OK, first you say they have no power, then you call them chickens because they can't do anything....I got you running in circles again)
THEY are disappointing those who put them in power....we're ALL aware of that.
(Mingotree: Who is we? Got a turd in your pocket? Who are these people YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR? The whopping 17% who back bush's plan?)
They have no BACKBONE....only false promises they made to get elected.
The radical left is going to CHEW THEM UP...and spit them out if they don't stop funding these wars.
Well see how many republicans go against this President on the 'surge'....but it STILL won't change a thing. It's STILL his decision to make.
And on standing alone???? LOL He's been doing that since shortly after we removed saddam from power. He fights our enemies....and he's got some of the gutless dems going against him.
He's a strong man( Mingotree: Ya, he sure looked like in that quavering, unsteady, blubbering speech he gave!NOT!)
....he doesn't make his decision on what the 'polls' say....like the dem got so used to clinton doing.
Nope....we're going to be sending more troops to give this at least one more shot
(Mingotree:And if THAT doesn't work ?????????)....
and I would think that ALL Americans would want to see us succeed......not fail."""""
ALL Americans DO want to see us to succeed...but we're NOT succeeding after 4 years of the bush non-plan !
BTW, what exactly IS "succeeding"? What is it that bushy is trying to "succeed " at????????
linduh, the rest of your post proves that you know nothing of the consequences of bush's "plan", the debate surrounding it, the democrats stand or anything else....all you listen to is the babbling Bush
posted on January 13, 2007 10:58:32 AM new
Just because you continue posting falsehoods....will NEVER make them true.
He's doing what our Constitution gave all presidents the power to do.
No where does it state congress gets to micromanage wars.
They voted to go there.....this president wants to see it through...he's NOT a quitter who wants to hand our enemies a victory.
sad that so many Americans appear to want to do just that.
====================
Here's someone who agrees with me on Bush being a man of his convictions......so unlike the 'admit defeat' liberals.
===============
The courage of his convictions
By Donald Lambro
Saturday, January 13, 2007
WASHINGTON --
If President Bush's decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq tells us anything about him, it is this: He isn't someone who bases his policies on the polls or the results of the last election.
He is acting on his deepest conviction that, as he said in his address to the nation, we are engaged in "the decisive ideological struggle of our time" against Islamic extremists who have declared war against the West and the United States, in particular.
Abraham Lincoln, beset by a series of defeats and setbacks in the Civil War, told the nation "we must think anew so that we may act anew." Bush, facing a long guerrilla war that his new secretary of defense said we are losing, essentially told Americans that failure was not an option and that we must readjust our military strategy so that "We can and we will prevail."
It was a gutsy, sober decision that he knows will hardly make him more popular with the American people. Polls show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans oppose the war and think it was a mistake. His party lost the House and Senate in an election that turned into a referendum on the war. But Bush has long ago made peace with fact that he is not going to win any popularity contests for the remainder of his presidency as long as the war continues and casualties mount.
Sending more troops to secure the Iraqi capital against a stronger and far more lethal insurgency is clearly in the long-term security interests of our country, and he is willing to leave office two years from now with low-approval polls but secure in the knowledge that he fought the terrorists as hard as he could and kept America safer than it was before he came into office.
Only now Bush faces two wars, one in Iraq and the other on Capitol Hill, where Democrats were gearing up to challenge him on two fronts: 1) A nonbinding resolution that declares Congress' disapproval of increased combat forces and calls for troop withdrawal by this year. 2) Withholding funding for any additional forces being sent there or other provisions that would further restrict appropriations for the war.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be careful about overplaying their hand on both scores. Thus far, as most polls show, a majority of Americans oppose an immediate or precipitous pullout of all forces in Iraq that would result in a bloodbath for the Iraqi people.
Indeed, a number of Democrats would not support a speedy withdrawal if it would endanger our remaining forces there.
A congressional funding cutoff, which would have to clear a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate and then overcome a presidential veto, would be a political disaster for the Pelosi Democrats. It would threaten needed funds for our troops in the midst of war. How many Democrats would want to vote for that?
Bush explained the stakes in Iraq last week without sugarcoating what the future holds, even if his plan succeeds in pacifying Baghdad and the terrorist-infested Anbar province.
"Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he said. The question, he added, "is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe it will."
I think we will see a change for the better on the streets of Baghdad with increased troop levels. But if there is one change I would make in the new strategy, it would be a much sharper increase in the number of U.S. forces to train more Iraqi fighters.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposed a massive increase in the number of U.S. military trainers by 10,000 to 20,000 to quickly escalate the size and skill of the Iraqi army. Bush's plan would just expand the number of advisers embedded in existing Iraqi forces.
The key to longer-term success and to an eventual drawdown of U.S. forces is a larger, better-trained Iraqi security force that can bear the brunt of the fighting and kill more of the enemy. That side of the military equation must be ramped up beyond anything that is now being contemplated.
Meantime, Bush is fully committed to his new strategy. He has received new promises from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to commit additional brigades to the war and to get a lot tougher combating sectarian violence. He is bringing new generals into Iraq and the region, and a new ambassador into Baghdad, to carry out the plan. He is embarked on this course because all of the other options, such as a phased withdrawal this year, were nonstarters in his mind -- signaling to the terrorists that they had won, that we would back down in the face of their threats and that would make us and the free world more vulnerable to their attacks.
It was perhaps the toughest and loneliest decision of his presidency but one that was made solely to keep our country safe.
============
Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 11:29:51 AM new
linduh I won't read that crap on "Conviction bush".
It has nothing to do with my post or the questions I asked.
I already know that bush is an idiot puppet of the people behind the scenes...you wanna keep believing he's his own man...well, dream on
Just because you keep repeating "bush is always right, he is supreme dictator" doesn't make it true.....but chant on....you and that 17% are still a tiny minority
posted on January 13, 2007 11:58:16 AM new
LOL....he's no dictator...but obviously many liberals here didn't mind saddam being one. So why are you bitching about it now??? Another double standard???
And it looks like the additional monies the dems THOUGHT they'd have to approve [or not] won't be an issue at this time either.
The funds are already there....and like I've said before...I wouldn't be surprised if our troops are already gearing up to leave as we speak.
Look at the picture of old drunk kennedy.....lol sure looks like he could use a 'few' more after hearing the news that they wouldn't NEED to vote against additional funding.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 01:25:26 PM new
linduh, what you describe IS a dictator.
""....but it STILL won't change a thing. It's STILL his decision to make.
And on standing alone???? LOL He's been doing that since shortly after we removed saddam from power"""
Then HE ALONE should shoulder ALL the responsibility for the maiming and slaughter, for the failed mission, for the breeding of more terrorists in a country in violent turmoil.....what a legacy!
And you, who so values 'backbone' have failed to address anything in the following post. Why not? Can't?
mingotree
posted on January 13, 2007 10:47:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
linduh, I'm not surprised to see your support for a total dictatorship for America. Your posts have always shown a strong Fascist bent. It does beg the question....why were you opposed to Saddam's dictatorship???????
"""Linda_K
posted on January 13, 2007 09:52:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL mingo.....even all the dems and liberals recognize a FACT that you refuse to acknowledge.
It's: "Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes"....
Which will do NOTHING.
(Mingotree: Wanna bet? Re: next election)
It's this CIC's decision to make.
Unless HE changes his mind....and he hasn't because he's a make (Mingotree: make(?)) of conviction.....no one else has ANY power.
Your gutless liberals are going to have to use their POWER....which they're chickening out on doing....to stop funding the war. Period.
(Mingotree: OK, first you say they have no power, then you call them chickens because they can't do anything....I got you running in circles again)
THEY are disappointing those who put them in power....we're ALL aware of that.
(Mingotree: Who is we? Got a turd in your pocket? Who are these people YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR? The whopping 17% who back bush's plan?)
They have no BACKBONE....only false promises they made to get elected.
The radical left is going to CHEW THEM UP...and spit them out if they don't stop funding these wars.
Well see how many republicans go against this President on the 'surge'....but it STILL won't change a thing. It's STILL his decision to make.
And on standing alone???? LOL He's been doing that since shortly after we removed saddam from power. He fights our enemies....and he's got some of the gutless dems going against him.
He's a strong man( Mingotree: Ya, he sure looked like in that quavering, unsteady, blubbering speech he gave!NOT!)
....he doesn't make his decision on what the 'polls' say....like the dem got so used to clinton doing.
Nope....we're going to be sending more troops to give this at least one more shot
(Mingotree:And if THAT doesn't work ?????????)....
and I would think that ALL Americans would want to see us succeed......not fail."""""
ALL Americans DO want to see us to succeed...but we're NOT succeeding after 4 years of the bush non-plan !
BTW, what exactly IS "succeeding"? What is it that bushy is trying to "succeed " at????????
linduh, the rest of your post proves that you know nothing of the consequences of bush's "plan", the debate surrounding it, the democrats stand or anything else....all you listen to is the babbling Bush
posted on January 13, 2007 03:27:43 PM new
Some here better get their smelling salts out and be ready.
Gates is calling for 92,000 MORE troops.
[story on MSNBC breaking news]
=========
Then we FINALLY have the President calling for his critics to GIVE THEIR SOLUTION.....one other than admitting DEFEAT to our enemies.
Bush challenges war skeptics to offer own plan
'To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,' he says
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.
In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation.
He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission.
"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead."
Bush meets with GOP leaders
The president, who hosted an informal, mostly social gathering of Republican leaders at Camp David on Friday night and Saturday, asked for patience from lawmakers from both parties.
They had grilled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week when the officials testified before Congress in defense of the president's plan.
"Obviously, the need to secure Baghdad and strengthen an ally in the war on terror was among the items we discussed," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Saturday about the discussions the lawmakers had with Bush at Camp David. "But we also discussed the need to find bold solutions for other big issues."
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice about whether they support the president's plan.
[MSNBC.com]
=========================
Sorry, mingo, I understand that liberals usually support the positions of dictators...castro policies...chavez....etc etc etc.
And I'm aware that you can't see the difference between a dictator and a GREAT LEADER like this President is.
That probably comes from never having a great leader in the dem party. So it's easy to understand why you can't see the reality of THIS situation.....where a true LEADER holds his ground.
Doesn't change his position with the way the political WIND blows. His job is to protect US interests....and that's JUST want he's going to do.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 13, 2007 03:41:45 PM new
From the same MSNBC report:
Bush has criticized the way the al-Maliki government handled the Dec. 30 hanging of Saddam Hussein. Bush saw part of the Internet-aired cell phone video of the execution, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows.
“I thought it was discouraging,” Bush said in an interview with “60 Minutes” to be broadcast on Sunday. “They could have handled it a lot better.”
Amazing, when others voiced that a couple of weeks ago when the incident took place, they were called Saddam supporters.
