posted on January 5, 2007 03:37:15 PM
Critics Slam Possible Iraq Troop Boost
Updated 6:13 PM ET January 5, 2007
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Days from announcing an overhaul of Iraq strategy, President Bush on Friday encountered a wall of criticism of the U.S. troop escalation that is expected to be the centerpiece of his new war plan.
Bush also reshuffled his war commanders, installing a new team to support the policies he will announce next week. Democrats and Republicans alike took aim at the expected increase in U.S. forces.
"It has to be significant and sustained. Otherwise do not do it," said Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful and Vietnam veteran who has been advocating a troop increase.
Those for going in the opposite direction spoke out, too.
"We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq," new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a letter to Bush a day after their party took the reins on Capitol Hill. Instead, Pelosi and Reid urged Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.
The criticism underscored that Bush, preparing his new policy for an increasingly unpopular and costly war, will face a Congress that is not only controlled by Democrats who could challenge him at any turn but also populated with Republicans looking toward the congressional and presidential elections of 2008.
The president spent much of the day in last-minute consultations with members of Congress from both parties, by all accounts soliciting their input while giving few hints of his own plans. But doubts about dispatching more soldiers to Iraq _ which Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson called "the elephant in the room" at the White House _ were expressed to the president's face and before various audiences around Washington.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee who had just returned from Iraq, lambasted Bush's war leadership as lacking "a clarity of mission."
She spoke at a news conference against sending more Americans, saying the U.S. should be focused only on hunting for al-Qaida terrorists and ensuring Iraq does not become a source of regional instability.
"We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests," she said.
posted on January 5, 2007 03:39:24 PM
"""Bush, meanwhile, announced more changes in his team of military and diplomatic advisers.
He said Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander overseeing the theater that includes Iraq, will be succeeded by Adm. William Fallon, now Abizaid's counterpart in the Pacific. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus is the president's choice to be the new chief commander in Iraq, replacing Gen. George Casey. The nominations must be approved by the Senate.
Petraeus led the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 Iraq invasion and later headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces.
Both Abizaid and Casey already had been expected to rotate out of their jobs.
Both also had publicly expressed skepticism about a troop increase,
and when Bush began devising a new Iraq plan their timetable appeared to move up.
Also, Ryan Crocker, a veteran American diplomat who is now U.S. envoy to Pakistan, was expected to replace Zalmay Khalilzad as U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Bush nominated Khalilzad, a subject of criticism in Iraq as favoring his fellow Sunni Muslims, to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
In a White House that prides itself on discipline, there was much confusion about the personnel changes. There was a torrent of news leaks, unsuccessful efforts by the White House to control the flow of information and messy shifts in how the announcements would be made.
The president's talks Friday with several groups of lawmakers included moderate Democrats and loyalist Republicans but also some of the president's biggest critics, such as Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
"He did say he has not made up his mind yet," said Rep. Chris Carney, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania who is in the Navy Reserve and served as a Pentagon intelligence analyst.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, part of a later meeting with over a dozen senators of both parties, said the skepticism about whether a burst of troops could achieve anything was nearly universal.
"I don't think there was a sense that case had been made," said Coleman, from Minnesota.
Several senators said Bush promised an increase would be done only in concert with greater efforts by the Iraqi government, which has failed to rein in the Shiite militias and to supply the promised amount of Iraqi forces to work alongside Americans.
Nelson, who said he walked away with no doubt Bush is planning to boost troops, said the president suggested there would be "the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal or else." But, said the Nebraska Democrat, the president did not define the consequences.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, set to unveil his own revamped strategy, is himself uneasy about more American troops, preferring that the U.S. presence be pulled back to Baghdad's outskirts.
During a nearly two-hour discussion Thursday, Bush told al-Maliki he was ready to send additional U.S. forces. But the Iraqi leader said "he would have to talk that over with his senior military officers to see if they were needed," Sami al-Askari, an al-Maliki political adviser, told The Associated Press.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, meanwhile, agreed with McCain that a small, temporary force boost would not be enough. Neither of the senators, appearing together at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, would put a number on how many more troops might be necessary.
A letter from 28 House Republicans urged Bush to divert some of the 21 Iraqi battalions operating in peaceful provinces to Baghdad and other dangerous areas, to spare U.S. troops."""
posted on January 5, 2007 04:11:36 PM
The Bush administration was told initially before the war started that 140 k troop level was deficient. Only now as the prospect of victory is fading they decide a boost in troop levels is a prudent action. Poor leadership that has cost many a life, and should not be soon forgotten.
posted on January 5, 2007 05:08:15 PM
Wasn't it Rummy that said you go to war with the troops and equipment you had, not what you wish to have?
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.'
posted on January 5, 2007 06:02:37 PM
Yes, It was. But the his best pearl was after his resignation. When he stated that there was need for change of course in Iraq or something to that effect.
posted on January 5, 2007 07:36:15 PM
Bush is pathetically alone in this. It's not the courage of one man who knows he's right and will not back down, it's the errand of a fool.
posted on January 5, 2007 08:22:05 PM
"Critics Slam Possible Iraq Troop Boost"
LOL....that journalist needs to go back to school. What ELSE would 'critics' do...praise him????? How stupid.
Will he? Won't he??? Will he, won't he????
Only HE knows. And he's well aware of what the dems want done....but since HE'S our CIC he and he alone will make the final decision.
"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 5, 2007 08:45:19 PM
I am fully aware, ex-helen-admiration-society-admirer.....
that Congress could stop funding the war. I don't believe they have the GUTS to do that...nor enough support to do it either.
I've said before they're a GUTLESS bunch....who didn't even vote to withdraw the troops immediately when that's ALL they were calling for to the press.
They LACK the courage of their own convictions....and sadly the American public was too dense to see that....but they'll learn in the next couple of years.
LOL LOL LOL
We are SO lucky to have this man as our CIC.....more than most will recognize until 30-50 years have passed by.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 5, 2007 08:53 PM ]
posted on January 5, 2007 09:22:39 PM
Wow, what a sorry job Tony Snow has now!!!
He is going to become very beat up after Bushy's speech next week and the Iraq Invasion investigations start in the New Congress. Bushy is like a flip flopped fish out of water trying to suck air.
Snow should get out while the getting is good. Hey Tony go back to the safety of Fox news both you and your boss are in over your heads its all down hill for ya from now on.
posted on January 5, 2007 09:32:51 PM
LIAR_K SAID,"We are SO lucky to have this man as our CIC.....more than most will recognize until 30-50 years have passed by."
Just like Viet Nam Liar_k?? Bushy just opened up "free trade" with Viet Nam a real slap in the face tribute to the 50,000 Americans that died there and their families.
new-cons like Liar_k and stonehead are UN-American. They only pretend they respect and support Americans Troops.
posted on January 5, 2007 09:50:17 PM
kerry was our only other choice for President in 2004. and anyone who isn't stupid KNOWS kerry had been working on trade with VN for YEARS before this President even took office.
So they BOTH wanted to have trade with VN.
LEARN your history.
"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."
I stand by this statement:
""but since HE'S our CIC he and he alone will make the final decision.""
If you believe THAT then you truly have lost your marbles!""""
See oh Fascists, we live in a democracy...no ONE person should decide the future of the U.S. even if he does speak to god.
And the Democrats now have control of the house and Senate and even some Republicans have seen the light and are going against their Supreme Ruler, King George....even THEY realize the foolishness and disastrous effects of a monarchy.....
Just like our founding fathers you're so fond of quoting
posted on January 6, 2007 08:04:06 AM
Funny mingo -
We do have a separation of powers between ALL three branches of our government.
The President makes the decision....not Congress.
The ONLY thing Congress can do IF they don't agree with whatever decision HE makes is to stop funding. They can't DO anything else....nada...zip...zero...nothing.
And as I already said....they're certainly not going to vote to NOT fund our soldiers PERIOD. That would make them look MORE like the hyprcrites they already are....with them PROFESSING to support our troops and all.
Nope....there are still enough elected congressmen/women who KNOW we cannot lose this war....and they will continue funding them.
You'll see. Dems have trouble making their votes match what their mouths say to the press.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2007 08:11 AM ]
posted on January 6, 2007 08:21:32 AM
"See oh Fascists, we live in a democracy...no ONE person should decide the future of the U.S. even if he does speak to god."
Pat Robertson is running the country???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on January 6, 2007 12:07:37 PM
Liar_k,
One question what President's name is on the free trade agreement with Viet Nam?
Facts are a republican congress voted in favor of the law and Bushy signed it.
BTW, I see Intel plans to build a billion dollar plant in Viet Nam not America. Just another reason to vote out more Republicans in just "a COMMA in history" 2 years from now.
I will bet you its a name of a President that a lot of people are starting to say is GUILTY of war crimes.
ANOTHER BIG BUNCH OF BULL ROAR FROM THE MOST FAMOUS LOSER LIAR_K. THANKS FOR THE LAUGH BEFORE MY NAP WIND BAG LIAR.
posted on January 6, 2007 12:17:06 PM
MINGOTREE,
You really pulled Liar_k's chain today. I just read this reply to you from Liar_k,
"The President makes the decision....not Congress."
"The ONLY thing Congress can do IF they don't agree with whatever decision HE makes is to stop funding. They can't DO anything else....nada...zip...zero...nothing."
No kidding Liar_k? I say let the Congressional investigations into Bushy and Gang begin.
Mingo,Liar_k is in rare form today she even picked up a word of Spanish Heaven Forbid!! LOL.
posted on January 6, 2007 01:02:22 PM
Only the "CIC" decides???
OH YA !!!??
Bush's Iraq Plan Faces Battle on Hill
Updated 2:58 PM ET January 6, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq is already running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even makes his case.
Bush, who met on Saturday with his national security team, has tapped new military commanders to lead the war effort and will disclose a new war strategy as early as Wednesday that is expected to include political, military and economic components.
The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, probably will call for an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress.
"Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake," Reid said in the Democratic radio address Saturday. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.
"Our troops and their families have already sacrificed a great deal for Iraq," Reid said. "They have done their part. It's time for the Iraqis to do their part."
Bush told more than a dozen senators Friday that he would settle on the option only if the Iraqi government offered certain guarantees, according to senators who attended the meeting.
While lawmakers said they were willing to wait and see the entirety of Bush's plan before dismissing it entirely, members _ including some Republicans _ said they remained deeply skeptical about sending more troops.
"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-Maine., who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president."""
So sad to see bushy losing power...gee, maybe the poor Fascists like linduh just won't see that "single ruler-god" state afterall
posted on January 6, 2007 02:03:55 PM
LOL...you disagree? lol
The CIC makes the FINAL decision...HE is in control of our military...NOT congress.
They can give whatever 'opinions' they want to give....but the DECISION rests with the CIC alone.
As I said above...they only have ONE way to stop the war....and they're too GUTLESS to do so.
"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 6, 2007 02:13:32 PM
Yes, "waco"peepa....it will be the Presidents name on the VN trade agreement.....
...just as it was clinton's on NAFTA AND the trade agreeents with CHINA.
This President has always supported free trade....as have MOST democrats...even the liberals. LOL LOL LOL
gosh, it would be so nice if you'd EVER know what the parties agree upon and what they don't WHEN you're trying to put the blame on only this President.
It just makes you look more STUPID when you're arguing the side that ONLY acknowledges the positions of ONE party.
=============
6. Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi.
True. It's a stance he has shared for over a decade with fellow Vietnam veteran Senator John McCain.
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.
True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau.
8. Kerry prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result.
True. As did John McCain.
9. He has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.
==============
That's ONE reason kerry wanted to get the POW issue cleared up....lying that Hanoi didn't have anymore unreleased POWS....which was holding up the trade agreements KERRY wanted to bring about....HELPING his family relatives. LOL LOL LOL
"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 6, 2007 02:24 PM ]
posted on January 6, 2007 03:40:04 PM
"""Linda_K
posted on January 6, 2007 02:03:55 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL...you disagree? lol
The CIC makes the FINAL decision...HE is in control of our military...NOT congress.
They can give whatever 'opinions' they want to give....but the DECISION rests with the CIC alone.""""
SO, the war in Iraq , with all the deaths , maimings, increasing turmoil, violence and destruction....
posted on January 6, 2007 08:57:55 PM
Liar_k, said this line about John Kerry.
"He has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam".
The truth is the republican controlled Congress pushed the Viet Nam free trade bill and g.w.Bushy signed it into law.
ITS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL VIET NAM VETS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Liar_k keep posting about John Kerry to defect attention away from the man more and more Americans believe is a criminal Bushy
Now Intel is planing to build a 1 billion plant in Viet Nam and not the U.S.A. More reason to vote out more republicans in "just a comma" in time 2 years from now.
Below is what a NEW straw poll on AOL says about BUSHY'S IRAQ INVASION PLANS.
Should the U.S. send more troops to Iraq?
No 80%
Yes 20%
Total Votes: 16,360
Should the Democrats cut off funding for the war?
Yes 62%
No 38%
Total Votes: 16,657
posted on January 7, 2007 02:25:12 PM
"waco"peepa - TRY just once to get it through your VERY THICK head...that people on aol VIEWS don't count.
The POWER and the DECISION making will be done by our CIC. No one else.
"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 7, 2007 02:41:51 PMThe POWER and the DECISION making will be done by our CIC. No one else.
Interesting that you would solely trust one man to make decisions for you and your country. Personally I would rather have collective minds working together to make intelligent decisions as to what is best. Of course that is just my opinion because I don't believe any one man or woman can possibly be that intelligent or informed on all issues to be able to decide what's best for all.
posted on January 7, 2007 02:47:27 PM
It's one mans FINAL decision to make. Try and grasp THAT concept.
OR read our Consitutition...which GAVE the executive branch that POWER....that final decision making POWER.
You have a lot to learn about America....although you love to bash this President....the rules don't change according to who's in POWER>
"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."
Are YOU a Bunghole?
