posted on January 11, 2007 12:08:22 AM new
Oh , how big of that lying #*!@ to FINALLY take the blame !
Bush Takes Blame in Iraq, Adds Troops
Updated 1:17 AM ET January 11, 2007
Listen to Audio Clip
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.
The buildup puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American troop presence in Iraq toward its highest level.
It also runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals.
In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the unpopular war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said. But he braced Americans to expect more U.S. casualties for now
and did not specify how long the additional troops would stay.
In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq's committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops
(gee, I hope they show them how to put shoes on and how to read and write their own language.....MANY do NOT have those simple skills....goood effing luck training them !!!)
to secure Baghdad's neighborhoods _ and taking the lead in military operations.
Even before Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress emphasized their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."
There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.
After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.
Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.
Usually loath to admit error, Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that from now on, "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
As Bush spoke for 20 minutes from the unusual setting of the White House library, the sounds of protesters amassed outside the compound's gates occasionally filtered through.
Bush's approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki's willingness _ and ability _ to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.
"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," the president said. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."
He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan "to ensure that it addressed these mistakes."
With Americans overwhelmingly unhappy with his Iraq strategy, Bush said it was a legitimate question to ask why this strategy to secure Baghdad will succeed where other operations failed. "This time we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared," the president said.
While Bush put the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, he did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities.
Bush, however, cited the government's latest optimistic estimate. "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November," the president said.
Still, Bush said that "America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to at."
Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bush said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. ... A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
But Bush warned that the strategy would, in a short term he did not define, bring more violence rather than less.
"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 is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will."
Bush's warning was echoed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading proponent of a troop increase. "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up," the senator said.
Bush said he considered calls from Democrats and some Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would devastate Iraq and "result in our troops being forced to stay even longer."
But he offered a concession to Congress _ the establishment of a bipartisan working group to formalize regular consultations on Iraq. He said he was open to future exchanges and better ideas.
Bush's strategy ignored key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran. Instead, he accused both countries of aiding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," Bush said. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria."
The troop buildup comes two months after elections that were widely seen as a call for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. forces from Iraq. Polling by AP-Ipsos in December found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest rating yet.
The president's address is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also includes detailed briefings for lawmakers and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to the Mideast a day after appearing Thursday with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearings on Iraq convened by the Democrats.
Bush's blueprint would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq _ now at 132,000 _ to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion. The highest number was 160,000 a year ago in a troop buildup for Iraqi elections.
The latest increase calls for sending 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next would arrive by Feb. 15 and the remaining would come in 30-day increments.
Bush also committed 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.
Bush's plan mirrored earlier moves attempting to give Iraqi forces a bigger security role. The chief difference appeared to be a recognition that the Iraqis need more time to take on the full security burden.
Another difference involves doubling the number of U.S. civilian workers who help coordinate local reconstruction projects. These State Department-led units _ dubbed Provincial Reconstruction Teams _ are to focus on projects both inside and outside the heavily guarded Green Zone, and some will be merged into combat brigades. The portion of Bush's plan intended to boost economic aid and job creation was given a price tag of just over $1 billion.
Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers.
Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia also might be persuaded. Warner said he supports the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which strongly cautioned against an increase in troops unless advocated by military commanders.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on January 11, 2007 05:58:53 AM new
MINGOTREE,
I am ashamed of America's President. He is doing nothing but trying to set up a way to blame his mistakes and defeat on the Iraqi government. Thirty times in just 22 minutes BUSHY used FEAR WORDS in his speech.
How many more fine young American troops will die while BUSHY is trying to save face and spread fear amongst Americans???
posted on January 11, 2007 07:34:36 AM new
"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said."
DUH Uh Georgie..the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT'S YOUR FAULT !
How big of you to acknowledge what we all know !
Then this boner:
""Bush's strategy ignored key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran.( What a good peace-oriented idea, no wonder bush ignored it!)
Instead, he accused both countries of aiding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," Bush said. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.(Yes, he will do this on the dead and mutilated bodies of our troops instead of using diplomacy!)""""
posted on January 11, 2007 07:54:33 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.
In his 20-minute speech, Bush took responsibility for mistakes in Iraq and outlined a strategy he said would pull it out of its spiral of violence. The plan would increase the U.S. troop presence from the current 132,000 to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion."""""
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on January 11, 2007 09:08:30 AM new
"Even before Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress emphasized their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."
===
Gotta get a HUGE laugh out of THAT flip-flop.
ALL those 'top' donkeys were DEMANDING President Bush send in more troops.....and now that he is....what are they whining about? That he's sending in more troops.
Just will NEVER be able to please them. Their pattern is to go the 'opposite' of whatever the President is doing.
BUT...they have NO plan of their own....EXCEPT to give VICTORY to our enemies.
tsk tsk tsk
"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 09:22:01 AM new
""""Just will NEVER be able to please them. Their pattern is to go the 'opposite' of whatever the President is doing."""
Why don't you ask these people why the "flip flop" ?
"""Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers."""
Democrats criticize Bush without taking any responsibility.
Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
You might have thought President Bush's announcement yesterday that he intends to deploy several thousand more combat soldiers to Iraq would have been sweet policy vindication for the Democrats. They're the ones who spent the better part of the past four years using Eric Shinseki--the former Army Chief of Staff who, prior to the war, estimated it would take up to half a million troops to occupy the country--as a cudgel with which to beat this President over the head.
Thus former House minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing General Shinseki in May 2004, on "Meet the Press": "What I'm saying to you, [is] that we need more troops on the ground."
Thus, too, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, just four weeks ago: "If it's for a surge--that is, for two or three months--and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."
Lately the Democrats have been singing from a different hymnal.
In a letter Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi sent the President last week, they write: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. . . . Adding more combat troops will endanger more Americans and stretch our military capability to the breaking point for no strategic gain."
As for Carl Levin, the new Senate Armed Forces Chairman was also one of those who used to call for more troops. But now he is threatening a legislative cap on the number of troops in Iraq if Mr. Bush doesn't start a significant drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq later this year.
We'll bet Mr. Levin never has the political nerve to follow through on anything but TV sound-bite criticism.
Ostensibly, the Democratic complaint is that the Administration has failed to come up with a new strategy for Iraq.
In fact, Mr. Bush says he is offering a qualitative departure from what the U.S. has attempted before. (See "Mission Baghdad."
The real question is whether the Democrats are prepared to act like a responsible opposition now that they control both houses of Congress, in contrast to the last four years of partisan minority sniping.
On the evidence of the past week, the answer is no.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 11, 2007 09:41 AM ]
posted on January 11, 2007 10:28:26 AM new
"""The real question is whether the Democrats are prepared to act like a responsible opposition now that they control both houses of Congress, in contrast to the last four years of partisan minority sniping."""
Why should they? According to YOU bush is the sole "decider". LOL! Make up your tiny mind!
posted on January 11, 2007 12:34:00 PM new
Bigpeepa, maybe it's because the British have a democracy that listens to the people and we have a dictatorship with a supreme "decider"...????
posted on January 11, 2007 02:00:34 PM new"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight." Bush June 2005
I call that a flip flop by Bush.
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.'
So you see Clinton can at least accept his mistakes unlike Bush can.
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 11, 2007 02:33:20 PM new
mingotree,
I saw the look on Rice's face today being drilled before an investigation about the Iraq INVASION. I am here to tell you it was scary. No question about it its the beginning of the end for BUSHY's BUNCH.
The only problem is how many more American Troops is BUSHY going to ask to die before we withdraw from Iraq?
Bear,
He who lives in the past dies in the past.
You really can't say flip flop,civil war or hypocrite can you?
posted on January 11, 2007 03:03:29 PM new
IF clinton had taken responsibility as a CIC he would have dealt with the FIVE attacks that happened against U.S. interests rather than letting bin laden see him as a 'paper tiger'....and then we were blessed with 9-11.
Because of his LACK of action. LACK of guts to do what should have been done after our interests and our soldiers were murdered by these same group of terrorists.
"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 03:09:38 PM new
GEE! Do ya think if we talk enough about Clinton then Americans will totally forget what F---Ups Bush & Company are ??
posted on January 11, 2007 03:58:29 PM new
Oh no....I LOVE continuing to point out that the clinton administration said EXACTLY the same things about Iraq/saddam as this president has.
Just because SOME ignorant people don't want to be reminded doesn't change the FACTS....while they're so busy ONLY putting the blame on this President.
==================
And here's news about the British troops:
SEE....as I've continually pointed out to those with CLOSED EARS......all of Iraq isn't the same as the two we're having trouble in currently. Ignoring that FACT doesn't change the reality of the situation either.
Bush's new Iraq strategy 'makes sense': British PM Blair
Posted: 12 January 2007 0305 hrs
LONDON : British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that US President George W. Bush's increase of troops in Iraq "makes sense", in a television interview on Thursday.
"Given the conditions in Baghdad at the moment, I think it makes sense for them to increase the number of their forces, provided it's to back up an increasing Iraqi capability," Blair said.
Bush is sending 21,500 extra US troops to Iraq, while Britain's policy is to pull back troops and hand areas including the second city of Basra over to Iraqi control.
But Blair emphasised that Britain's situation in Basra, southern Iraq, was different to the one faced by the US and said it would be a "misunderstanding" to say that the two countries' policies were diverging.
"The truth is the conditions in Baghdad are different from those in Basra.
"The reason why the Americans are having to surge forces in Baghdad is because the security condition there is completely different," Blair told Westcountry Television during a visit to southwest England.
Blair said that in Basra, "we don't have the same type of sectarian fighting, we don't have Al-Qaeda operating in the same way" as in Baghdad.
Asked about a report in The Daily Telegraph newspaper that Britain would pull out around 2,700 troops from southern Iraq by the end of May, Blair would only say it was right that Britain moved to a "support role" once the Iraqi authorities could handle their own security. - AFP/de
===============
You're WELCOME mingo. 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."
posted on January 11, 2007 04:06:45 PM new
Only linduh, and bush, would find 9/11 a "blessing".
"""Linda_K
posted on January 11, 2007 03:03:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF clinton had taken responsibility as a CIC he would have dealt with the FIVE attacks that happened against U.S. interests rather than letting bin laden see him as a 'paper tiger'....and then we were blessed with 9-11. """"
posted on January 11, 2007 04:25:25 PM new
Being you're so sarcastic yourself, mingo, I figured I speak to you the way you post here.
And from what I've read ...about the UK...Blair....I think they may be getting ready to join forces with us in IRAN.
"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 12, 2007 07:07:14 AM new
linduh, """And from what I've read ...about the UK...Blair....I think they may be getting ready to join forces with us in IRAN.""""
So do you consider war with Iran a "blessing", too???
?
