Posted on 06/29/2005 5:45:46 AM PDT by phoenix_004
Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency. Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.
Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.
"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.
Bush said he understands the public concerns about a 27-month-old war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. But he argued that the sacrifice "is worth it."
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
He offered no shift in course in Iraq and said he did not believe it necessary to send more troops. U.S. forces in Iraq total just under about 140,000 and they constitute the bulk of the coalition fighting force.
Appearing on television news shows Wednesday, some key lawmakers took issue with that position.
Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."
Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.
"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."
McCain, R-Ariz., did defend Bush's call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the U.S. shore. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, McCain said that those spreading violence in Iraq "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win in Iraq."
Bush's speech marked the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government. The president cited advances in the past year, including the January elections, infrastructure improvements and training of Iraqi security forces.
Democrats also criticized Bush for not offering more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq along with his frequent mention of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."
Bush urged Americans to remember the lessons of Sept. 11 and protect "the future of the Middle East" from men like bin Laden. He repeatedly referred to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists and said they were killing innocent people to try to "shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001."
Bush again rejected suggestions that he set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or send in more troops. Setting a timetable would be "a serious mistake" that could demoralize Iraqis and American troops and embolden the enemy, he said.
The president also said that sending more troops would undermine the U.S. strategy of training Iraqis to be able to as quickly as possible take over the security of their country.
"Sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever," he said.
Beyond their criticism, Some Democrats said they thought Bush strengthened his credibility. "I think he told the American people why it's important," said Biden.
Said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: "The president needs to do more of what he did last evening. This is a beginning."
They waltzed right into Rove's trap. :-) Just can't help themselves.
....notice the obvious...how easy it is for the Democrats to criticize....how impossible it is for them to lead.....
Don't let the MSM or e-mail friends get away with believing the Democrat's absolute lies that Saddam didn't have a relationship with AQ.
This is the Clinton Department federal indictment against OBL which states specifically his working with Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts?page=30#30
1999: Newsweek reports Saddam reaching out to OBL
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158277/posts
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections
January 14, 1999. ABC News
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1229608/posts?page=1
Osama and Saddam Work Together
January 27, 1999. Laurie Mylroie interview. She is a former Clinton terrorism czar.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158482/posts
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL.
February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's Link to OBL
February 6, 1999. The Guardian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden
February 13, 1999. AP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158274/posts
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL.
Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden's terrorist activities.
August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
democRATS are to logic, what Pamela Anderson is to Shakespeare.
I'll agree with old 'Sandwich' Dodd here - Bush could do more PR selling of his position.
. . .and squeeze the achilles hill of these foolish Demrats at the same time.
bookmark
Said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: "The president needs to do more of what he did last evening. This is a beginning."
With such an overwhelmingly negative article, I wonder why the reporter even bothered to include these last two sentences.
How can one discuss the Iraq War removed from the events of September 11th? It would be like justifying the Normandy invasion in the absence of Pearl Harbor!
"They waltzed right into Rove's trap. :-) Just can't help themselves."
Brer Rove is a genius.
Born and bred in the briars!
The one to bookmark is here:
That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
Families sue Iraq over 9/11. Thousands of 9/11 victims and family members sue Iraq based on evidence that Iraq knew the attacks were coming, approved the attacks, and supported Al Qaeda for a decade. The lawsuit also notes Iraq's involvement in the first WTC attack.
September 5, 2002. CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
In the 90's, before this became a political football, the MSM wrote about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Iraq and AQ/OBL dozens of times and a few of the headline articles are here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Typical democrats. Criticize our military and offer nothing in exchange. Half the dems say pull out all troops now, the other half says send more. Which is it, Dingy Harry?
Amnesia: This is what Democrats and liberals are suffering from. There's no other way to explain it. This treasonous bunch of America-haters has tried and tried to completely wipe out the memories of that horrific day with their politics of Bush-bashing and terrorist-loving haranguing, coupled with a complicit media who want the same thing. Their propoganda since 9/12/01 has been to diminish the implications of the attacks and to delegitimize Bush's leadership as a wartime president. For him to have (in their minds) the audacity to "still" maintain a link between 9/11 and Iraq, just makes them boil with anger.
For the Democrat Party, a retreat in Iraq translates into a political victory for them. Think about that! If the United States military operations were to fail or were to be cut short of a victorious finish, the Democrats would be gleeful. Something very very sick about that. But it's true.
Separation of church and state, don'tchaknow?
Democrats want nothing more than for all of us to forget 9/11, and get back to the important issue facing this country. Who'll win American Idol!
[[Incredible. . .should be on the lips of every Repub. . .everytime we must explain the 'why' of this war.]
Cricket,
I agree totally. In fact, here is what I carry around in my wallet to read to a whiney ass liberal when they start their "what weapons of mass destruction" bullsh$t :
Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession
10/11/03 - The elite media continues to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in March, citing the scant evidence of any actual weapons finds by U.S. arms inspector David Kay.
But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1998 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons - along with the delivery systems to take them beyond Iraq's borders.
That's right - lost in the debate over why U.S. weapons inspectors have yet to uncover the Iraqi version of the Manhattan Project is this salient factoid: Not only did Saddam's regime admit to possessing thousands of tons of lethal chemical and biological agents - Baghdad gave a detailed inventory of their WMD arsenal to the United Nations.
This week's Weekly Standard revisits Baghdad's 1998 WMD mea culpa - complete with a laundry list of the frightening weapons that the press continues to suggest were a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.
Just before Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Saddam admitted he had:
• At least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
• 8,500 liters of anthrax.
• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
• 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
• 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
• 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
• 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.
Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence suspected Baghdad had. These are the WMD's that Saddam himself admitted he had.
It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the WMDs Saddam confessed to went completely undetected by U.N. weapons inspectors who combed Iraq for 12 years.
Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq was in recent possession of WMD's have already been answered - and answered by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.