Posted on 01/10/2007 2:30:20 PM PST by STARWISE
Unswayed by anti-war passions, President Bush will send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and build the American presence there toward its highest level to quell worsening bloodshed. The move puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and runs counter to advice from some senior generals.
Set to announce his decisions in a prime-time speech Wednesday night, Bush was to acknowledge making major mistakes in Iraq, primarily failing to deploy enough U.S. soldiers and demand more Iraqi troops and cooperation to confront the country's near-anarchy.
In advance of Bush's address, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said U.S. military operations have been "handcuffed by political interference by Iraqi leadership" — but now will proceed under rules allowing troops to confront Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents.
(snip)
The new Democratic leaders of Congress met with Bush and complained afterward that their opposition to a buildup had been ignored. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carried live online by: C-span
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ms Pantsuit is gonna need one of those playtex girdles they used to force us into to look good in clothes.
It'll be so tight, it will cut off circulation to her brain.
Oh, wait, that's not necessary.
It has pretty much been said here...that the dems are going to pressure as many Republicans as they can this week and next..and at the end of next week they are going to vote on a resolution NOT to let Bush do this plan!!!
Did not the President make a good faith pledge in his speech that he was going to work with the dems on the war on terror????
I don't get it --- and I think he's Jewish, so surely he realizes the threat to Israel as well.
True. I suspect the doors of Baghdad were being kicked in with earnest just prior to the President's speech.
Please take your inane questions to a star wars thread.
LOL
It was correct of O'Reilly to point out that no matter what happens we will never get honest press coverage. However, he still couldn't resist the urge to try to "have it both ways". In that very same clip he also stated that although President Bush had not received fair treatment from the media, "the media are not responsible for the debacle in Iraq". That statement by O'Reilly is flatly incorrect. The media bear a huge portion of the responsibility for the current situation.
Because we are not just dealing with Iraq on this...we are dealing with a war by proxy with Iran, the Palestinians and Syria.
We beat Germany and Japan in 1945...why do we still have troops there?
Don't cut Brownback any slack. He's doing this for purely political reasons. He's totally flip-flopped on this issue and it's becuase he thinks going against our President on Iraq is going to score him political points. It's disgusting.
Hi. I just got home. Didn't see or hear the speech, so I'm glad to see your comments since I respect your opinions greatly.
I note on Yahoo New front page that their headline says something about Bush takes blame in Iraq. I suspect that will be the media line, reinforcing their template for the story that "it's another Vietnam" by using the President's words against him.
However, does anyone other than me recall that the media were already screaming about a "quagmire" before our troops went into Afghanistan? It was Ramadan. Winter was coming. The Russians left with their tails between their legs. Yada, yada, yada, ad nauseum. The Left NEVER wants us to strike back when enemies hit us.
"I had on Fox local--they had Shep with Lowrey, some chick and the general."
I saw that movie. The General shows up at the chicks house and all hijinks break loose as Shep and Lowrey put Nair in the Generals skivvies.
No matter how old we are or our parents are - it's very hard to lose them.
take care
its going to be a non binding resolution.
That don't mean sh--...it's a symbolic vote then....
Yup. I had hopes for Norm Coleman. I'm deeply saddened.
Does anyone else find it disappointing that Bush accepted all responsibility for this ???!?!!!!???!!! His timing wasn't great by firing Rumsfeld AFTER the election but really-- the responsibility falls on ALL BRANCHES of the government. From Judicial for trying Marines for ambiguous "war crimes", and to Congress for sitting in their hawk's nest listening to Cindy sheehan!!!
errrr.
Uncanny, isn't it? democrats LOVE to lose wars. Anything to weaken this country.
Yep, exactly. The visual of Jimmah digging his yard up for his grave shrine gave me the LOLs.
Get your list and put up a thread with their names. We need to NAME them so people can see who they are.
I know but the Republicans that vote for the DemocRATs resolution can take it and shove it! Brownback is as much of a jerk as Hagel and that is saying something.
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.