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 ...
I'm just glad you found it. Place wouldn't be the same without you. :)
Some aging hippie on CNN on the scene in Bagdad with a Brit accent is now claiming that Maliki opposed additional troops in Iraq.
Hey MamaB....its nice to meet you here! I have been reading about your 103 yr. old mother. I am sure she was precious.
Have you been all 'warm and fuzzy' today??
Do you really think he should announce that?
who the hell is AARON AMARAL, A LAW STUDENT???
INSTANT VIEW 3-Reactions to Bush Iraq speech
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10294398.htm
I'm %100 with you my friend>
Not only that, they drive cars, and procreate!
Becki
I could go back and post a link to every thing you've said on this thread in the short 45 minutes I've been here.
But I realize you're being obtuse on purpose.
ROFL!!!!
It took me 5 mins to stop laughing after reading your post. Wet eyes.
So CNN (as an example) has a poll. 80% of their viewership (or website visitors) are lefties. So every poll is going to be majorly skewed to the left. BUT, it is reported that 80% polled against the President, without admitting that most of the people who voted are Dhimmis. This news gets out to the people on the street (like the ones Hannity interviewed who didn't know the Pledge of Allegiance or who didn't recognize a photo of Nancy Pelosi). I'll bet if he'd asked them if they voted, they would have said yes. In other words, we probably have the most ignorant electorate in the history of this country.
The aging hippie says Maliki party parliamentarians want the minority (Sunnis) to lose, and let nature takes its course.
I'm not surprised in the least. Hillary and her band of thieves love to slip in hot button words like, "escalation". They don't want to admit, nor even consider, that the increase in troops bring about the DE-escalation of the problems in Iraq. They pray at the altar of Political Agendas and preach to the ignorant who feed at the trough of the MSM and kiss the feet of the loony left.
Amen to that. By the way Pelosi was outside the White House after meeting the President all defeated and shivering from the cold weather. The democrats know that they have no power to stop the surge or funding the troops, however they will keep on giving aid and comfort to the enemy by their defeatist attitude and unfortunately few republicans have joined them.
We didn't lose because of the war -- we lost by slim margins in most races because Republicans in the last two years spent our tax dollars like drunken sailors. Then we had the Dimwits pretending to be conservative when they were not and some stupid voters swallowed the koolaid they were giving out.
That's my opinion!
I have to say that the way the President laid it out left me feeling much more confident in this decision.
It's time to take the gloves off and W knows that we have to really bury these insurgents and cut off their supply lines in/out of Iran and Syria.
I will wait to hear if the Dems unveil their ideas or just stick to the criticism and sabotage of our troops efforts.
You are correct sir. I think it was used somewhere else though, maybe in parody?
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011026.html
Point is: We live in a world of instant gratification and instant answers. Fax, e mail, IM, 24 hour news, fast food etc. WE ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW FOR 25 YEARS WHETHER THE IRAQ WAR WAS A GOOD OR BAD IDEA. President Bush may be the greatest leader and visionary in the history of the free world, eclipsing Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, Ghandi. Or he may be the biggest bozo who ever walked the face of the earth. Nothing anyone says on this thread will answer the question one way or the other. Only time will tell.
My feeling is that a generation from now, we'll carve a picture of him on Mt. Rushmore.
That's the case. They moved too slowly. I don't want to rehash that whole thing but the bull should have been taken by the horns and the miliatry mobilized much sooner. Gone and done though.
I don't believe you.
I am confident that Dickie Durbin could not possibly have anything worthwhile to say...... unless he is announcing his resignation from the Senate I don't expect ever to willingly listen to another word he has to say about anything. He is scum. Stoopid vicious scum.
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.