Bush adding 21,500 troops to Iraq force - LIVE thread- speech 9pm EST

Yahoo/AP ^ | 1-10-07 | TerenceHunt

[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

[onyx]

I move that congress goes to Iraq on point as well.

I second your motion.

All in favor?

[mystery-ak]

trust me, I'm in favor.....

[rhombus]

Hey I might agree with Ollie. I'm not so sure that troops are the best answer or the only answer. However, I don't think they will hurt especially if the rules of engagement allow the job to be done without subsequent investigations and prosecutions of the troops who have to do the dirty job. Further, at a time like this, it's time to stand with the CIC. I've had a belly full of mutiny and it's only hurt all of us.

[NinoFan]

Aye

[Mo1]

"Did you happen to hear Kit Bond speak today?"


There were some parts that I missed and I didn't see him

Though I did find this

http://www.missourinet.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=B7D2CE9E-ACB5-48A4-9F008C6402AAD738&dbtranslator=local.cfm
Bond Says Legislation for Congressional Approval of Troop Deployment Unnecessary

by Laura McNamara

Some U.S. Senate support for legislation that would require congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq is simply off the mark for Senator Kit Bond. Bond says that push stems from speculation that President Bush will call for as much as 20,000 more troops to be deployed to Iraq. U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy has been trying to fight a boost in troop deployment with the push for legislative approval. Bond says Kennedy's statements on Iraq in general have been inaccurate. He says he will not support Kennedy's efforts to further politicize the war in Iraq. Bond says he will support plans for the Iraqi government to take more control over Iraq. He says Iraqi control is key for success in Iraq.


Bahbah;Txsleuth .. did you see Kit Bond talk in the Senate today?

[txrangerette]

He's talking about the troops he's been close to at Ramadi. He likes what they are accomplishing there by the methods they are using. He thinks they are working in that area and that more of a certain kind of troop would help, such as civil affairs specialists. I don't understand why a plan to secure Baghdad isn't ok, too. From what I have heard I think some elements of what has worked well elsewhere will also be used there. I wish Ollie would wait and see. And that's all I'm gonna say.

[MagUSNRET]

Has Duncan Hunter sounded off on the Presidents speech yet?
I for one, would put more creedence on what that man says, given his vast combat experience.
SUpport Duncan Hunter for PRESIDENT in 2008!

[Miss Marple]

I vote "aya", onyx! I am sick of 90% of them.

[mylife]

Who you calling an old fart?

[AliVeritas]

1/3 Along Syria border to block terrorists coming in routes, 1/3 training Iraqis, 1/3 holding sections down after the grunt works done, so the jihadis can't move back in?

[onyx]

The aye's have it!

[MagUSNRET]

I love it when FOX has that pampered freak Weasly Clark on as a "military expert" LMBO the freak was FIRED!!!!!!

[sageb1]

I think part of the reason is probably somewhat simple. You military people can certainly correct me, but those who are on the ground probably don't look forward to having to deal with training newbie troops. Numbers are nice, but the new troops do need to time to learn in country.

[mystery-ak]

the cadaver is on BO'R.....yuck

[MagUSNRET]

Just those to whom it applies ;-)

[sageb1]

"but the new troops do need time to learn in country."

correction

[roses of sharon]

I heard Ollie the other day, most troops he discussed thought they just needed more time, not necessarily more troops, some said they would welcome more troops to cover their backs, others said new troops would need more logistic supports.

It now sounds like more troops are for embedding with Iraqi military.

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

"Iraqi needs to show it really wants a free country and are willing to fight for it and that he's had enough of soldiers being killed"

The Iraqi people have been beaten down like dogs for years. It's hard to stand up when that happens too long.

Don't forget they(the Iraqi people) believed us the 1st time we went over there and look what happened. This is going to take some time.

At times, in my heart, I think it is awful that our men and women have died, and my heart breaks for them and their families. Then I think about the fact that they joined the military and they accepted everything that comes with it. They know it will take time, but the American people don't seem to understand that fact.