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 ...
So first a bunch of know-nothings tells us what the President is going to tell us, then another bunch of know-nothings has to come on to tell us what he just told us.
Here we go!
Rock 'n Roll, Mr. President!!!!
...by living longer or shorter? =)
Clark, thw Waco warrior
*Falls in just after getting kids to bed* aHA *cat meows in background* SSSSSH...
Wouldn't hearing that be schweet?
Amen.
He's late......My hi-tech watch is 2 min after the hour
the man is a midget!...about 5'2" at a guess.
really?....I didn't know that....I bet he sits on phonebooks too....lol
Me too and I've lost all tolerance.
I have maintained my news black out excect for special events.
"If Bush only fails as much as Lincoln he will go down in history as a very great man.. and the media of that time and this time will go down as losers that can't be trusted to get much of anything right.
To those that think of Lincoln as the man in the Lincoln monument, I would invite you to look at the press coverage of Lincoln in 1863 and early 1864. Press reports on President Lincoln were far worse than those on President Bush. AS ususal the press was and is wrong."
In terms of the press and approval ratings, I agree with the comparison. As far as Lincoln's willingness to use ruthless force on his adversaries - for better or worse - I don't think Bush will. Sherman burned southern cities, but I doubt Bush would order the same devestation for a city in Iraq.
I'm afraid Bush doesn't have it in him anymore...like he did at the beginning of this fight....worrying about getting fragged by the American people....liberals assholes.
Earlier, Moira Liasson got herself so tangled up in what the speech was supposed to say, she kept reporting it in the past tense, as if it had already been delivered.
It would be nice if he named the obstructionist DUmocrats and the Iranian/Syrian terrorists as the two major obstacles to success. At least that would be honest.
Be sure and ping me to that GOP "traitor list"
Why is perky Katie previewing the speech and telling us poll results, all before GWB has said word one? Let's not prime the audience with any preconceptions. /suspension of disbelief
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.