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 ...
You really odn't need a "freedom loving" citizenry to have this work. What President Bush and Maliki need are 10-15 Brigades of "freedom loving" soldiers willing to kill the bad guys without quarter. Those 10-15 Brigades need leadership. So, the ate of Iraq may well rest in the hands of 200 men or so. I hope General Petraeus finds them.
Yes I know
But our side BETTER take off the gloves and call the Dems plan what it is
RETREAT
He is saying in the Q&A that 20,000 aren't enough. Just after saying we should pull out so that the Iraqis can get to work solving their civil war. I think it is good the Democrats picked one of the worst of them for their response
He's being a good Democrat, making no sense and having no solutions. Except cut and run.
the problem is (for Timmy) that his democrats don't have the guts to actually do anything other than whine interminably.
President Bush's speech was not going for rhetorical flourishes. It was a speech of substance, which I welcome.
LOL! Thank you, Mo1 -- I am MUCH calmer.
The clueless callers on CSPAN "We have to talk to Iran and Syria". Hello, if they're ignoring the entire UN (I know, not a great example), and we know they're facilitating terrorists and weapons into Iraq... WTH? Is it me?
Talk just gives an opportunity for Al Taqiyya/Hudnas... force is what they understand.
Time to stop obsessing on Iraq. This is a GLOBAL war on terror. As demonstrated in Somalia we can make progress elsewhere too.
All Iraqi TV stations carried this speech live (5:00 am).
..done...
I say we call Pelosi's office in the morning in mass and DEMAND Congress cut off the funds.....:-)
LOL...of course MSNBC carried the Durbin speech...they even have Osama Obama on later!!
Their rock star POTUS candidate.
Brownback had better rethink his position...the entire First Infantry Division and their family members can vote...or choose not to vote for him in the next election if he decides to go all John Kerry on us.
Don't waste your time, tx.
Just like Durbin :)
I will. I listened a bit on the radio. There was no background noise and he almost sounded beaten. Surprised me so, I could not focus on his words. I can't explain it, must have been the audio and not the President. (Major Whew!).
What a fairy boy he is.
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.