Bush: War 'Straining' American Psyche

(CBS/AP)  President Bush said Monday the Iraq war is "straining the psyche of our country" but leaving now would be a disaster.

Mr. Bush served notice at a news conference that he would not change course or flinch from debate about the unpopular war as he campaigns for Republicans in the November congressional elections. In fact, he suggested that national security and the economy should be the top political issues, and criticized the Democrats' approach on both.

Many Democrats want to leave Iraq "before the job is done," the president said. "I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done," he said, but "if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

Also, Mr. Bush likened Hezbollah and the violence in Lebanon to that in Iraq — both, in his view, the work of terrorists — and called for quick deployment of an international force to stabilize Lebanon, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports.

"The reality is in order for Lebanon to succeed — and we want Lebanon's democracy to succeed — the Lebanese government's eventually going to have to deal with Hezbollah," Mr. Bush said.

Now in its fourth year, the war has taken a heavy toll — more than 2,600 Americans have died and many more Iraqis have been killed. Last month alone, about 3,500 Iraqis died violently, the highest monthly civilian toll so far. Bush's approval rating has slumped to the lowest point of his presidency, and Republicans are concerned that they could lose control of Congress because of voters' unhappiness.

Mr. Bush said if you think the situation is bad now, it would be chaos if the U.S. left early, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports. But the president said he was frustrated by the war at times.

"War is not a time of joy," he said. "These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists."

But Mr. Bush said he agreed with Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, that if "we leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here." A failed Iraq would provide a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenue from oil sales, President Bush said.

In response, Democrats said it was time for a new direction and Mr. Bush should begin redeploying troops this year.

"Our soldiers in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, force protection of U.S. personnel and training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said, "Far from spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East, the Bush administration has watched while extremists grow stronger, Iran goes nuclear, Iraq falls into civil war and oil and gas prices skyrocket. Simply staying the course is unacceptable."

President Bush said differences over Iraq provide "an interesting debate." "There's a lot of people — good, decent people — saying 'withdraw now.' They're absolutely wrong. ... We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake."

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[getagrip54]

Bush apologists amaze me. How can anyone look at his foreign and domestic records and say that he represents the majority of the American people. His "War on terror" has only created more terrorists. He claims that the US in Iraq to promote "freedom" but during his term in office the American people have lost much of their own fredom to a newly-created security industry gone wild. His war is creating a massive federal debt that will take decades to repay. New Orleans is till in ruins, its residents scattered over the country because the Federal response to Katrina has been totally inadequate. Without a doubt Bush jr. will be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in US history. He may be a nice guy but he's a disaster for the country.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." (John Stuart Mill)

[emsprater]

I hate to burst your bubble there, but I never stated any of the things you attribute to me. Bush is a dolt. GO back and read my post again. I can't believe after all that's been learned since we bagan this foolish invasion of Iraq that there are still good folks out there who are so blind that they can't see the truth when it hits them in the face, even when in a news conference from their own idiot.

emsprater: You are fresh air. Thank you for being strongly conservative and respecting the President and his role.

When we got involved in IRAQ we did it to help the IRAQI people. They had begged the the UNITED STATES to intervene on their behalf.

I agree with emsprater that the oil and HALLIBURTON argument is for those who are copying the words of left wing radicals and they don't really know the issues. If this obnoxious group of people would study the issues instead of mouth the words they would learn something. The left wingers have dummied down the average liberal thereby allowing their lies about the President and his policies to take root in these empty headed fools.


Posted by CarlyLaine at 05:47 AM : Aug 22, 2006

[boredatwork5]

Amazing how people 'forget' the past and blindly play follow the leader. The government does not care about me, or you. The government (Donald Rumsfeld and his gang) cares only about money and power and the everlasting possession of it as long as they live. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to accomplish this goal, we and everyone else be damned. Mark my words.

Read the article (link below) if you care to know why/how my opinions are formed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

Adolf Hitler said:
"What good fortune for governments that people do not think."

Herman Goering said:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

Joseph Goebbels said:
%u201CIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.%u201D

[sharncedar]

"But in order to have PEACE there must be war. "

That's kind of wrong. Let's step back a little. We the citizens have I think a very similar idea - peace and justice prevaling. That's what we might call the middle class ethic. Pax and Justicae.

But, that's a middle class ethic. There are people who are not middle class. People who don't want peace, particularily, they want power, wealth, growth for their investments, orgies of greed and lust, change, chaos, injustice. These are the very rich and the very poor. Your friend in office, despite his sales job, has never been middle class in his life. Never,for example, held a job except for ownership of a baseball team his rich friends gave him. Letting New Orleans die, for example, is typical arrogant Nero style. Middle class guys roll up their sleeves and fix problems.

I must admit I saw a liberal on TV yesterday, and wanted to puke. Again, a person without middle class values.

So let's stand together and not be divided by the super wealthy, the inheritance crowd. War generally doesn't lead to peace, it leads to more war, deeper angers, and more violence in a cycle. That said, the elitists liberals are certainly not for peace, which is why they never spoke up.

[carlylaine]

grazinggoat

Typical liberal. I can see you turning beet red jumping up and down and drooling.

They call the truth a lie and a lie the truth. What FOOLS these LIBERALS be.

ourtomorrows is obviously a well-read individual.

No one wants war. But in order to have PEACE there must be war.

There was an attempt on the WORLD TRADE CENTER when CLINTON was President. He tried to use the law to control the terrorists.
The COLE was bombed, he did nothing.

I wonder what you (liberals) would do if someone held you at knifepoint, cut you up just a little and slapped your face. You'd stand there and let them do it. Because you want peace.

Clinton did nothing. Bush says NO WAY, we'll go after the terrorists and the terroristic regimes. At least he didn't roll over in the name of peace.

President Bush is a man of good character and morals. In my lifetime I have seen four fantastic presidents-Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

[carlylaine]

emsprater: You are fresh air. Thank you for being strongly conservative and respecting the President and his role.

When we got involved in IRAQ we did it to help the IRAQI people. They had begged the the UNITED STATES to intervene on their behalf.

I agree with emsprater that the oil and HALLIBURTON argument is for those who are copying the words of left wing radicals and they don't really know the issues. If this obnoxious group of people would study the issues instead of mouth the words they would learn something. The left wingers have dummied down the average liberal thereby allowing their lies about the President and his policies to take root in these empty headed fools.

[grazinggoat]

ourtomorrows and chip chop cheung, what a psycho bloodsuckers U are... How many shares you have in the Oil industry? Or maybe in the arms and violence industry? Maybe you don't know how much, you have a selective memory, you just remember to spit your poison on terrorsits who, I remind you, you Alzheimer sufferers, did not exist before the previous 20-30 yrs or so. You were so proud of them when they kicked, and I say kicked, the Russian armies out of Afghanistan, just the same way theyll kick the US armys poor soldiers out.

[ourtomorrows]

7. You say--The "objective" Bush has stated for Iraq is untenable. You can not force "democracy" on a people, it must occur naturally from within. The only way democracy will flourish there is for us to leave and for the people to organically grow the democracy; if that's what they want/can tolerate.
So, I gather you opposed the war to begin with,fine. But you also oppose us trying to help Iraq rebuild. Sooooooooo, for you what woudl be best is to just pull right out before the Iraqui government and army is strong enough to stand ontheir own, and let a bunch of Iranian backed terrorists help drive the country into civil war. So, what you are saying I guess is that it is okay for Iran to support bands of murderers but it is bad for the US to try to help the LEGALLY ELECTED Iraqui government gain the tools they need to protect their people. Maybe we should have left the Germans in the rubble of and just "waited to see" what would happen. Now, just a minute, something about Germany, what is it, oh yes, real democracy came to Germany and to an extent Japan as a result of World War I and II for Germany and World War II for Japan. And they are all the worse for it, having the second and third most powerful economies in the world must really suck.

[ourtomorrows]

3. Iraq invaded Kuwait with the full fore-knowledge and stated indifference from the U.S.
Where exactly did you get this and what is the evidence that supports this claim?

4. You say--Iraq was only a stable country because of Saddam Hussein. He was, for lack of a better term, a common enemy for all the people. He was powerful enough to fend of attacks and keep the factions from attacking each other. U.S. troops have now taken on that "common enemy" role.
Which does not justify anything. One could point out that the bloodiest attacks in the last three months have been directed against other Iraquis, not against us.
5. You say--More "innocent" Iraqis have died in the last 3 years by American hands than would have by Saddam's. Where's the better life?
How could you possibly make this statement. You have no idea what Saddam would or would not have done.

6. You say--If Saddam is to be convicted of war crimes for keeping the country from an ethnic civil war, then we also need to posthumously convict Winston Churchill who committed the same acts as Saddam (gassing Kurds, political prisoners, etc) when Britain occupied Iraq.
Okay, no here you just cross the line. Comparing
Churchill to Hussein is ignorant and absurd. Were it not for Winston Churchill you my friend might be posting this in German, or actually wait, no, this type of thing would not exist.

[ourtomorrows]

To gerardrjj

You posted the following facts, but I have some questions

Facts:

1. You say--Iraq, and the entire middle-east region, is mired in social/religious turmoil and has been for millennia.
Eh, no. Actually, the middle east experienced periods of stability and relative peace over the course of the last 1000 years. There were decades, even centuries under the auspices of the Ottoman sultans in which the Middle East enjoyed relative calm and general domestic stability. You might try checking your history.

2. You say--Iraq had zero involvement in Sep. 11 attacks in the U.S.
That could very well be right. But, the papers being released under the freedom of information act of those seized by coalition forces seem to tell a somewhat different story. We will only know for sure when all have been released and examined. You can conclusively say that since all the evidence has not been full evaluated.

3. You say--Iraq had zero government support for any US directed "terrorism".
Again, the papers that are slowly coming out from the Hussein government seem to indicate connections and meetings between members of the Iraqui govt and the Al Quaeda leadership. I don't see how you can make such a statement when there is still so much evidence to be examined and processed.