Bipartisan Opposition To Bush Troop Surge
Key Republicans Join Top Democrats In Arguing Against Proposal To Increase U.S. Troop Levels In Iraq
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Changes In Bush's Iraq Team
Gloria Borger talks with Katie Couric about President Bush's personnel changes prior to his speech to the country about the War in Iraq.
-
Video
Will Iraq Unite?
Jim Axelrod talks to Katie Couric about the implications of Saddam Hussein's execution on reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. David Martin has the latest on the troop surge.
-
Video
Saddam Video Divides Iraq
The cell phone video of Saddam Hussein's hanging continued to divide a country already plagued by pockets of sectarian violence. Karen Brown reports.
-
-
Photo
Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division wait in line to board their plane at Pope Air Force Base, January 3, 2007 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Approximately 3,300 members of the 82nd Airborne Division will be deployed to Kuwait by the end of this week. (Getty Images/Logan Mock-Bunting)
-
Photo
Walter Wilkus, center, and his wife, Sharon Wilkus, left center, sit with others near the flag-draped casket of their son, Army Pfc. Eric R. Wilkus during a funeral service at Brigadier General William C. Doyle Veterans Memorial Cemetery on Friday, Jan. 5, 2007, in Wrightstown, N.J. Wilkus died Christmas morning from injuries he sustained in Iraq. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
-
-
Interactive
Iraq: A Turning Point?
New Congress, change at the Pentagon, study group report; what does the future hold?
-
Photo Essay
Saddam's Final Moments
Saddam Hussein went to the gallows Dec. 30, 2006. Contains photos some may find disturbing.
-
Interactive
Iraq Study Group Report
Bipartisan commission warns that situation is "grave and deteriorating."
Next week Bush will unveil a new Iraq strategy that entails political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone.
Bush also reshuffled his military commanders, tapping fresh faces to lead the war effort.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress.
"Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake," Reid said in the Democratic radio address Saturday. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.
"Our troops and their families have already sacrificed a great deal for Iraq," Reid said. "They have done their part. It's time for the Iraqis to do their part."
Bush told more than a dozen senators Friday that he would settle on the option only if the Iraqi government offered certain guarantees, according to senators who attended the meeting.
While lawmakers said they were willing to wait and see the entirety of Bush's plan before dismissing it entirely, members — including some Republicans — said they remained deeply skeptical about sending more troops.
"My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president.
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."
"I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that's the greatest weakness that we have right now," Wilson said. "We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests. American troops should only go in harm's way to protect America's vital interests."
Even Sen. John McCain, a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.
"I need to know if it's enough or not," McCain said.
McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said they think at a minimum another three to five brigades should be sent to Baghdad and one more to Anbar province. About 3,500 troops are in a brigade. About 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now.
Sen. Ben Nelson, who was among the small group of senators who met with the president Friday, said he felt Bush was aware of the high stakes and knew he would have to sell any plan to the American public. Bush suggested to the senators there would be "the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal 'or else,'" said Nelson (D-Neb.).
But Nelson said he and others remained reluctant to endorse any plan that would further stretch the military.
"I don't think there was anything partisan about the skepticism," he said.
Briefings with lawmakers were expected to continue through next week, culminating in a meeting with bipartisan leadership Wednesday, according to lawmakers and aides.
To implement his changed policy in Iraq, Bush is tapping new generals to lead the military campaign.
Bush will nominate Adm. William Fallon, who commands American forces in the Pacific, to replace Gen. John Abizaid as top U.S. commander in the Middle East. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, is slated to replace Gen. George Casey as top American general in Iraq. Casey in turn will replace the retiring Gen. Peter Schoomaker as Army chief of staff.
Lawmakers said they were pleased with Bush's selections.
"I hope he matches it with a new strategy that will shift responsibility for security to Iraqis and begin the responsible redeployment of American forces," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
G8 Summit On Environment
-
Video
A Presidential Mistep
-
Video
Washington Unplugged 7-9-09
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 146 CommentsBush has shown that the only thing he's good at is digging us into huge holes. Now he's just asking for a bigger shovel.
When all you bumper-sticker patriots start calling for raising taxes to pay for this war and a draft to fight it, maybe then you'll be taken seriously. Your all for staying the course as long as you don't have to pay or fight. Right now we're borrowing the money from China and sending the children of the poor to fight. Put up or shut up.
Posted by rplat"
Yeah right, more than enough to thwart King George's "plan", forget that it takes MONTHS to train and recruit because we don't HAVE 20,000 we can simply send over.
King George's days of free spending our money like a drunken *** are FINISHED. Iraq won't bother trying to take control, why should they? they have *US* idiots footing the bills for their security, policing, "training" fixing their schools, water, electric, roads and infrastructure.
We are an annoyance but we come with LOADS of cash and free food while they sit on the richest oil fields in the world and pay nothing while OUR debt has doubled.
Posted by rplat"
Yeah right, more than enough to thwart King George's "plan", forget that it takes MONTHS to train and recruit because we don't HAVE 20,000 we can simply send over.
King George's days of free spending our money like a drunken slvt are FINISHED. Iraq won't bother trying to take control, why should they? they have *US* idiots footing the bills for their security, policing, "training" fixing their schools, water, electric, roads and infrastructure.
We are an annoyance but we come with LOADS of cash and free food while they sit on the richest oil fields in the world and pay nothing while OUR debt has doubled.
you beat me to it with that bigger shovel frankly6!
it seems bill clinton's defintion of an extremist ideologue is being manisfested in george bush.
paraphrasing what clinton said in a speech at georgetown:
a conservative is someone who digs themselves into a hole and asks for help out of it. an ideologue asks for a bigger shovel.
bush is asking for his bigger shovel!
the bible says to agree with your enemy while you're in the way with him. why would it say that? it says it because you can pursuade people better through agreement than with violence. bush's problem is that it's his way or no way. how can those problems be solved if you won't even talk to the people involved? making ultimatums and requirements for discussions makes no sense at all!
:(
Why are we even over there?! If we (meaning Dubbyuh) had gone after the real criminal behind 9/11 instead of engaging in an infantile revenge fantasy (anyone remember "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy"?) we would not now be fueling Bush's obsessive war games with the bodies of our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters.
And speaking of daughters, aren't the Bush twins of an age to join the military? Let's send them over to fight and be mutilated or killed, and see how quickly Dubbyuh wakes up to the brutal realities of war.
Ironically, the climactic battles for Iraq will not only be taking place in Baghdad and Anbar province, they will also be taking place in Washington.
Cynical as it seems, the President will play a deadly game of "chicken" to get what he wants. He is at liberty to send additional troops to Iraq. But what about war funding? Well there will be a new appropriations bill before Congress around about February. Will the Democratic controlled Congress exercise it's option to cut off appropriations for the war? I don't think so. They would not dare. Much as the Democrats were swept into power in a wave of popular opposition to the Iraq war, they understand "real politick."
If as I suspect, the Democrats pass a further appropriations bill, Bush will have fresh resources for his "new way forward." With time running out on his Presidency, Bush can afford to call the bluff of Congress again and again and again. The fact is that as much as the President faces disgrace over this war, the Democrats now run a real risk of being disgraced along with him.
The Democrats will bluster from the sidelines and the Prsident will bluster from the centre. But there will be no timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
What happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. We gave them a foothold on democracy. We can't babysit them forever.
The President is right in that we do run a risk in leaving. It seems Sadr is the current strongman with the most power. I suppose it is possible that he will fill the vacuum once we leave as the new dictator.
I would think Iran will also continue to try to reign influence in the region I would think, upon our exit. Extending its arm of Shiite power into the anarchy of Iraq as it has done in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere.
This is another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into...
The guy wants to be President, and while he has sparks of brilliance, it is more often than not offshot by foot in mouth disease or just plain stupidity.
This is a guy who lives in Arizona, knows *** well the gravity of the ILLEGAL problem, yet advocates Amnesty - and giving a pass to those who are already here and don't speak nor wish to the English language, let alone become citizens.
He and his rich wifey have never set foot in a Wal-Mart west of their home - maybe even not all, for he has no great depth for the problem.
And now, the guy who advocated more "boots on the ground" is talking like his Dem friends. Tell us exactly what you want, John - or tell us why we should vote for you as President since you don't appear to be very consistent in your views.
The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
Thomas Jefferson
McCain has a good point, He supports more troops, not a few more.
I think he sees what Bush is doing as trying to catch a football with one hand or maybe a finger or two.
Its dopey. McCains view is either all in or all out. That idea has merit.
On my part, I think we should have had the decency to declare war on Iraq, or perhaps recessitated something that is in the Constitution: Letters of Marque, and subcontracted this war on terrorism, in part, to private individuals, since we don't seem to have the will ourselves.
It would have been less of a headache, and created less confusion.
You seem to be an Aaron Burr in the making? Are you seeking a Hamilton to assasinate?
On Jeffereson:
braggert, slave owner and rapist I can not say as I wasn't in his house at the time.
I know he never denied having fathered bi-racial children when asked by the press, though that was to his own political detriment.
If he was or not it doesn't change that we are enjoying the fruit of his labor with this blog.
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.
Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions, 1803
You GO Girl!!!!
If things are betting better(sic)in Iraq-- he wants to send more troops in (perhaps to firm up the win). He has said before that things were under control or getting better--and following that wanted more troops.
Alternately, if things are going...bad in Iraq,
the "President" says we should send more troops in.
Its simple.
Apparently to Bush, once he decides he wants more troops, he should get what he wants, regardless of the silly Congress, or the silly Republicans AND Democrats,or the people of the United States of America, or everyone on earth, or even his dog and his wife.
He has said as much.
Lets set in motion the machinery to remove him from office and not wait for the next election (if there is one)--and regain our self respect as a country.
If the Democrats are as good as they claim--and I believe they may be-- THEY SHOULD ACT NOW.
If any President ever needed to be reigned in, this is The One.
If we let this President slide--we will become accomplices. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE RIGHT NOW --not just in the next election.
No one has the tools to fix a permanent blunder.
It has to stop.
Yes I agree McCain has put forward a clear proposal of his own. He has also contrasted this with that of the President's by suggesting that, for reasons of political expediency, Bush may opt for a half measure in his troop "surge."
I think McCain is a well meaning, if slightly misguided, old geezer. At least he has the courage to admit that things in Iraq have reached critical mass and understands that we are facing a tough rescue mission not a victory parade.
Despite his candour, I respectfully disagree with the Senator. He is essentially proposing that we re-occupy Iraq (assuming that Iraq is not still under occupation). As a comparator, it is a bit like flattening Sadr City with carpet bombing. Yes it would destroy all and any resistance, but it is both unthinkable and unworkable.
But it says something about the level of utter desperation and or delusion that prevails, that people in positions of power and influence are actually proposing quasi-re-occupation. Even if it is at the invitation of the Iraq government.
Nevertheless, we are where we are.
do admit that Jefferson was in a position of power when he had *** with Hemmings and/or others. I tcould be see as rape as such.
But it also possible that the slaves may have thought that *** with Jefferson may have put them in a higher social standing in the 18th century and a way out of abject slavery.
But why are we chatting about this? I thought this news story was about teh Bush troop surge.
My bad, lol.
As Burr--The founding fathers could be annaly honaorable evne unto death. Hamilton chose death over dishonor I suppose.
Burr tried to fromaulate his own lit empire out in Arizona before he was exposed.
Are you forming a little empire of yurpallid?
If so whats the tax structure? ; ) Maybe I'll move from NY. Probably wouldn't be worse, lol
And it doesn't matter whether it costs thousands more American lives to him!
The war is over, you've achieved your goal of removing Saddam, and delivered the country to the terrorists and mullahs. Now let's just cut our losses and get out!
I agree. certainly don't want to see a war of conquest in Iraq.
McCain atleast does see that the American people have had enough of poor leadership.
I think a war of full measures has some dynamics that interlock with the Enlightnemnet Age idea that a that a governent rules only by the consent of the governed.
If we went in full force to crush Iraq in a war of attrition we would be much more likely to crush the fighting spirit of the anarchists/rebels there. As such in a year or two a peaceful and more democratic Iraq could be more likely becuse we may recieve "consent" of the governed. As happened in Germany and Japan 1945, the American South 1865, Germany 1918.
Just another desperate move by a delusional President trying to save his "legacy."
To be fair don't you think he may be also trying to salve his own conciense? WE and ahim are responsible for the deaths of 3006 American soldiers and untold Iraqis.
And the president has a point that pulling out will leave an uncertain future for the Middle East and a possible fertile land for the able leadership of terrorist groups.
But so far, he and we have failed in Iraq miserably.
You can flash whatever pedigree you like; my dog's pedigree is equally lengthy and tedious. Are you suggesting that because your ancestors lacked ambition you have more rights than someone newly and legally nationalized?
You are attempting to detract attention from Bush's huge, oedipally-driven blunder by changing the subject. The subject remains whether or not Dubbyuh should be allowed to destroy more families in an effort to prove that he is a man. And I still say NO.
"Why is it that it only takes 6-8 weeks of basic military training to send someone to Iraq to fight and it takes months to train the Iraqis? Hell they already how to pull a trigger and they have shown that they how to use explosives?"
Just trying to keep this discussion on topic (not to mention that I wholeheartedly agree!)
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 9:16 a.m. CT Jan 3, 2007
If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?
Would you at least protest?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them %u2014 and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush%u2019s %u201Cnew Iraq strategy,%u201D and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and %u201Csacrifice.%u201D
The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.
He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.
If the BBC is right %u2014 and we can only pray it is not %u2014 he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for %u201Csacrifice.%u201D
Isn't it possible that for Bush, giving up on the Iraq war would mean accepting having led a few thousand American soldiers to their deaths in defeat?
While I don't agree that a few thousand new troops will likely change things, I can understand why the president would not want to give this war--its a terrible thing to have to live with as a man, but it is also distributed to us too--as this is a democracy
Yurpalid: Pedigree does not mean too much in this country, and your forefathers made it so.
If you cherish family name and honor this much you may be the one who would find a happier time moving. Perhaps to England or another constitutional monarchy that holds such things in higher esteem.
Your other point is also valid; we as a nation are responsible for the actions of those we allow to hold office. If they prove to be inept or evil, we should remove them.
I also agree with those who have pointed out that an immediate withdrawal would be disasterous; a withdrawal must be carefully planned, especially when troops have been deployed without a clearcut goal and an exit strategy. However, I fail to see how sending more troops will effect any sort of withdrawal. Have you ever heard the saying, "putting out a fire with gasoline"?
"To be fair don't you think he may be also trying to salve his own conciense?"
If you just caused the needless deaths of 3006 people, how would you "save" your conscience by sending even more to be slaughtered?
To save his conscience he needs to atone for his mistakes, not broaden this war and put more American lives in danger.
I'm not saying that what Bush is doing is right , just tryinmg to understand the man.
It could be that by extending the war he can rationalize to himself that a victory is possible and his conscience (thanks for the spelling help : ) would have a way out.
As complicated as this situation is, I'm afraid it may come down to somehing as simple as America having hired someone who is really really bad at his job when it comes to commander-in-chief.
Much like hiring a really really bad plumber or electrician.
Except , I'm thinking, a plumber would have to be really really really poor at his job to get 3000+ killed.
I'm a republican, but an American. I think for myself.
*** Carl Rove : )
For Bush to "demand" certian promises from the Iraqi governmant before he pulls out, is insane.
Interesting analogy for sure!
Frankly I am not surprised by the passions that have been aroused by this war. The dissent which is growing has crossed the political divide. It does not distinguish between civillian or military, retired or active service. Yet, I am astonished that those who exercise their right to fall four-square behind the President brand as "liberal" and "unpatriotic" those who exercise their right to dissent.
I am always deeply suspicious of those who name call. It is often the default position of people who either have a weak or no arguement at all. I have previously posted, that dissent is a key test of a healthy democracy.
A people that abdicate their right to dissent (vote, campaign, lobby) invite their leaders to subjugate them and abuse power. Therefore, those who know they should dissent and choose not to do so, ought not to be surprised when their freedoms and liberties are curtailed through draconian legislation or extra-constitutional measures.
It takes courage and patriotism to dissent. It is far easier to acquiesce and stay silent.
I hope I'm not coming off sounding as though I'm attacking you. You are not the enemy here, Bush is. And I was being serious when I wrote that you have a valid point - or would, if such things as moral decency were a part of the Bush credo.
It's good to see both sides of an argument, and I do appreciate your search for some motive for Bush's serial killing spree that makes even the remotest bit of sense.
delusional: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
An apt description of our President. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he still persists in his belief that victory is achievable and that the war is worth it. And after sacrificing 3006 American lives needlessly, he still wants to send more to their deaths. As if there are not enough American sitting-duck targets in Banghdad already.
When will he come to his senses? That his massive mistake has been a disaster for the American people; thousands are mourning for their loved ones, thousands have lost limbs, not to mention the untold billions spent in the process.
And the sickest part of this nightmare is that while thosands are suffering, he and his family is enjoying the good life in Washington, in Crawford, daughters gallivanting in Argentina.
The Bush legacy are the stories of 3006 (and counting) dead Americans and the tens of thousand dead Iraqis.
I can't wait to see his Presidential library. Let's make sure the driveway is flanked by the gravestones of all those he killed while he was in office.
I think you are spot on. Senator Joe Biden seems to think so. He is suggesting that the Whitehouse has a lready conceded that the war is now lost and that the "troop surge" is merely a comb-over to 2009.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 146 Comments