Bush Headed For Iraq Standoff
President's Pending Plan For Troop Surge May Face Friction In Washington And Baghdad
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Bush Bets On His Iraq Plan
President Bush's strategy for Iraq will apparently include a surge of 20,000 troops. Jim Axelrod reports on a plan that isn't very popular with the American people.
-
Video
Snow: Wait For Bush's Speech
CBS News RAW: White House press secretary Tony Snow urges the American people to wait for President Bush's Iraq strategy plan on Wednesday before engaging in a debate.
-
Video
Bush To Ask For More Troops?
President Bush is expected to ask for additional troops in a speech Wednesday evening. Mr. Bush hopes that more troops will be able to squelch sectarian bloodshed in Baghdad. Aleen Sirgany reports.
-
-
Photo
The White House says President Bush is scheduled to address the nation to unveil his new Iraq strategy on Jan. 10. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
-
Photo
Newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, holds up the gavel while surrounded by children and grandchildren of members of Congress in the Capitol on Jan. 4, 2007. (AP)
-
-
Interactive
Iraq: A Turning Point?
New Congress, change at the Pentagon, study group report; what does the future hold?
-
Photo Essay
In Session
Democrats bask in newfound power as 110th Congress convenes.
-
Interactive
110th Congress
The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports sources say Mr. Bush will call for a surge of troops to Iraq that may total 20,000 additional forces over time. The address is scheduled for 9 p.m. EST.
But the new Democratic-controlled Congress has other ideas — with many key members seeking a reduction in U.S. forces.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.
"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an exclusive interview on Face The Nation.
"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
The idea of sending more troops that is most controversial. A new CBS News poll indicates nearly 6 in 10 Americans either want troop levels lowered or a full withdrawal.
Some American troops on the ground in Iraq have said they need reinforcements to bring the sectarian violence plaguing the country under control.
But CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports the president's new initiative may disappoint them as well.
Logan says the kind of troop surge being discussed in Washington is a far cry from the "exponential" increase deemed necessary by the soldiers and commanders she has spoken to. She reflects that an infusion of U.S. forces last summer to the Iraqi capital actually had the exact opposite of its desired effect on the ground, leading to an increase in violence.
Logan says many in Iraq feel it is simply "too late" to try and make a peaceful country out of Iraq with the present government in place.
Regardless of how many U.S. troops are in Iraq, the key to quelling the violence is reigning in the sectarian militias that roam the streets and attack each other's civilian populations with impunity.
Many believe that senior Iraqi leaders — including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have strong ties to the militias, a situation that Logan points out would make it virtually impossible for his government to try and disarm the groups.
In Washington, when asked about the possibility of cutting off funding for the war, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say whether Democrats might do so, saying only that the current strategy clearly is "not working."
"I don't want to anticipate that," said Hoyer, on "Fox News Sunday."
Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who is critical of the surge, met with Mr. Bush on Monday and says the president understands what's at stake now, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
"I think the president understands the gravity of it. He understands he is betting his presidency, his place in history on this coming out well," Smith said.
Some military officials, familiar with the discussions, say Mr. Bush at first could send 8,000 to 10,000 new troops to Baghdad, and possibly Anbar Province, and leave himself the option of adding more later if security does not improve.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 15 ? June 21
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 441 CommentsTwo brothers bought an apple orchard. They worked all year and got their harvest in. They figured that it cost them $4 a bushel to produce their apples, so they sold their crop for $4 a bushel.
Afterwards, they realized that they hadn't made a dime. One brother suggested that they speak to their accountant about the problem.
The accountant asked them how much it cost them a bushel to produce their apples. They answered $4. He then asked them at what price did they sell their apples. Again, they answered $4.
The accountant said "There's your problem. You need a bigger truck!"
Bush does not have a clue as to how to get out of this without MUD on HIS face. He will do whatever it takes to make it look like it was someone elses fault and that the Congress wouldn't let him do what it would take to resolve this mess. He and Cheney need to be behind bars and the sooner the better!
bin Laden, Sadr and those guys, sing a few
verses of Kumbaya and live happily ever after?
Lots of suggestions to put Bush in a cell, but
no justification for doing so. And don't hand
me that old liberal cliche, "He lied", when you
don't seem to know just what a lie is!
Must have been no liberals around back then. LOL.
Selah
Bush once again demonstrates that he does not care in the least what the will of the people who (perhaps) elected him is. With public opinion leaning toward a departure from Iraq, he instead proposes a troop increase. Does anyone really believe he ever plans to retreat from his failed plan? Why would he? His cronies are making billions ripping of the military, and this troop "surge" will also provide a "surge" in their pocketbooks. That it will invite attack by China or North Korea as our military is now stretched to breaking is a terrifying side effect about which they care not at all.
Bush is a liar, a murderer and a traitor. He should share the same fate as Saddam: removed from office and hanged.
What you see as "media bias" is simply the fact that the Bush administration is a total disaster. There is no good news to report, and yet people continue to ask for more "even-handed" treatment.
Telling the truth is even-handed, and the truth is that Bush is the very worst president this country has ever had. That's not the "left-wing" media's fault; it's his own fault, and that of the morons who voted for him.
What do I wanna do? I wanna quit getting our citizens killed in Iraq for no good reason. Simple enough for you?
You want justification for impeachment? How about illegal wiretapping and torture for starters? Sadly, gross incompetence is not grounds for impeachment. If it were, Hurricane Katrina would provide all the grounds anyone needs.
I'll wait to sing Kumbaya till after both of those despots are gone from Washington.
If you can't see the lies by now, you are either stupid or in denial. But try these, anyway:
1) WMD: a lie. The evidence is overwhelming: the Downing Street Memo, the multiple reports of altered, omitted or ignored intelligence, the blatantly contradictory public statements.
2) Iraq - 9/11 connection: a lie, and one which (again lying) Bush now denies telling.
That's enough right there. He and his cronies lied to Congress, and to the nation. Not about a *******, mind you, but they lied to take us into a war which has cost 3,000 American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and close to $400 billion dollars, so far.
And yet people like you call accusations of lies a "liberal lie". Well, I'm a conservative (which Bush isn't.) He's liar, a murderer, and needs to be impeached and jailed.
Are those reasons enough for you? If not, what would be? Are you really so blind and brainwashed that you can't see this man for the evil lowlife he is?
The only way to save face is to reign in Bush and bring our troops home to really protect America.
Agreed, but understandable. Bush is a strong polarizing force as he deals on the fringe. Those with him on the fringe finally have someone to crow about and they don't care one bit to be labeled as being on the fringe. Bubba made them appear to be mainstream for a while and they wish a continuance of that and are extremely upset that they have been shown to be on the fringe.
Those of us who are not on the fringe strongly resent being dictated to by someone who is.
I'm a right-winger by political philosophy, but an American first. It's not "liberal hate" here that motivates me: it's love for my country. The day Bush entered office, every American lost.
There is no hidden good news for his agenda. It's a disastrous failure for America, which mis-states the case slightly by suggesting that he was actually trying to do some good for the country. His Iraq plan is actually a great success on his terms: he and his cronies are making billions. So what if thousands have to die for that, right? They're just cannon fodder to Bush.
The fact that we are arguing left vs. right instead of uniting as Americans to get rid of thsi traitor shows only that his propaganda machine os of the highest caliber.
Posted by jimibear at 09:41 AM
And that he still has followers who "buy the lie". Good morning, Jimi.
May I point out that Iraq was MORE stable before Bubba's boondoggle than it is now? You call that progress?
And good morning, exusmcgt. Some people will buy any lie that allows them to beat their chests and bellow, "America! F*ck yeah!" I'm afraid.
It's the "Deutschland Uber Alles" mentality. I love this country, but I have travelled in a lot of others, and in no other country I've seen do the people spend so much time and energy proclaiming themelves "the greatest country in the world" and "the greatest country ever" and insisting that anyone who criticizes their country and her actions is jealous. The actually love their countries enough to see them as they are and work to improve them. I wish we'd try a little humility and self-awareness here.
It reeks of insecurity fanned in to jingositic nationalism. It also is more Munich 1933 than I care to think about.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE means just that.
To stop the violence you first have to disarm everyone which should have been done in the beginning. Not enough troops in the beginning or now to do that. If they do not disarm them it is time to leave it is the ONLY solution.
To disarm would require 300,000 more troops and he will never get that now.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
And speaking of progress, independent sources put the number of innocent Iraqi's killed since Bubba's boondoggle at three times what has been attributed to Saddam. As well, while Saddam forced the relocation of 900,000 Iraqis during his tenure, 1,500,000 Iraqis have been displaced thanks to Bubba and the NeoCons.
Progress, indeed.
And who is responsible for that goverment being in power, radiob? Saddam was a secularist who had no time for the religios extremists. He was also a life-long enemy of Iran, and on his best day could never have dreamed of killing as many Iraqis as this war has killed.
Yeah, we've really improved things in the Middle East. And the best Bush & Co. can come up with is, "Well, we've totally f*cked up everything! We can't just leave now! It's a mess over there!"
So your argument is, if I understand you correctly, is to continue pursuing what has been proven to be a destabilizing strategy to obtain stability?
I see why you support Bubba. That's the same type of thinking he employs. If it doesn't work, just keep doing it on a grander scale and it WILL work.
Sure I see the problem, and I see the solution to that problem as well...
SHUT BUSH & CO DOWN!
Their policies so far have been hugely sucessful ...for themselves if for no one else.
Bush got us into a war, that there is no way out of, and when we do pull out of there, we have created another haven for terrorists, more Bin Ladden's.The money, that we have spent on that war would have been better spent here in the United States on national security to protect our citizens.Anyone that believes our country is safer because of the war in Iraq is blind, we are not safer, if anything its the exact opposite..I support the troops over there 100 percent, and feel for all the families who have lost someone over there, and no I do not want to see our Country fail, but that I aggree with what Bush did, and the way he has done it I can not. I think that this has all been for oil, that added to the fact a little measure of revenge for what his Father could not do, take out Saddam.
I would ask how anyone could believe that a disentegrating Iraq is an improvement over a stable Iraq.
Google it, lazy. It's there.
"(1) What will the presidental successor do with Iraq? (2)If the successor goes by the law of the land then do they honestly want that individual as president? Impeachment would place Cheney as President and if then he were to be impeached Pelosi. Neither of these are good alternatives."
Answers:
(1) Get out.
(2) Yes.
Just as Tito's iron fist kept Yugoslavia together until his demise which resulted in it's fracturing into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia, so will go Iraq - regardless of what we do.
My aplogies if I misread you, Sir.
1) Our military was not being shot at in Iraq before this war. We had no military there until this war started. Please try not to be a fool. They are being killed now because Bush & Co sent them there.
2) There are numerous countries all over the world where the people are treated far worse than Saddam ever treated his. Yet we do nothing. The well-being of the Iraqi people had nothing to do with this.
3) Speaking of that, under Saddam, there were basic services in place, and there were not daily bombings, shootings and kidnappings killing hundreds. As someone else has stated, quite apart from the (literally) countless dead, about 1.5 million people have been rendered homeless so far.
4) There was NO evidence of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He did NOT have WMD. Those were lies. Yes, now there is a connection between Iraq, terror and keeping our country safe. According to Israeli intelligence, who have every reason to want this war to succeed, it has in fact roughly quadrupled the number of people who consider themselves active enemies of the US.
Go figure. Kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and other Arabs don't like it. Go figure!
Mis-placed nationalism and lack of thought are blinding you. My hatred of Bush is based on fact, and blinds me to nothing. Your support of him is based on obvious lies and wishful thinking.
You obviously missed our abandoning of Anbar province due to our inability to pacify it.
Shame on you for trying to confuse Xsoldier2 with facts!
You said, "Ask if we can hold our heads up higher when we are overseas since he was in office, hell yes."
An International Herald Tribune poll published on June 13, 2006 reported the following:
"Favorable views of the United States dropped sharply over the past year in Spain, where only 23 percent now say they have a positive opinion, down from 41 percent in 2005, according to the survey, which was carried out in 15 nations this spring by the Pew Research Center. In Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war, positive views of America have remained in the mid-50s in the past two years, still down sharply from 75 percent in 2002.
Other countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent since 2005); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); and Indonesia (30 percent, down from 38 percent).
In Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, only 12 percent said they held a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year."
If you're holding your head up high, it must be covered by a hood.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 441 Comments