Democrats Denounce Bush's Iraq Plan

President Bush's announcement of a military buildup in Iraq puts him on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress.

In a prime-time address to the nation, Mr. Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

The president said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy.

Democrats were quick to respond.

"Escalation is not the change people called for in the last election," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., during a news conference immediately following Mr. Bush's speech. "In ordering more troops in Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his top generals."

"Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq, and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost" he said, adding that "If there's any surge that we need, it's a surge of diplomacy."

He added, "The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that every time they call 911, we're not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers."

Even before Mr. Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress renewed their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. "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 symbolic votes will force every member of Congress to go on the record as either for or against the troop buildup — including some members who are running for president, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

Mr. Bush's plan drew criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.

Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers.

Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia also might be persuaded. Warner said he supports the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which strongly cautioned against an increase in troops unless advocated by military commanders.

On Tuesday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced legislation that would deny the president the money needed to send more troops unless Congress agreed first. It was unclear whether the bill would ever reach the full Senate, but it could serve as a rallying point for critics.

"The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress," Kennedy said. "President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further and send an even larger number of our troops into harm's way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress."

---

Read Sen. Kennedy's bill to prohibit an escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

---

Kennedy called any "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq an "immense new mistake."

The buildup runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some — but not all — top generals.

It comes two months after elections that were widely seen as a call for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. forces from Iraq. Polling by AP-Ipsos in December found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest rating yet.

"He has really put it all on the line," says CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. "The question you have to ask is, 'If this doesn't work, where will he go from there?'"

[inf505pir]

imibear and RandalDS

You two grabastic pieces of *** really amaze me. You would not last more than five minutes in Iraq or any other battlefield because if the enemy didn%u2019t blow your head off I probably would. Don%u2019t ever use any of the Soldiers, Sailors Marines, or Airmen in any of your ridiculous comments ever again. You don%u2019t speak for me and you don%u2019t speak for them. Especially the ones that are gone. You could not hold a glass of water for any of these brave men and woman who are fighting because that is what they have been ordered to do. It%u2019s not some of this dumass blind leadership *** either; it%u2019s about something you will never understand and your not doing us any favors from your ********. In fact, you will not pay any price for this war or the next. You have no *** idea what its like to live in one of those oppressive regimes and you don%u2019t live in one of them now. You two are the perfect example of what%u2019s wrong with the American youth today.

AIRBORNE

[arthurcl1]

That question must keep McCain's advisers up at night. In Vietnam, the right's advice was never followed and, thus, never came up for a vote. When Reagan called Vietnam a "noble cause" in 1980, he was stoking a myth of national innocence and invincibility for which beleaguered Americans yearned. But he could do so precisely because his preferred policies on Vietnam had never been tried. In 2008, by contrast, Iraq won't be a symbolic issue. Americans will still be dying, and the catastrophe will still be deepening, largely because of policies clearly identified with the likely Republican presidential nominee. McCain can claim that, by sending only 20,000 troops, Bush didn't surge enough %u2014 and, thus, his preferred policy didn't fail. But that will look like quibbling. Already, presidential hopeful John Edwards has dubbed Bush's surge "the McCain Doctrine," and, with public support for a surge near single digits, Democrats will likely make that a central thrust of their campaign to retake the White House.

[arthurcl1]

In Iraq, sadly, the troop surge planned by George W. Bush probably won't make much difference. After all, the United States has already surged %u2014 the military sent several thousand more troops to Baghdad last summer %u2014 and the violence only got worse.

Gladys_Over wrote:

"RE: "GW Bush has done to this country what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky." - mcdazz"

"He bought us all a copy of Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass," like Clinton did for Monica ? What a thoughtful gift."

Did "to", not did "for". ;-)

[jimibear]

Exactly, talkingham. Well stated.

[talkingham]

Only a few Dems acn rightfully say they opposed this war. It's important when the others make this argument that they remind the American people that they like all Americans were lied to and mislead as to the reasons for this war, and the media need to stand up and admit that they didn't do their job of fact finding because they were too frightened to bring the people the truth. In the process military industrialists have made a fortune in Iraq - could that have had anything to do with this absurd quagmire - anyone who said we needed more troops to begin with was either fired or retired. It's taken nearly 4 years of war to bring the sorry facts to light-- and we'll never know how much the neo-cons and Bush cronies stole in the process as they "administrered" Iraq. This latest "surge" is little more than a finger in the **** and it's unfortunate that our troops are caught in the worst mess of politics since Vietnam. Heck, I don't think you could subdue any southern state in the US with the number of troops they have in Iraq. We were lied to by the Bush/cheneys of this world and our troops have paid the price.

[randalds]

Thank you, RandalDS. See, there you go: you try to make up something bad about Bush, and it turns out he's actually done something worse.
Posted by jimibear at 03:46 PM : Jan 11, 2007

Sick little fu*ck, isn't he? lol!

[jimibear]

Thank you, RandalDS. See, there you go: you try to make up something bad about Bush, and it turns out he's actually done something worse.

[randalds]

RandalIDs, is that one actually true? I've started adopting the MeoCon policy of just making up random stuff and leaving your opponents to disprove it.

George Bush blinded Helen Keller.
Posted by jimibear at 03:16 PM : Jan 11, 2007

It is true. Bush and his fraternity (he was the rush chairmen) were investigated by the local police at Yale for assult because they burned pledges with cigarettes. Google it and see.

[jimibear]

Actually, this game isn't much fun. Nothing you can make up about Bush is actually as bad as the truth.