Democrats Denounce Bush's Iraq Plan
Senate Majority Whip Says President "Ignoring" Advice, Urges "Surge Of Diplomacy"
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Bush: Pledge Not Open-Ended
In his speech to the nation, President Bush cautioned the Iraqi government to take greater responsibility and said America's commitment "is not open-ended."
-
Video
Bush: New Approach In Iraq
President Bush told the nation the U.S. will increase training of Iraqi forces, provide more American advisers to Iraq's army and aid local reconstruction efforts.
-
Video
Bush's Plans To Secure Baghdad
In his speech, President Bush said military commanders have reviewed plans to stem the violence in Baghdad. A new effort puts a greater Iraqi military and police presence in the city.
-
-
Photo
Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., watches President Bush's address shortly before responding in a news conference on Capitol Hill, Jan. 10, 2007. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
-
Photo
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., responds to questions at a news conference following President Bush's announcement of a military buildup in Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007.. (CBS)
-
Photo
Democratic leaders, from left, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, talk to reporters outside the White House on Jan. 10, 2007, following a meeting with President Bush to discuss his revised Iraq strategy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
-
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.
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, were 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."
Kennedy called any "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq an "immense new mistake."Read Sen. Kennedy's bill to prohibit an escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
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?'"
© 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
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
Read Sen. Kennedy's bill to prohibit an escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 176 CommentsOooooooH!
A nonbinding slap on the wrist. How impressive! What's the matter Harry? You have rubber teeth?
Don't waste our time with nonbinding resolutions. They don't mean squat and both you and the Oval Office Pinocchio know it. This isn't the beginning of anything. Either take real action or shut up.
1. Massive debt
2. 3000+ dead
3. Lost respect of other world leaders
4. Increased hatred of US thus making us less safe.
This is just for starters. Congress dropped the ball bigtime, and now we are paying for their lack of oversight.
"This whole thing could wind up in a constitutional crisis. You know, the Congress has the right to cut off money for anything. And if they have the political will to do that, they have the constitutional ability to do that and what does a president do after that? Where does he go from there?"
I'll tell you where he goes. He goes back to our Oval Office and does exactly what the Congress and the people have told him to do. Nothing more and certainly NOTHING less!
We either need to take the handcuffs off, take on the militias who are perpetrating most of these killings...or go home. We can get the job done;
Can we say SUPEONA POWER?
I too, support you and wish you and your comrades a safe return. Going after the militias is what should have happened the very second they started sticking their heads out of the sand. But what happened? The brass holed up in the Green Zone and sent you out in underarmored Humvees to be rolling targets and bomb bait. They let al-Maliki block off access to Sadr City, making that area a green zone for the Shiite militia.
The only reason we have a battle in Baghdad today is for the photo ops it gives just prior to the president%u2019s speech. This whole enterprise has been too little, too late, and on the cheap for everyone except Haliburton & friends ever since it began.
If there is anything wrong with government in America, we should blame congress. The buck stops there. If we want reform, we should expect it from congress and hold our representatives accountable. Put the pressure on congress.
So, what else is news with Nancy "Fancy-Pants" Pelosi and her liberal lackeys?
What you are saying is you need to get tough and crack down on the Shiite militias. That would be ....... exactly what Saddam Hussein just hung by the neck and died for.
So, is it OK for us to do it, but Saddam Huessein must die for it? Or will we somehow "get tough" in a nice, civilized way.
It's no win for us. George Bush has set this into an impossible situation. He acts like he is a moral authority, which means we can't do our job in a tough way.
Why not just leave Saddam Hussein there? He was controlling the militias fine, with less collateral damage than we are causing. Are we going to be more violent than Saddam now, because that is the only way to get this back under control.
Or if we just hang our despot by the neck, then bring our kids home.
Posted by SharnCedar at 12:51 PM : Jan 10, 2007
Bravo and amen!
If we pull out and a civil war starts / continues, that blood bath will not be any worse than it already is.
All of you who want to "stay the course" in Iraq: Keep in mind while you are at home rooting for the home team, more people are dying. a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003" The latest number for Iraqi casualties is anywhere from as little as 150,000 all the way to 655,000 people. /a
As far as keeping our homeland safe from "terror attacks", we have the Administration and the previous congress to thank for the programs that where instated in order to keep America "safe". We should have all the protection we need from "terrorists".
Here is the link that I was trying to post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
Where in the hell are they going to work? If they keep blowing everything up there will no where to work and don't we already have enough rag heads working in our 711's
Try this on for size:
"Bush ties up US Military in Iraqi Civil War, US interests left Unprotected."
"Billions in Iraqi Reconstruction, No funds left to screen Cargo Ships in US Ports."
"US Generals Express Doubts that "Surge" will work, Bush overrules Commanders' Opinion."
Question, though ... Bush's nose looks relatively normal. What grows when he lies? Does it explain Laura's perma-grin and look of dazed satisfaction?
This was from an ex-military man. Well, now who's sending us to war? An oilman and the former board member of the largest contractor to the military.
Coincidence? No, of course not. We are governed by war profiteers.
Saddam was a bad man, sure. Of course, he was a bad man that Reagan and Bush I put in power and armed, but hey ... who's counting?
As for predicting this would be a long, hard fight: that was the "war on terror" as a whole, not the Iraq war. Bush predicted the Iraq war would be a lightning victory of "Shock and awe".
As for the "mission accomplished" sign ... whatever. If you view that as the truth in any way, you are beyond hope.
People like you, who twist reality to suit their ideas rather than forming their ideas based on reality, are called "delusional" or, in my vocabulary, "f*cking scary". Even when Bush supporters try to name the truths George has uttered, they end up recycling or creating lies.
And three, four, five truths? What are we one Sesame Street here? Even if any of what you listed was an actual truth, the idea that we could easily sit and count, on our fingers if necessary, the true statements a president has made in 6 years would be an indictment in itself.
First he told us he would listen to his military leaders...Army chief of Staff Gen Eric Shinseki told them they would need more troops and SecDef Rumsfeld forced him into retirement. Then they proceeded to run this mess right into the ground with Rumsfeld's micromanagement ala McNamara...
Now, senior military leadership voices opposition to an escalation of forces (hey, let's call it what it is) and Gens. Abazaid and Casey are now being replaced. Really listening to the troops on this one...Again....
The President is to acknowledge the lack of sufficient troops in the beginning, but last month lavished praise on Rumsfeld for his handling of everything...and let's not forget VP Chaney's comment about Rummy being the best SecDef ever...
IF he had listened to the military leaders as he SAID, this whole quagmire may not have occurred...and maybe 3,000+ American kids wouldn't lie dead, with another 20,000 wounded...And lets not forget the estimates of 100,000 Iraqi people dead and millions displaced.
It is tantamount to murder in the name of oil and defense contractors...Policy made by a former inept oil man and leader of the largest military contractor...
These clowns are CLUELESS...not very proud of the leadership of this country.
Nope Laura's grin is just the opposite...Dumbya wears glasses...thick ones...we know why LOL
The Middle East has been at war with itself for thousands of years and will immediately return to the same upon our removal. It is totally unrealistic to think that we have the capacity to change the dynamics of this area of the world no matter what our excuses are for invading their areas.
The current administartion is directly responsible for killing enough of our own boys and enough of their civilian population who were doing nothing wrong to justify what happened. This "collateral damage" routine simply doesn't cut it!
Nope Laura's grin is just the opposite...Dumbya wears glasses...thick ones...we know why LOL
Posted by luvNY at 03:42 PM : Jan 10, 2007
No, but it does explain why Condi sticks by him.
;-)
Stop this guy by cutting off all funds from any source.
All Texas representatives and senators are republican wimps who are afraid to voice any opposition to the president and mindlessly snif along his path like a puppy dog. Which means the rest of the nation has to get rid of this guy in the whitehouse who is bucking the public because he is on the fourth of his presidency and feels he can override public opinion at his singular will.
bush fancies himself as the president of Iraq and America and he needs to be thrown out of office. Send him and his new library to baghdad.
Maybe it is time to send his two daughters to Iraq in the Army. He might wake up.
Posted by jimibear at 02:47 PM : Jan 10, 2007
Actually that would be the wonders of modern medicine. With the right pills even a stepford wife robot like her can look close to normal. Nothing seems to be growing on Bush much, because Condi is his mistress but she only looks happy because she's close to "the man", not because of any real satisfaction from it.
Thanks for your good words and support, even if we don't agree on the issue. Regarding the comment (you will have to excuse me because I did not note the name of the person who posted it) on going after the militias...there is a better precedent for it than what Saddam did. By the time that Saddam took power, the Shia community was involved in an internal power struggle revolving primarily around the ascent of the Iraqi Communist Party(largely Shia in composition), and the imapact of the rise of such parties on the political composition of the community. They were weak, and without resources. Muqata al-Sadr is an heir to the reaction against the emergence of modern political parties.
Anyway, the example follows:
In the late 1800, after the mass conversion, you had militias running Najaf and Karbala, respectively, and, once the Ottomans reexerted authority over the area, the did so with a combination of overwhelming, sustained force, and public works (mostly irrigation facilitied due to the widespread calficiation of the irrigation cannals at that point, which accounted for a great deal of Shia migration north.
Taking the handcuffs off is identifying them as the enemy and taking the neccessary steps to eliminate them by any and all means available.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
It was Sen.Kennedy's Brother John that sent the first of our troops into Vietnam, what does he say about that?
How about another scotch and soda Senator, so you can drive another young girl of a pier to her death?
The President can send the troops where they are needed.
Kennedy already killed a young girl with his drinking and driving, how many troops will he kill because of lack of funds for the tools they need?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 176 Comments