Bush: "I'm The Decision Maker" On Iraq
President Challenges Congress Not To Condemn His Plan Before It's Had A Chance To Work
-
Play CBS Video Video Bush: 'I'm The Decision-Maker' CBS News RAW: In a meeting with military advisers, President Bush said he is the "decision-maker" about sending more troops to Iraq.
-
Video Crackdown On Iraq Violence Iraqi forces and U.S. troops have launched a major crackdown on violence in Iraq, while politicians in Washington debate over increasing troop deployment. Gwen Belton reports.
-
Video A Model Neighborhood In Iraq Lara Logan joined a group of U.S. soldiers as they provided much-needed supplies to residents in a Sunni area. She soon saw how humanitarian missions can turn into scenes of chaos.
-
-
Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the incoming commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, left, watches as President Bush speaks during a meeting in the White House on Jan. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
-
President Bush, right, meets with, from left, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the newly confirmed commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, at the White House on Jan. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
-
-
Interactive New Plan For Iraq Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Mr. Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.
The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas. "Some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," he said.
Mr. Bush said lawmakers agree that failure in Iraq would be a disaster and that he chose a strategy that he and his advisers thought would help turn the tide in Iraq.
The president met with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq.
"My instruction to him was 'Get over to the zone as quickly as possible, and implement a plan that will achieve our goals,"' Mr. Bush said.
"You're going into an important battle in the war on terror," he told Petraeus.
During a photo opportunity, Mr. Bush was asked about stepped-up activities in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.
Mr. Bush defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.
"That's a presumption that's simply not accurate," Mr. Bush said.
But he added: "Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense."
The majority of senators oppose sending more troops to Iraq and have grave doubts about the change in strategy the president chose Petraeus to implement, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. But they voted unanimously – 81-0 – to promote the general and send him over there to do his best.
"It's going to be an extremely complex mission," Sen. John Warner, a leading Republican on defense issues, said of the task awaiting Petraeus.
But in Mr. Bush's defense, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that any congressional action restricting the president's plan to add troops "emboldens the enemy."
Warner, who has crafted a bipartisan resolution saying the Senate opposes the troop increase, said he hopes American troops will be instructed that "wherever possible, the Iraqis should bear the brunt of the sectarian violence."
In testimony to Congress this week, Petraeus said the situation in Iraq is "dire" but said he believed Mr. Bush's strategy would work – assuming the Iraqi government provided additional troops and helped crack down on militias.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 19
- next
See all 366 CommentsIf God isn't "big enough for everyone", then there is no point in His existence at all, in my opinion. I choose to think that (assuming there is a creator) we all have our own understanding of him, her or it, and each person's belief is as valid as everyone else's.
Of course, that view would spoil things for many religious people, unfortunately, as it gives them nothing to feel superior about, and no reason to hate anyone. Of course, humility and charity being cornerstones of most faiths, that SHOULD be ok ... right?
I hope, though, Rick, that you can see how that would appear to someone who doesn't share that faith.
Q: Why do you believe in God?
A: Because He tells me to.
Q: But see, that pre-supposes his existence. What proof do you have to make you believe that these words you follow are from God, not just writings of men.
A: Because the writings say so.
Q: Um, yeah, but again, how do you know the words came from God?
A: Who are we to question the Creator?
Q: OK, excuse me, I have to go do something. (Goes and pounds head on wall for several hours, as better result is acheived than from discussing religion.)
Bottom line, all you folks arguing with Rick: he has decided he believes in God. That is his right. Some of you don't. That is yours.
Can we leave it at that? We'll know when we die who was right.
What if he spells the way he speaks?
His lousy decisions began with deciding to invade Iraq instead of concentrating on fighting al-Qaeda where they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, where they weren't, yet.
He decided to deceive the nation into war.
He decided to ignore the generals about troop requirements.
He decided to have Bremmer run the P.A., whose own lousy decisions led to lawlessness, allowing al-Qaeda to get into Iraq and the sectarian tensions to become violent.
He decided that the election meant that he should pretend to make adjustments.
He decided to continue ignoring any other opinions.
With his record, it's no wonder that he prefers to look forward instead of at his past blunders.
The decision maker has made some stupid, irrational decisions. Why will new opportunities for decisions suddenly produce the intended results?
He has demonstrated his incapacity to make intelligent, rational decisions about Iraq and/or the terrorists. The human costs in lives and injuries has been enormous. The financial cost of $3-5 thousand dollars/second is mortgaging future generations.
We've decided that he needs to be reminded that he works for us, the citizens of the United States. He needs to listen to his employers.
How thoughtless of me to expect a sitting president to have AT LEAST a rudimentary command of the English language; Maybe he could take some lessons on "Th' GOOGLE" and better himself! ;-)
Yeah, "w", but they are all bad.
Perhaps "w" can make this decision, 'I'm only gonna make the right decisions'.
Probably not.
Two more years of blunder to go and that leaves room for a lot of blunder and more wrong decisions.
The word %u201Cevolution%u201D like the Word %u201Cg a y%u201D has been distorted to only narrow meaning. They are meaningful and useful words.
Consider this exert from one of my previous posts.
%u201CEvolution is more than just going from walking on all fours to standing upright or changing from ape to man, if that even happened. Just consider the evolution of communication. We evolved from etching pictures and scripts in stone tablets and cave walls, to Computers and the Internet, giving everyone access to unlimited information.--- From walking or riding a donkey to flying in space ships and walking on the moon.--- From cave men/women to what we now consider civilized human beings.
We are not there yet but we are making progress. Who knows, we may eventually learn how we really got here and even answer the age-old question, if god created us then where did god come from?%u201D
You have, with your comments, said that the bible has actually evolved from the old testament to the new testament through the sacrifice of Jesus.
Thank you for verifying my opinion.
I mean no indult or undue criticism.
You shouldn%u2019t make hasty assumptions about my belief, although you are partially correct. Evolution is a fact of life. As a matter of fact, life is continually evolving.
Your faith is precisely the same as the Islamic faith. You each believe your faith is the true and only way into paradice/heaven.
I am blessed/cursed with a logical mind that demands a logical explanation for events in or affecting my life and at the same time a personal aversion against lying. --Which means I cannot say I believe in any extant religion or faith and feel that I am being truthful.
I asked the two questions because I have no answer for either.
Perhaps in the future mankind will evolve intellectually to the point of correctly understanding how we actually came to exist.
In the meantime I would like to suggest that we all endeavor to do the things we do because they are the right things to do. Not just because we will be rewarded when we do or punished when we don%u2019t.
Did you NEOCONS catch that?!"implement "A PLAN" that will achieve "OUR GOALS!" BUSH HAS NO PLAN EITHER!!!He said, "A PLAN!"
I'm going to KEEP posting this until one of "them" speaks up...
I'm WAAAAAITING.............?
Did you NEOCONS catch that?!"implement "A PLAN" that will achieve "OUR GOALS!" BUSH HAS NO PLAN EITHER!!!He said, "A PLAN!"
I'm going to KEEP posting this until one of "them" speaks up...
Here you go again with your suppositions. I believe in a Creator who created all humans free. THis freedom is granted to EVERYONE by the creator. Systems such as Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism... the way they are used are relentlessly depreciative for humans, 'exploitive', diminishing and belittling. Because they are destined to masses with little mental effort, because either they have no choice, of poverty, or simply happy ignorant and willing to stay that way... Our Founder Fathers have discarded the religions from the Constitution. They only took a TRUST in GOD, into consideration. They didn't say Jesus, or any other prophet. They didn't mention any church or synagog, or mosque or temple...
That is what I believe. Alienate people into a class of beliefs is beyond my understanding and don't want to do the effort because I've already done before and found out it's a loss of time...
NATURAL Sciences are the true thing in LIfe. Nature doesn't lie, nor does it distort reality. Physics, Maths, Biology and Astronomy are the true language of the Creator.
%u201CWhat makes you believe we just popped out of nowhere for no reason in the first place from an unintelligent piece of pond scum?%u201D
It's faith jn122736. You have faith in Science and evolution, and I have faith in God and His creation.
Posted by singinrick at 05:03 PM : Jan 26, 2007
--------
The inference here seems to be that we had to come from somewhere therefore you believe we had to have been created by God. Could you then, using the same logic, please explain where god came from?
I am not surprised at you%u2019re not answering the logical and legitimate question, where did God come from, because %u201Creligion and logic truly are mortal enemies%u201D.
When, just when are you prople going to get a life? Life being standing up and be counted. Cowering down, second hand information, follow-the-leader concepts.
Again you're right saying that. See he (our SickRick) choses what pleases him only in order to amke a point.
First: To be faire with people and other religions you should invite real people who know what to say because they have deeply studied the religion.
Second: "Because They Hate" - by Brigitte Gabrielle, a former Christian Lebanese victim of Muslim terrorism. Again, Terrorism in Lebanon during the wars Lebanese lived through has been documented to practised by all religions and every sect of religion.
Muslims terrorized Muslims. Chrisitians have terrorized Christians, and cross-religion has occured. So please, Gabrielle is the extreme case of vicitmisation.
Of course It's easy for us to analyse and criticise one's book. Take the last example of the Maher Arar Case in Canada by CBS. They said he's been jailed and tortured. We jsut don't know how anxious this guy is gonna be all his life long, how it was when he stayed for 10 months in the prisons of Syria... We just don't know. When it comes to torture it's quite hideous to see how humans can go low...
Posted by singinrick at 06:00 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment"
Good point, Rick, in a sense. The thing is, though, that it is only the extremists have no tolerance; many Muslims I have spoken to on the subject are quite happy to co-exist with any other religion, provided they are not attacked.
The issue in Israel is not really a religious one. It's that the Palestinians had their country stolen so that the Jews would have somewhere to live. The Palestinians happen to be Muslim for the most part, but that's not really the issue.
Again, it's religion being used as an excuse or mask for hate.
Just like Ares..the Mythology God of War..we now have our own 21st century "swaggering bully boy" and his name is George Bush.
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/greek-mythology.php?deity=ARES
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 19
- next
See all 366 Comments