Posted on 01/10/2007 2:30:20 PM PST by STARWISE
Unswayed by anti-war passions, President Bush will send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and build the American presence there toward its highest level to quell worsening bloodshed. The move puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and runs counter to advice from some senior generals.
Set to announce his decisions in a prime-time speech Wednesday night, Bush was to acknowledge making major mistakes in Iraq, primarily failing to deploy enough U.S. soldiers and demand more Iraqi troops and cooperation to confront the country's near-anarchy.
In advance of Bush's address, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said U.S. military operations have been "handcuffed by political interference by Iraqi leadership" — but now will proceed under rules allowing troops to confront Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents.
(snip)
The new Democratic leaders of Congress met with Bush and complained afterward that their opposition to a buildup had been ignored. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "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 measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carried live online by: C-span
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
~~~~~~~~~"Ruck It Up and Suck It Up,,,Lock-N-Load"~~~~~~~~~
If she was angry, she was put in her place.
"I'm actually quite shocked about Coleman."
I don't know. Even Ollie North isn't in favor. And he said the troops on the ground aren't in favor.
Grant and Sherman also changed the rules of engagement. The Southern plantations which were supporting Lee's army were destroyed. When Atlanta fell I think before the election it was seen as a real sign of success.
If at the start of the war in March 2003 we had taken a poll of American "How many American deaths will be acceptable to achieve stability in Iraq" - does anyone on this website think that Americans wouldn't have thought that 3,000 deaths was incredibly low?
My stepson was in Iraq in 3/03 and we (my stepson's friends and military families) were all predicting at least 3 times that number. The first year of the war.
Santorum says the one question that Teddy Kennedy won't answer and that is .. If we leave the terrorists alone .. will they leave us alone
I do not mean to be contrary...but just for one moment, ltet us consider that just MAYBE the Generals on the ground are NOT telling people WHERE these warriors are being deployed to???? I mean for Christ Sake...just because the MSM speaks NEVER means their information is correct!!!!!!
Hey There,,,The Mookie Huntin' Season Is Open...;0)
Beautifully stated, Tator.
"Unbelievable..O'Reilly is going to have a segment on Rosie."
I've been turning FOX off because of this Rosie/Trump thing.
O'Reilly says viewers can expect NO reliable coverage on Iraq from the media.
McCain has come out in favor of Bush's plan. I oppose him for president, but time and again when our conservative stalwarts are hiding under a table during difficult times, McCain will stand on camera and support the president. He did it in April two years ago when Iraq killings increased and he's doing it now.
Is he finally getting the message....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1765582/posts
I made a double batch of fudge just a little while ago...lol....
O'Reilly says viewers can expect NO reliable coverage on Iraq from the media.
He's right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.