Time to get out of Dodge for Muqqty?
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 ...
Time to get out of Dodge for Muqqty?
He made that VERY clear to public. Excellent!
Yes, out of the ballpark
"Nothing about the Clinton threat to national archives secure documents yet... hmmmm"
You'd have to cut off the Clintonista's hands. Wonder how many Top Secret documents Hillary has from the Clinton Administration.
Woo-Hoo for you, Peach. WTG, girlfriend!
And how much exactly did the 9-11 attacks cost in comparison?
AP, Reuters.
Yeah I understand that. But why doesn't Iraq want them in Iraq?
A young democracy is fighting for its life. The terrorists are without conscience. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, we must expect more casualties.
Success won't look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on a battleship.
I totally agree with you on the Bush/Lincoln analogy.
Lincoln, like Bush, trusted Generals who were too willing not to use the proper amount of force. It is telling that both Abizaid and Casey were shown the door, as well as Rumsfeld.
I have to take some exception about Nixon. Nixon threw down the Linebacker campaigns when the North Vietnamese got squirrely, and his Chinese gambit threw Soviet diplomacy out the door in 1971.
Nixon was undone by his own demons, sad to say. I always had a sneaking admiration for the sumbi*ch.
Bush knows what Patton knew: "Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time! I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost, and laughed!"
Be Seeing You,
Chris
You are the best, Peach. Thanks as always for your running commentary.
"Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved...There will be no celebratory ceremonies..."
Not because our troops can't do it but because WHAT HAS TO BE DONE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED!!
Let the troops do their job (under orders), and not be worrying about prosecution by anyone for doing so...
Exactly.
And what was she wearing? It looked like a red straight-jacket.
GOOD.
Dick Morris can stick it. He said this speech won't do a thing for Bush.
"We carefully considered these proposals" and concluded the proposers were nucking futz.
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.