US Features
Bush braces for fight over troop increase
By Mike McCarthy Jan 9, 2007, 19:52 GMT
Washington - Congressional Democrats were preparing to pose a stiff challenge to US President George W Bush's expected plans to expand the US military presence in Iraq as part of his revised strategy to end the conflict.
Bush will outline his new plan during during a prime time speech at 9 pm Wednesday (0200 GMT Thursday) and is expected to announce he is ordering a surge of at least 20,000 US troops in Iraq.
The Democratic Party, which took control of Congress last week after defeating Bush's Republicans in November, want to start bringing home the 140,000 US soldiers already in Iraq and strongly oppose any increase.
Some Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Barack Obama, a potential presidential candidate, have not ruled out the possibility of withholding any funding for more deployments.
'We'll take a look at everything,' Reid said.
The top Democrat in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, has said she will not back moves to cut off funding.
'Democrats will not cut off funding for our troops,' Pelosi told reporters, but warned that Bush's proposal will be heavily scrutinized and that he will have to convince lawmakers the increase is justified.
'Congressional oversight is alive and well in the Congress of the United States,' Pelosi added.
In a letter to Bush last week, Pelosi and Reid were clear that they're against an expansion of the force in Iraq, arguing instead withdrawals are needed to show the Iraqi government it must take more responsibility for security.
'Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,' the letter said.
Other Democrats have questioned the wisdom of sending more troops, arguing it will do little to alter the course of violence that has gripped Iraq.
'It's going to be a little too little and probably too late,' Senator Jack Reed said.
Bush has been briefing lawmakers in recent days to discuss his plans and lobby for support as even some Republicans have expressed reservations and sending more troops into a war that has already cost more than 3,000 American lives and lost the support of the American public.
Bush announced he would offer a new strategy after the November 7 elections that were largely viewed as a referendum on Iraq. The day after the election, he dismissed Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of the war.
Ahead of his speech, Bush has also shaken up his diplomatic team as well as the military leadership in Iraq in the region to ensure quick implementation of the fresh plan. On Monday the White House said the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been nominated as the envoy to the United Nations and that the current ambassador in Pakistan, Ryan Crocker, would take Khalizad's post in Baghdad.
Last week the White House announced that General George Casey, current head of multinational forces in Iraq, will be replaced by Lieutenant General David Petraeus. General John Abizaid, chief of the US Central Command overseeing US military operations in the Middle East, will be replaced by Admiral William Fallon, who has been in charge of the US Pacific Command.
The new plan would be geared toward defeating the long-running insurgency and ending sectarian violence, which erupted last year and has brought the country to the brink of civil war.
There have been lingering concerns within the Bush administration that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is incapable of taking the necessary political and military steps to stabilize the country, including disarming Shiite Muslim militias responsible for reprisals against Sunnis. Political parties linked to those militias are essential to al-Maliki's governing coalition.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
This insane madman is going to ask the Senate for another $1bn.
The War in Iraq has already cost the US taxpayer $356,681,680,865
Of course the 'troop surge' all drops into place if he is planning to implement Rumsfields plan to attack Iran........and start WWIII.
Check out these two sites.
http://costofwar.com/index-college-scholarships.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Im not for the war myself. However, I feel that the damage is done and pulling out now is a huge mistake. We have angered these people in the middle east and unless we take complete control of the situation we will only give them time to regain momentum. They will continue to be a threat! We must finish what we started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..... OR THE WORST HAS YET TO COME.
Yes--all of you who favor this war GO FIGHT IT!...send your own sons and daughters--no exemptions for senators and congressmen--don't you think this would be a little bit different if they all had their own families involved in this insane war --you bet it would. when when when, will this world and our government ever, finally clue in to the fact that WAR does NOT create peace.
EVER
Defiance is ignorance! One could not take history for granted more than this administration has. More troops! We have done more than our part for the fabricated causes originaly put forth.
How long does it really take to train replacements? We train and send out our 18 year olds in less than a year 3 years tops for the technical recruits, officers and special ops. I mean there is way too much sympathy going the Iraqi's way of course most of that has to do with the American business interests in the oil over there.
OOoops did I say $1bn? of course I meant to say Bush wants another...$100bn... and its the US Taxpayer thats got to find it.....
yes sean and i have done it what have you done for your country lately
BRING AMERICA HOME
Travis Golie
The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan must cease,
not be escalated. Any 'surge' in reinforcing the unlawful aggression
would be, itself, unlawful. Not only are foreign, sovereign nations being
illegally occupied, but the White House is, also, in the hands of tyrants.
Not only are Iraqis and Afghans being held hostage, but so are Americans.
I say so as a patriot, who loves my country, not in league with some 'pacifist'
Negro or subversive Mexican, who wants to bring 'Whitey' down, at all
costs. The fact that usurpers are seeking to twist honorable-instincts into their
Communist agenda should not deter those fighting to scuttle George W. Bush.
Our oath remains being against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The Communists have two agendas. First, they fight a war to establish the
Karl Marx 'utopia,' worldwide. In their scheme of things, there will be only
two 'classes' left standing: the Communists and the Zionists, the former
being the 'masses' and the latter being the 'commissars' or rulers. On the
other hand, when it suits them, they claim to be 'anti-war,' in opposition to
'all' wars. They see no 'contradiction' in supporting the Viet Cong, who
were Communist, for instance, while opposing the Rhodesians, who were
anti-Communist. By the same token, you will find them on 'both sides,'
demanding 'war' against opponents of Israel, through the likes of Paul
Wolfowitz, while clamoring to 'get out,' through the likes of Carl Levin.
I cannot and will not support a Communist or friend of Communism.
Tyrants, Communists and Communist-allies are all the same. They oppose
the freedom and independence of Iraq and Afghanistan because any hint
at nationalism stands in the path of their master slave-plan. It is not
enough for us to cut off the funds to the Bush-mania, however. We must
declare our solidarity with the Iraqis and Afghans in their struggle for their
homelands, language and way-of-life. The Reds want it both ways. To
use Americans to 'neutralize' opponents of Israel, Russia and Red China,
while bleeding us dry and demoralizing us, so that we will be unprepared
or unwilling to rightfully defend ourselves, when the time comes.
By manipulating Bush into committing atrocities, the Reds discredit
America. Then, by trying to wrap themselves in the flag, in calling for
an end to the inhumanity, they seek to boost their power and positions.
Make no mistake. Barak Obama wants a 'Greater Africa' on the North
American continent, as much as Charles Schumer lusts after a 'Greater
Israel' in the Middle-East. But, here is what America wants. No clasping
hands with the dark, Red iron-fist. No money, hand-outs, troops or trade
to prop up the Israeli Lobby. To regain the upper hand, we must prevent
American from turning against American. Our 'common-cause' is that we
will not allow ourselves or the Iraqis and Afghans to be puppets on the string.
So, let us make our presence known and influence felt, in every way, to
cut off all the funding, not just for any 'surge,' but for the entire, Bush
debacle. I am speaking of our fellow-citizens, who are, in actuality, our
kinsmen and kindred. Those who look alike and feel alike and must act
alike. When the Bush-scheme ends, it must be the forces of Nationalism that
rise to the top, having pulled the rug out from under the 'internationalists'
and Marxists. Bringing the troops home will not be enough, without bringing
America home to its founding ideals, blood, nationality and spirit. Let us
begin to rebuild our collapsed political-structure, based upon majority-rule
and 'consent-of-the-governed.' Just democracy, nationalism and freedom.
http://www.skinheadz.com/news/articles/2007/010901.html
© 2007 Skinheadz
'We the people' have spoken. In the last election 'we the people' voted out the congressional leaders who were suporting the president. We gave power to the oppisition. 'We the people' stated clearly and bluntly that staying the course and adhearing to the right wing politics concerning Iraq was not in the best interest of the United States.
It is time for us to leave. I think the discussion should be about how fast do we leave, not how many more troops can we send into an already lost campaign.
The shell game that President Bush is playing with the leadership roles at the Pentagon, Iraq, and the State Department is nothing more than smoke and mirrors so that he can fulfill the objectives of whoever he is working for. Because it is now painfully obvious that he is not working for 'We the people'.
If I were young enough to enlist I wouldn't hesitate to go. My son is in the Army and he has been twice and will gladly go again when its time. I've talked to many of his friends in the Army and they too are willing to go back. My son-in- law is in the Marine Corps and he is getting ready to go back for his fourth tour of duty in a month or so. The other Marines he has talked to are also willing to go back at the drop of the hat. Isn't it odd that those who are completely safe here at home without any concerns about being shipped over to Iraq or Afghanistan are the very same people that are screaming the loudest that we need to get out now before another soldier is killed. However, the soldiers that are being sent overseas to this overheated toilet, the ones with the most to lose seem to be all in favor of continuing through to the end. It's almost enough to make one think that maybe they know something about this war effort that the rest of the numbskulls back here in the USA are missing. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the newspapers and TV aren't telling the whole story to the people here. Maybe the best thing to do in this situation is to let the people who are willing to put their lives on the line make the decision as to whether or not we should run away or stay and fight it out to the end.
We lost this occupation a long time ago. The first mistake was shock and awe and the second was declaring war on on verb. The invasion was started to steal oil, the Iraqis know it, the whole world knows it, and even many of the sheeple in this country know it.
The neocon fascists who have tricked so many people into killing and dying for the multi-national corporations should be sent in front of the people to admit to their sins, apologize and then be sent to jail for war crimes. They never had a plan other than to create chaos and steal. They cannot be trusted with one more dollar or human life, after showing their true evil and twisted nature.
Get out know before it really gets ugly in the Middle East. Staying in there will ensure that we will fight them all over the world and here. There is nothing left but defeat for America, this ugly former bastion of democracy. Shame on U.S.
Bush junior says, all I want to do is finish my daddy's failure what ever it cost in lives and money.
To Sean for Dallas: It's good and refreshing to hear from one of the 70% that are clueless as to what keeps our country and the freedoms you enjoy free. I'd go in a minute to Iraq, happen to be too old. I suspect you are of the do nothing generation that just accepts all that you have as a given and nobody had to insure your freedom over the years. It's not your fault, you have no immediate access to real information, enjoy the media. A web site below that might open up your eyes. Enjoy! http://www.usawakeup.org/ .
I'm sorry Dean I don't see your point of view as valid, since I'm a vetern. I hope you remember the preamble to the constitution, 'Life in the pursute of happiness.' I was asked after my inactive service to go to Afganistan. My reply to the person on the phone was give me two more stripes and I would see you on the tarmac. He hung up and I have not heard back from him. So the point of this story is that those men and women voluteered to go to war. The military is there to resolve and fight wars. The american public has lost site of the only goal a standing army is for and thats To Fight Wars. On the point that President Bush is sending more troops to Iraq, well I say for one that whatever gets the job done. If we do not get the job done who will, France possibly.
We have 3,000 fatalities. The ratio of injury to death is reported to be 16 to 1 meaning over 48,000 traumatic brain, spinal cord, amputations, burns, fractures, bullet wounds. Please don't subject more men and women to this possible fate. Establish a base, hunker down, let the Iraqies decide who will be in charge. If they can't figure it out by now, they won't.
To Travis Golie: Upon what do you base your statement 'The illegal invasion of Iraq? Here's a website that you might find that will balance some of the things that have shaped your thinking. http://www.usawakeup.org/ .
TO Jim from Irvine: Don't use your age as an excuse. Get off your ass and do something. You may not have to go out on the front lines with a gun, but I'm sure they can find something for you to do to help. You are hiding behind you're age time to step up.
This administration has vehemently claimed that this war in Iraq was 'not about the oil.' Yet and still, the Iraqi 'government' is about to sign agreements
turning over Iraqs oil to companies like British Petroleum, Exxon, etc. who will get 80 per cent of the profits for x number of years. Right. It was never about the oil. It was about non-existent WMDS. It was because 'He tried to kill my dad.'
It was about 'bringing democracy to the Middle East.' What it was NEVER about was the damn truth of the matter coming out of the people who concieved this travestys mouths. Wake up. How many dead Americans does the truth cost? Face up to it, America. You've been had...again.
The purpose of the armed forces is to protect the huge multi-national corporations so they can freely pillage the planet. If those in the armed services believe in this, that is fine for them, but don't expect others to be so foolish to risk their lives for greedy piglike white men.
The right wingers think that the occupation is to protect our freedoms, how silly and gullible. We were perfectly free before 911. As far as us fighting them here, who will let them in? Probably Bush and his neocon cronies like they did the first time for 911. They set that up so that they could implement their plan for American global domination as outline in their publication Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
I can't speak for Sean or the rest of the people who have posted. I am a teacher, and what I have done for this country is to educate children and prepare them for successful futures. Kevin, always remember there are many ways of being a patriot. You obviously are, but you fought for someone who isn't. These posts and all the other anti-war stuff isn't because people don't support the troops, most of the people in this country do support the troops by wanting them home safely. This war was ill conceived, ill executed, and has made lots of Americans ill, while and at the same time has not made us safer. And don't forget that free speech is one of those freedoms that we must protect from the 'evil doers.' Cheers...
War is good for business!Who's busness is the real question.The people behind the Bush are just hoping something will start in Iran before we pull out of Iraq so the Never-ending War can continue.After that,it'll be easy to round up the 'patriots' who are either afraid or mentally incapable of questioning any authority who waves an American flag.Of course,they'd have to know about or actually read a little American history to realize that the real,original American patriots did exactly that!They weren't afraid to question King Georges'authority,put their lives on the line and create the Constitution and the best-working form of government on the planet.The same one the present king george is trying so desperately to dismantle or circumvent.I just pray we're not too late,ignorant or afraid to save our country from the corrupt power brokers.Power to the people!Maintain the Democratic Republic in America first!
Bush seems to think that with Saddom dead the Sunni insurgency will loose the will to fight. But he is wrong we should continue to support the Iraqi government in the form of air support for there police and troops and protecting some high value targets like hospitals the green zone and police stations But we should pull our troops out of the more dangerous street patrols over the next 6 months. We could have most of our people back inside of a years and no one could say that we abandoned the Iraqi people.
And if they choose to kill each other now it is there own fault although I have no doubt they will blame us. I think another crazy Iran like theocratic American hating government will spring up in Iraq its that the shia majority want.
We never should have gone there. We can't fix it. And we can't change that only the iraqi people can but we can start making the right choices now instead of digging ourselves even deeper. Mark my words it is going to happen the only question is when.
If GI's around Baghdad on active duty go on a fun trip
to Thailand or Alabama 6 months then they follow only
the bad example of their CinC George Walker Bush ... .
Data mining of military records of George Walker Bush
shows 'that Bush had approximately six months tacked
onto his military obligation'(http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm).
Second Bush request for temporary transfer
Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 1
HQ disallows transfer
lt. Colonel Brickens Response
First transfer request
Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 2
Document 10 ( doc10.gif)
Chronological Listing HQ approval
HQ request for more information
Bush duty assignments
973 days credited
Orders to report for active duty
Bush request for discharge from Texas Air NationalGuard and Transfer to inactive reserves
Texas Air National Guard OK for transfer to inactive reserves
Bush discharge papers
Oh yeah!
With all due respect, this discussion misses the central issue: Our modern world runs on oil, and is heavily dependent on a region that has been and will continue to be unstable for a very long time. We did not go in there for any other reason, wahtever the spin at any point in time (and there have been at least three (WMDs, relive the suffering people, democratization...oh please!).
Introducing 'democracy' at the point of a gun is ludicrous on the face of it, but the damage has already been done - therefore we are faced with a situation of 'you broke it, you fix it'. Iraq is not and never has been a 'sovereign nation' in any realistic sense, (go read some history if you have problems with this statement) so all this chatter ignores the central point that has been clearly made by the Iraq Study Group: that any solution must be attempted on a REGIONAL basis. This 'troop surge' is nothing more than a fig leaf for doing more of nothing.
Tony
The USA with only 6% of the worlds population uses a staggering 25% of the worlds ANNUAL oil production.
Of course this war is about control of the major oilfields in Iraq and Iran.
An agreement has just been signed that the USA gets 80% of Iraqs Oil output for the next 30 years. .
I notice today that Bush has given orders to to open up new oilfields in Alaska......Bristol Bay..
in the middle of one of the most enviromentally sensitive areas in the world.
Judah Ben-Hur should run for President of the USA in 2008, he will stop the war in Iraq and bring the troops back home to America!
page: 1
sean from dallasJan 9th, 2007 - 23:03:26
To all those who are pro war; would you leave your current life to go to Bagdad? If yes, then please go enlist, the arm needs you. If no, then who gives you the right to put someone else life at risk? I am about winning a war, but when is enough, enough? How many more men and women have to die to win? I think the current toll is enough; let’s pack up and go home. If Bush is going to send more troops, he needs to give us a hard number of casualties he is willing to loose before we pull out. Let’s put some boundaries on this war, let’s not leave it open ended. The president needs to be held accountable for a war the general public does not want.
Report this comment