| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() Impeach George Bush Ooops, Sorry, My Bad Now the president takes responsibility for some mistakes. And that buys what, exactly? Stay the course, again. Haven't we heard this story? Will someone please stop this madman? Source: AP, 2007-01-10 Candidate: Republican Party President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time he erred by failing to order a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said. The military increase puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level. It also runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals. In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the unpopular 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." "If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," he said. In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad's neighborhoods. Even before 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation. Usually loath to admit error, Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion. Bush's approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki's willingness — and ability — to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad. "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," the president said. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan "to ensure that it addressed these mistakes." Bush said that under his plan, U.S. forces will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Responding to concerns from U.S. commanders, Bush said American troops will have a clearly defined mission to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, assist in the protection of the local population and "to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs." While Bush is putting the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, Bush did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities. Bush, however, cited the government's latest optimistic estimate. "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November," the president said. Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bush said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them." But Bush warned that the strategy would, in a short term he did not define, bring more violence rather than less. "Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he said. "The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will." Bush's warning was echoed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a leading proponent of a troop increase. "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up," the senator said. Bush said he considered calls from Democrats and some Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would rip Iraq apart. "Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay even longer and confront an enemy that is even more lethal," the president said. "If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." Still, Bush said that "America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act." The buildup 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 Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest rating yet. Bush's blueprint would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq — now at 132,000 — to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion. The highest number was 160,000 a year ago in a troop buildup for Iraqi elections. The latest increase calls for sending 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next would arrive by Feb. 15 and the remaining would come in 30-day increments. Bush also committed 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters. Bush's plan mirrored earlier moves attempting to give Iraqi forces a bigger security role. The chief difference appeared to be a recognition that the Iraqis need more time to take on the full security burden. Another difference involves doubling the number of U.S. civilian workers who help coordinate local reconstruction projects. These State Department-led units — dubbed Provincial Reconstruction Teams — are to focus on projects both inside and outside the heavily guarded Green Zone, and some will be merged into combat brigades. Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers. Republican Sens. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio and John Warner (news, bio, voting record) 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. Bush's strategy ignores key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran. Add a comment to this Message in our Forums. While you're at it, check out our forums too! User Originated Comments: |
|
Related News |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() owned by TheTIP. [ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ] NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
Thetip.org assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in these materials. Thetip.org makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Further, Thetip.org cannot edit, control, review for truth or accuracy, or screen for defamation or obscenity any content provided to the Website by a third party through postings, uploaded files, or any other form of communication, nor can Thetip.org ensure prompt removal of defamatory, obscene, inappropriate or unlawful content after transmission. Any such third party postings, files or other communications do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of Thetip.org. Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. Under no circumstances shall Thetip.org, its affiliates, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this Website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. |