21,500 More US Troops Headed to Iraq

[YSSMAN]

It is pretty much what we had expected, full story:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering 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 buildup puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American troop 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," Bush said. But he braced Americans to expect more U.S. casualties for now and did not specify how long the additional troops would stay.

In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq's committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad's neighborhoods - and taking the lead in military operations.

Even before Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress emphasized 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, D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.

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.

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 from now on, "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

As Bush spoke for 20 minutes from the unusual setting of the White House library, the sounds of protesters amassed outside the compound's gates occasionally filtered through.

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."

With Americans overwhelmingly unhappy with his Iraq strategy, Bush said it was a legitimate question to ask why this strategy to secure Baghdad will succeed where other operations failed. "This time we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared," the president said.

While Bush put the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, he 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.

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 at."

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, 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 devastate Iraq and "result in our troops being forced to stay even longer."

But he offered a concession to Congress - the establishment of a bipartisan working group to formalize regular consultations on Iraq. He said he was open to future exchanges and better ideas.

Bush's strategy ignored key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran. Instead, he accused both countries of aiding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," Bush said. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria."

The troop 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.

The president's address is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also includes detailed briefings for lawmakers and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to the Mideast a day after appearing Thursday with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at hearings on Iraq convened by the Democrats.

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. The portion of Bush's plan intended to boost economic aid and job creation was given a price tag of just over $1 billion.

Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers.

Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner 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.

Call me absolutely crazy, but I am in full support of the President's plan for action in Iraq. What it comes down to is that we didn't place enough emphasis on security in the young nation, and we are paying for those mistakes now. Hopefully with the extra 17,000 troops in Baghdad alone will make enough of a difference to lower violence, but that is something that we will have to wait and see.

What it comes down to is that we are committed to the success of the Iraqi government, and without peace in the nation, the nation of Iraq will never achieve the goals set before it. Certainly we may be placing ourselves in the center of a "civil war," but if we were to pull out, we would be in a far-worse situation than where we would be sending in extra troops.

I think what it comes down to is that education plays an important role in the decisions for and against these actions in Iraq. Without an understanding of war, occupation, and later withdraw from a given nation, it is very hard to criticize action in Iraq simply because "you don't like war." That isn't a good reason. The problem is, if America doesn't face the terrorists/insurgents/foreign-fighters/etc, who will? Europe would be happy to let Iraq fall flat on its face, and I'm sure China the same, as they could later sweep in and "clean up," gaining a new economic and military ally to pump more money into the growing superpower.

Ah, but the shouts are that too many troops have died already, and too many more will die in the future. However, do I need to point out the obvious?

World War II: 405,399 (4 year war, 101,349.75 per year)
Korean War: 54,308 (3 year war, 18,102.67 per year)
Vietnam War: 90,199 (11 year war 8,109.9 per year)
Gulf War I: 2094 (1 year war)

All things considered, not that many troops have died in Iraq. Given that we just crested 3000 American servicemen/servicewomen deaths in Iraq in just shy of four years, we are well short of the rates as posted above. If America doesn't have the stomach for battles such as this, I do indeed fear for the security of our country and the War on Terror which we must fight.

---

Anyway, what are your thoughts (if any?)

 

[a6m5]

Iraq War is not really a war though. It was a war, but now mostly a occupation of Iraq.

I'm all for the increase of numbers of troops in Iraq(easy for me to say, I don't have to go), but I don't know if 21,500 is enough to take the control back. I think improved strategy will help more than the reinforcements, but both would be nice....

 

[SS69]

hmm...I'm startin to feel a 'draft' here.

 

[a6m5]

hmm...I'm startin to feel a 'draft' here.

I'll be rooting for you. Good luck!

 

[SS69]

I'll be rooting for you. Good luck!

I dont want a draft. It's just some of the things I heard the president say tonight kind of stuck out to me. I doubt a draft would ever come to fruition , but I'm sure there's been some hefty talk up there in Washington about it.

 

[niky]

Yes, despite being "anti-Bush" and "anti-War", I'm all for it. Iraqi is the current lynchpin in the current struggle between western governments and radical extremism. Proving that democracy can work there is important in the overall scheme of things.

Again, with my cousin being in the Army, and having served a tour of duty as a turret gunner (and being narrowly missed by an explosion that killed his crewmate), I really wish it wasn't him, or any of the others, who was going back in there... but somebody's sure as hell got to do it.

Still. This merely represents a return to previous troop levels. But that's still a good thing, as there's safety in numbers. It's also a way of showing the Iraqi government we're serious about creating and maintaining peace... even if certain of their number are not.

 

[a6m5]

I dont want a draft. It's just some of the things I heard the president say tonight kind of stuck out to me. I doubt a draft would ever come to fruition , but I'm sure there's been some hefty talk up there in Washington about it.

I know, I was kidding. Sorry.

Again, with my cousin being in the Army, and having served a tour of duty as a turret gunner (and being narrowly missed by an explosion that killed his crewmate), I really wish it wasn't him, or any of the others, who was going back in there... but somebody's sure as hell got to do it.

First of all, great post, niky. 👍 I also feel very bad for the people having to risk their lives in Iraq, as I know so many people who have served, or are still over there right now. But like you said, somebody's got to do it, and when these people joined the military, they signed up for this.

Still. This merely represents a return to previous troop levels. But that's still a good thing, as there's safety in numbers. It's also a way of showing the Iraqi government we're serious about creating and maintaining peace... even if certain of their number are not.

I agree on all points. 👍

 

[Philly]

Sounds like we need a little opposition. Your main connection runs directly between more troops and victory. While that may be partly true, throwing more at them will not be as effective as say WW2, when there was a definite front to move around. The insurgents rely heavily on ambush, and numbers cannot prevent that, mostly because we don't know where they are.

I will also have to disagree about the victory we are trying to achieve.If we are trying to build up the Iraqi forces to dump the issue on them, wouldn't that be abandoning an ally? We could totally eradicate the resistence, but that is nearly impossible because other invasions would be involved, and we know how that would turn out.

Perhaps we could carefully divide the country, not based on our interests, but to create peace, and pull out. One side to the resisting guys (maybe power would shut them up) and the democratic nation.

Or, we could totally annex the state, enact a strict government, and scare the insurgents to peace. With this government, perhaps we could take away civil liberties to find the enemy. Then we could build an Isreal-style wall to keep out the foreign fighters.

What is the victory Bush is trying to achieve? How will more troops help us achieve that?

I do understand that there are skirmishes with more regular warfare appearances, and more troops would be effective here, but the US already seems to have those covered.

What we have here is a deep, deep hole. We need some really careful planning to get us out.

 

[Touring Mars]

I reckon the Bush administration is reeping what it sewed... a total mess caused by a complete disregard for forward planning. The fact that Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' after toppling Saddam speaks volumes.... that was the mission... topple Saddam. And, fair dues, it was accomplished. But everyone who had a modicum of common sense said prior to the invasion that, whether or not it was right to topple Saddam (and most agree that it was right), that it should not be done until there was full international support and especially not without a viable strategy for the inevitable occupation and ultimate exit of the occupying forces.

What this invasion has done is nothing more than create anarchy, and throwing more troops into the maelstrom now is nothing more than a desperate last throw of the dice - the tide of opinion, even within the Republican party, is flowing swiftly away from George W. Bush - a fact spelled out resoundingly in the recent elections and by the fact that Republican electoral candidates are increasingly trying to distance themselves from the blunders (and outright lies) of the current regime. I can't help but agree with the view of senior Democrats (and a growing number of Republicans) that this is not (as in the words of GWB himself) a 'new' direction, but a redoubling of the old direction which has already patently failed horribly.

 

[Sureboss]

I get a feeling of it's all a bit too late anyway. There are big religious tensions (many call it civil war and it probably is by definition) issues and sending 21,500 troops isn't going to do anything to resolves that, it'll help stem the violence of the insurgency attacks, but I don't think it'll solve the problems.

 

[Swift]

I get a feeling of it's all a bit too late anyway. There are big religious tensions (many call it civil war and it probably is by definition) issues and sending 21,500 troops isn't going to do anything to resolves that, it'll help stem the violence of the insurgency attacks, but I don't think it'll solve the problems.

Iraqis are the only ones that can fix Iraq.

However, I'm all for this if it does 2 things.

1. Stems some of the violence in Baghdad and Ambrar province (sp)
2. Speeds up training for Iraqi Military and police forces so they can take over sooner.

The violence needs to go down, but it won't help if it's just US forces holding it back.

 

[Danoff]

I think this sends good messages:

- We're committed to peace.
- We'll not shy away from terrorism.

It also sends a bad message:

- If the situation sucks, you can always rely on the US to bail you out.

We need the terrorists to know that their efforts are not working, but we also need the Iraqi government to know that they're on their own at some point.

This war/occupation hasn't been as expensive in terms of dollars or lives as one might think when listening to the press. But Americans seem to suffer from ADD when it comes to nation-building.

Honestly I don't know if this will help the situation over there, but the Iraqis have to step up. If they can't get control of their country and seize the opportunity to have a free nation, then eventually the blame lies with them. We've given them lots of opportunities already. It looks like they'll get a few more before we give up as a government, as a people I think we've already thrown in the towel.

 

[wfooshee]

But Americans seem to suffer from ADD when it comes to nation-building.

I was thinking exactly this as I read the post. I also expected a lot more Bush-bashing through the thread, blind repitition of "That lying Bush got us into this for the oil," or whatever, and I'm glad to see that missing, so far at least.

My son served a year in Baghdad, and my nephew was in the airborne untis in the early days in northern Iraq. Both have come home safely, but my point is that I want people to know that I DO understand what it's like to have loved ones in harm's way before I'm criticized for the next statement.

EVERYONE I know who has been there and come back has no clue what the fuss is about over here. They are astonished at the anti-war attitude in the public and the press. They don't know why we don't know what's really going on over there. My son worked at the Army's hospital in Baghdad as a lab technician, and most of his time was general health care for the Iraqi public. My nephew helped open a school and keep it secure. Friends of theirs who have come to the house with them have similar stories. Yet all we hear in the news and from Democrats is body counts, more troops, when will it end, yada yada yada.

Here's your news flash, guys: IT WILL NEVER END. It will end in Iraq, someday, but this type of fundamentalist crap never ends until the bad guys no longer exist, or at least no longer have access to tools with which to commit their atrocities.

We're the good guys, y'all. We destroyed Germany for the sake of freedom in Europe, and we stayed and put it back together. We didn't bail and say "K, guys, good luck!" We destroyed Japan (at least their system) for the sake of freedom in the Pacific, and then put them back together as well. We don't conquer, we defend, then we rebuild those we defended as they need. We lost that resolve in Viet Nam, and we seem to be losing it in Iraq. You want to compare Iraq to Viet Nam, then make THAT comparison. It's the only one that applies.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Umm, well, best of luck and all that....

3,000 British troops to pull out of Iraq by May

 

[Swift]

Umm, well, best of luck and all that....

3,000 British troops to pull out of Iraq by May

Nice, I truly and honestly hope GB doesn't come under more terrorist fire. Spain pulled out and look what happened to them.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nice, I truly and honestly hope GB doesn't come under more terrorist fire. Spain pulled out and look what happened to them.

Sorry, but that is not the case at all... Spain decided to pull out of Iraq as a result of a change of leader brought about by a democratic election. The terrorist bombing of trains in Madrid happened immediately prior to (not after) those elections. The implication that the bombings in Madrid by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were inspired by their involvement in Iraq is arguably true, but Spain comes under terrorist attack, and much more frequently, for domestic reasons also... The implication that Spain was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists because they pulled out of Iraq is completely wrong. If anything, it's the total opposite.

The UK is not any less susceptible to terrorism whether we are in Iraq or not. These people are fundamentalists, hell bent on forcing their agenda on us regardless of what we do. So it's pretty unlikely that our withdrawal from Iraq will make much of a difference either way... however, it would rob the fundamentalists of their prime excuse.

 

[Swift]

The UK is not any less susceptible to terrorism whether we are in Iraq or not. These people are fundamentalists, hell bent on forcing their agenda on us regardless of what we do. So it's pretty unlikely that our withdrawal from Iraq will make much of a difference either way... however, it would rob the fundamentalists of their prime excuse.

And I personally think it's wussing out. But that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Touring Mars]

How is it wussing out when our presence there is now a) doing nothing to help, b) causing antagonism to the Iraqis and c) killing our troops? Was Richard Nixon a wuss for ending the Vietnam War? The fact is, the 'war' or 'occupation' (whatever you want to call it) has to end eventually, and which ever way you look at it, there has to come a time when it cannot (or should not) be considered 'wussing out' but rather 'doing what is right'.... Machismo has nothing to do with it any more...

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam if it's carried out." - Chuck Hagel, Republican senator (BBC)

 

[KSaiyu]

Honestly I don't know if this will help the situation over there, but the Iraqis have to step up. If they can't get control of their country and seize the opportunity to have a free nation, then eventually the blame lies with them. We've given them lots of opportunities already. It looks like they'll get a few more before we give up as a government, as a people I think we've already thrown in the towel.

It won't work because of the reason you've pointed out - the Iraqis. 20'000 more troops won't change opinions. 20'000 will not suddenly, or even gradually turn Iraq into a secure nation with a democracy. If the Iraqis don't want to fight now, why would they with 20'000 more foreigners in their country? All you need to look at is past conflicts with Islam controlled lands; Somalia, Algeria, Palestine even the recent conflict with Lebanon. Touring Mars has already pointed out that it's too late anyway, Iraq is in the beginning of a civil war and more Americans will not help those in power stabilize the country, even to the degree that it was under Saddam.

Nice, I truly and honestly hope GB doesn't come under more terrorist fire. Spain pulled out and look what happened to them.

Doubtful. You ask any British muslim who are even slightly"anti-west" or "anti-Britain" why they are and they'll more than likely tell you something about "occupation of Islam nations" i.e. our presence in Iraq. Sometimes it's best just to cut your losses before the situation there, and more importantly here deteriorates any more.

 

[Swift]

How is it wussing out when our presence there is now a) doing nothing to help, b) causing antagonism to the Iraqis and c) killing our troops? Was Richard Nixon a wuss for ending the Vietnam War? The fact is, the 'war' or 'occupation' (whatever you want to call it) has to end eventually, and which ever way you look at it, there has to come a time when it cannot (or should not) be considered 'wussing out' but rather 'doing what is right'.... Machismo has nothing to do with it any more...

We're having the same problem with this conflict as the Vietnam conflict. We have people in suits and ties, sitting in leather chairs, drinking cofee deciding things for the people on the ground. Yes, Nixon was a wuss to pull out of Vietnam but he had no choice since congress cut his legs off.

This struggle could be over by march if the military could do it's job. Instead, we've got to have a "civilized" war where the military has one hand tied behind its back.

I'm not sure about the political side in GB. But you can't build a country overnight and you can't lay the foundation until the people have some sense of security. That takes time. But it would take less time if congress would stay in Washington and off the battlefield.

 

[Touring Mars]

We're having the same problem with this conflict as the Vietnam conflict. We have people in suits and ties, sitting in leather chairs, drinking cofee deciding things for the people on the ground. Yes, Nixon was a wuss to pull out of Vietnam but he had no choice since congress cut his legs off.

I'd agree with most of that, except the contention that Nixon was wuss to pull out of Vietnam. Pulling out of Vietnam was one of the most difficult issues that any US President has ever had to face, yet Nixon managed to do it. G. W. Bush on the other hand has got the US into this mess, and he knows that he won't have to be the one to get you/us out of it... In my opinion, it takes much more balls to resolve a fight than to start one.

This struggle could be over by march if the military could do it's job. Instead, we've got to have a "civilized" war where the military has one hand tied behind its back.

If the situation in Iraq is your idea of civilized, I'd hate to see an uncivilized war. If by that you mean that US (and it's coalition partners) are bound to 'play by the rules', then I also wonder what is so great (or legal) about not playing by the rules... sure, fundamentalist terrorists don't play by the rules, so why should we? The answer is simple... because if our nations don't respect international law, then why bother with international law at all? And where do you think that would lead...? It doesn't bear thinking about...

I'm not sure about the political side in GB. But you can't build a country overnight and you can't lay the foundation until the people have some sense of security. That takes time. But it would take less time if congress would stay in Washington and off the battlefield.

I agree with most of that, but the military is only a tool by which the government/state can carry out it's will or duties.... you can't just "wind it up and let it go" - it needs to be guided and guided well - from the outset - long before the outset infact...

I sincerely hope (and if I were a religious man, I'd say pray) that whoever succeeds George W. Bush has the same power of intellect as Richard Nixon and does what is right for both Iraq and the U.S.

 

[Sureboss]

This year could be huge for the Iraq from the UKs POV, as Gordon Brown originally opposed going to Iraq and as he's set to be PM within the next 6 months he might do something a little different.

As for pulling 3,000 troops out?

Well what surprises me is that we have as many troops in Northern Ireland as we do in Iraq. In Iraq one side needs to forgive before things can go on to a better level, I just don't see it happening unfortunately.

 

[Silverzone]

I completely agree with the increase. I think it could help them hold down certain areas whilst they go and clear out terrorists in others. Although a draft.. I sure hope not.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm glad GWB finally tried something new to fix the situation.

Pushing US troops into Iraq is hardly a new idea...

 

[Silverzone]

Pushing US troops into Iraq is hardly a new idea...

meh, I wasn't paying attention.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, saying that - atleast he is trying something... however, GWB is only as good as the advice he seeks... and when even a Republican senator calls it a 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder' and a Democratic senator 'a tragic mistake', you have to wonder just who he is listening too...

 

[Swift]

I'd agree with most of that, except the contention that Nixon was wuss to pull out of Vietnam. Pulling out of Vietnam was one of the most difficult issues that any US President has ever had to face, yet Nixon managed to do it. G. W. Bush on the other hand has got the US into this mess, and he knows that he won't have to be the one to get you/us out of it... In my opinion, it takes much more balls to resolve a fight than to start one.

He was forced to be a wuss. I'm not saying Nixon was fundamentally a wuss.

If the situation in Iraq is your idea of civilized, I'd hate to see an uncivilized war. If by that you mean that US (and it's coalition partners) are bound to 'play by the rules', then I also wonder what is so great (or legal) about not playing by the rules... sure, fundamentalist terrorists don't play by the rules, so why should we? The answer is simple... because if our nations don't respect international law, then why bother with international law at all? And where do you think that would lead...? It doesn't bear thinking about...

What I mean is this garbage over enemy combatants and the Geneva conventions and more specifically, the rules of engagement. Where does anyone in congress get off setting up or even suggesting changes to the rules of engagement?

I agree with most of that, but the military is only a tool by which the government/state can carry out it's will or duties.... you can't just "wind it up and let it go" - it needs to be guided and guided well - from the outset - long before the outset infact...

No argument here.

I sincerely hope (and if I were a religious man, I'd say pray) that whoever succeeds George W. Bush has the same power of intellect as Richard Nixon and does what is right for both Iraq and the U.S.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Danoff]

Well, saying that - atleast he is trying something... however, GWB is only as good as the advice he seeks... and when even a Republican senator calls it a 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder' and a Democratic senator 'a tragic mistake', you have to wonder just who he is listening too...

Not that republican or democratic senator. It's easy to sit back and say "you suck", it's harder to stand up and say "this is what will work". I don't see congress doing much of that.

 

[Swift]

Not that republican or democratic senator. It's easy to sit back and say "you suck", it's harder to stand up and say "this is what will work". I don't see congress doing much of that.

I do.

"REDEPLOY!" Chumps...

 

[Danoff]

I do.

"REDEPLOY!" Chumps...

That's no so much "this will work" as "give up".