Bush speech tonight - more troops sent to Iraq

BlueStar · 11:22 AM

Bush to acknowledge Iraq mistakes
In speech Wednesday night, president to acknowledge earlier mistakes
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:20 p.m. ET Jan 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 21,500 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it was a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war.

Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular war, the president will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed because certain neighborhoods in Baghdad were put off limits by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “Military operations sometimes were handcuffed by political interference by the Iraqi leadership,” he said.

Bartlett also said the Iraqis had failed to deliver on earlier pledges to commit more of their troops. “They (the Iraqis) are going to have more boots on the ground,” he said. “They’re going to be the ones doing the knocking on the door.”

Al-Maliki has assured Bush that “this is going to be an operation in Baghdad that will make no difference between Shiite, Sunni or other types of illegal militia or illegal activity,” Bartlett said.

A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced:
# Bush is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province.
# He is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad, equivalent to five combat brigades. The first brigade will arrive by next Monday. The next brigade is to arrive by Feb. 15. The reminder will arrive there in 30-day increments.
# The Iraqis are committing three brigades for Baghdad, the first to be delivered on Feb. 1. Two more will arrive on Feb. 15th.

Democrats craft response
Even before Bush speaks, Democrats were laying plans to register their opposition to the troop buildup. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to hold a vote on the increase, trying to isolate Bush on his handling of the war. Democratic leaders in the Senate, saying they hoped to win some Republican support, said they planned to have their chamber debate a symbolic measure next week also expressing opposition to troop increases.

The Democratic congressional election victory in November showed “American voters expect us to help get us out of Iraq,” Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a 2008 presidential hopeful and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said as his panel heard independent experts on Iraq.

In the latest sign of GOP unease on the war, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, top Republican on the Foreign Relations panel, said, “The president and his team need to explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how they will be used,” and how long additional troops may be needed.

For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to ******* pumping $1 billion into Iraq’s economy, is the answer for a more than 3½-year-old war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

Decentralizing reconstruction
The administration plans to expand an existing program to decentralize reconstruction efforts. Ten units known as Provincial Reconstruction Teams will be expanded to 19, with the additional units based in Baghdad and in Anbar province, seats of most of the worst violence. The teams, under State Department control, will administer some of the economic aid, including an effort to provide small loans to start or expand businesses.

Bartlett did a round of interviews on television morning shows to set the stage for the president’s address.

“A vast majority of the American people are not satisfied with the progress in Iraq,” Bartlett said. “President Bush is in their camp. He’s not satisfied, he’s going to say the strategy was not working, he’s going to tell them specifically how we’re going to fix the strategy.”

Bush will say that the infusion of additional American forces will depend on Iraq taking specific steps to curb sectarian violence and making other moves to deal with political and economic problems. The first batch of new U.S. troops is expected to be in Iraq within three weeks.

Bartlett also said that Bush will “make very clear that America’s commitment is not open-ended, that benchmarks have to be met, that milestones have to be reached both on the security side but just as importantly on the political side and the economic side. It will be unequivocal in President Bush’s speech tonight that the Iraqis have to step up.”

Mistakes to be acknowledged
In his speech, Bush was to acknowledge that mistakes have been made, Bartlett said.

“The president will say very clearly tonight that there were mistakes with the earlier operations, that it did not have enough Iraqi troops or U.S. troops, that the rules of engagement — the terms in which our troops would actually conduct these operations — were flawed,” Bartlett said.

After nearly four years of fighting, $400 billion and thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, the White House calls the president’s prime-time address from the White House library just the start of a debate over Iraq’s many problems.

The address — one of the most pivotal of Bush’s presidency — is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also will ******* detailed briefings for lawmakers and reporters, trips abroad by Cabinet members and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga.

Crafting the new policy took the president nearly three months. Relevant agencies conducted reviews, outside experts were called in, and the president consulted several times with al-Maliki and other prominent Iraqi leaders.

In the meantime, the sectarian violence in Iraq continued unabated, and public approval of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war hit a record low of 27 percent in December, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

The president will say that the 132,000 troops now in Iraq will be augmented with more sent to both Baghdad, which has been consumed by sectarian violence, and the western Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.

Moving first into Iraq will be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is now in Kuwait and poised to head quickly into the country, a defense official said. The brigade, numbering about 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C.

The president will ignore the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he ******* Syria and Iran in discussions about efforts to staunch Iraqi bloodshed, the official said.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/

----------------------------------------------------------

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
The New York Times
January 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.

“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”

The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.

While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.

They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.

“We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”

On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.

In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”

But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.

The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night.

On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.

“We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.”

Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.

“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents.

“Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/wa...gewanted=print

----------------------------------------------------------

Text of Bush's speech...

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.

They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

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, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders 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 prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi army division.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region - to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists - or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. 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.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration. It will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

RopeyLopey · 01-10-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

hey bluestar, aeroplane sucks as a poster, but he is clearly miles better than you. this is how articles are properly posted, ya bitch!!!

hey BlueStar, Jerome wasn't only talking about the number of articles Aeroplane posted, but he also meant the way he introduced them

here I again got handed two articles from your folder with your mouth shut

BlueStar · 01-10-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

here I again got handed two articles from your folder with your mouth shut

Which, again, is fairly standard for threads in this forum. And the more you bitch about it, the more I want to post nothing but articles. And I'll make them more boring. And pointless. And lengthier.

Shawn Osmond · 01-10-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStar

Which, again, is fairly standard for threads in this forum. And the more you bitch about it, the more I want to post nothing but articles. And I'll make them more boring. And pointless. And lengthier.

Aren't you like 27 years old? Seriously, stop making posts like this that make you seem like you're losing your marbles.

redbull · 01-10-2007, 09:23 PM

political carnage in t minus 39 minutes

Mayfuck · 01-10-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

hey BlueStar, Jerome wasn't only talking about the number of articles Aeroplane posted, but he also meant the way he introduced them

here I again got handed two articles from your folder with your mouth shut

Why does she have to ******* commentary? It hardly makes a difference. I for one appreciate her articles. I'm sure she'll chime in later. Do you really care about her opinion that much?

re: article, the only thing worse than a pyrrhic victory is a pyrrhic loss. Classic Dubya.

Nimrod's Son · 01-10-2007, 10:01 PM

Is there anyone who fights to be relevant more than Ted Kennedy?

For anyone who disagrees with more troops in Iraq, let me put it this way: either put in a shitload of troops, or take them all home now. I said this on this forum years ago, this war is being run in a half-assed fashion, and you either need to fight a WAR or you don't.

redbull · 01-10-2007, 10:02 PM

he only took one sentence to mess up, awesome

redbull · 01-10-2007, 10:06 PM

his advisors report that "this plan can work"

Aeroplane · 01-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Future Boy · 01-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Has he listed anything that didnt already happen. Iran will be emboldened? No shit!

Aeroplane · 01-10-2007, 10:10 PM

Iraq is suppose to have control of the provinces by NOVEMBER?? hope so, but . . .

Nimrod's Son · 01-10-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Has he listed anything that didnt already happen. Iran will be emboldened? No shit!

It's a SOTU. Expect a bunch of rhetoric and rah rah stuff.

Future Boy · 01-10-2007, 10:14 PM

Oh I do, but the level of BS in that section forced me to vent.

Aeroplane · 01-10-2007, 10:16 PM

i just wish that they had thought this through more when we first invaded. the fact that they didn't have strong provincial teams coordinating economic growth to match the strength of our military is crazy. they're just NOW boosting these teams and assigning better coordinators. they should have been essential to our strategy from the beginning and not as a last resort.

redbull · 01-10-2007, 10:23 PM

oil revenue sharing, is this new?

Aeroplane · 01-10-2007, 10:24 PM

haha. Nancy Pelosi already issued a statement saying she rejects this strategy before Durbin responds. gee, what a shock. haha.

sppunk · 01-10-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Is there anyone who fights to be relevant more than Ted Kennedy?

For anyone who disagrees with more troops in Iraq, let me put it this way: either put in a shitload of troops, or take them all home now. I said this on this forum years ago, this war is being run in a half-assed fashion, and you either need to fight a WAR or you don't.

Agree 100 percent. Send all our forces, all our might there and start killing lots of people, or leave now and forever.

Tchocky · 01-10-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sppunk

Agree 100 percent. Send all our forces, all our might there and start killing lots of people, or leave now and forever.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Andrew_Pakula · 01-10-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

For anyone who disagrees with more troops in Iraq, let me put it this way: either put in a shitload of troops, or take them all home now.

That is what the recommendation was, if you are going to put in more troops then you got to put in about 400-500k otherwise simply adding 20k would only have a marginal effect at best.

The war has just been a giant fraud from day one, time to just cut the losses and bring them all home.

Effloresce · 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

For anyone who disagrees with more troops in Iraq, let me put it this way: either put in a shitload of troops, or take them all home now. I said this on this forum years ago, this war is being run in a half-assed fashion, and you either need to fight a WAR or you don't.

The country does not want more troops. Bring them home and end this insanity, Iraq is fucked long-term anyway. We can waste more lives trying to put a band-aid on the inevitable future, or just get the hell out.

Stupid war, never should've happened.

Nimrod's Son · 01-10-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effloresce

The country does not want more troops.

The country does not like the way the war is being handled. That is not the same thing.

redbull · 01-10-2007, 11:05 PM

500,000 perhaps

NOT ONE DOMINO SHALL FALL

RopeyLopey · 01-10-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Why does she have to ******* commentary? It hardly makes a difference. I for one appreciate her articles. I'm sure she'll chime in later. Do you really care about her opinion that much?

did this thread:http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=132715
and this post in particular,
http://forums.netphoria.org/showpost...8&postcount=20, did they even happen at all?

JokeyLoki · 01-10-2007, 11:46 PM

Meh, 20k is going to maybe make a small dent, but do not-shit in the long run. Our military has been downsized too much to handle something like this the way it should be handled.

I can't believe Rummy and pals thought the war would be an wham bam thank ya ma'am type of thing, with no backup plan. We'll be hailed as liberators! Hah!

Effloresce · 01-10-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The country does not like the way the war is being handled. That is not the same thing.

Some people want more troops, yes. It's still not as popular as just getting the hell out.

Mayfuck · 01-10-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

did this thread:http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=132715
and this post in particular,
http://forums.netphoria.org/showpost...8&postcount=20, did they even happen at all?

Please stay on topic or leave the thread.

Tchocky · 01-11-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Please stay on topic or leave the thread.

He makes a valid point, regardless of its relevance to this particular thread.

Tchocky · 01-11-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JokeyLoki

Meh, 20k is going to maybe make a small dent, but do not-shit in the long run. Our military has been downsized too much to handle something like this the way it should be handled.

I can't believe Rummy and pals thought the war would be an wham bam thank ya ma'am type of thing, with no backup plan. We'll be hailed as liberators! Hah!

The war was poorly planned, poorly executed, and Bush & co. over-estimated (perhaps on purpose) how much Iraqis wanted Saddam ousted.

I hope all that Iraqi oil was worth it, George.

Mayfuck · 01-11-2007, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

He makes a valid point, regardless of its relevance to this particular thread.

He's not making any point. He's just whining. You don't need to add commentary to an article posted.

01-10-2007, 01:42 PM	#1
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	Bush speech tonight - more troops sent to Iraq Bush to acknowledge Iraq mistakes In speech Wednesday night, president to acknowledge earlier mistakes The Associated Press Updated: 12:20 p.m. ET Jan 10, 2007 WASHINGTON - President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 21,500 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it was a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war. Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular war, the president will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed because certain neighborhoods in Baghdad were put off limits by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “Military operations sometimes were handcuffed by political interference by the Iraqi leadership,” he said. Bartlett also said the Iraqis had failed to deliver on earlier pledges to commit more of their troops. “They (the Iraqis) are going to have more boots on the ground,” he said. “They’re going to be the ones doing the knocking on the door.” Al-Maliki has assured Bush that “this is going to be an operation in Baghdad that will make no difference between Shiite, Sunni or other types of illegal militia or illegal activity,” Bartlett said. A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced: # Bush is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province. # He is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad, equivalent to five combat brigades. The first brigade will arrive by next Monday. The next brigade is to arrive by Feb. 15. The reminder will arrive there in 30-day increments. # The Iraqis are committing three brigades for Baghdad, the first to be delivered on Feb. 1. Two more will arrive on Feb. 15th. Democrats craft response Even before Bush speaks, Democrats were laying plans to register their opposition to the troop buildup. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to hold a vote on the increase, trying to isolate Bush on his handling of the war. Democratic leaders in the Senate, saying they hoped to win some Republican support, said they planned to have their chamber debate a symbolic measure next week also expressing opposition to troop increases. The Democratic congressional election victory in November showed “American voters expect us to help get us out of Iraq,” Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a 2008 presidential hopeful and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said as his panel heard independent experts on Iraq. In the latest sign of GOP unease on the war, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, top Republican on the Foreign Relations panel, said, “The president and his team need to explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how they will be used,” and how long additional troops may be needed. For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to ***** pumping $1 billion into Iraq’s economy, is the answer for a more than 3½-year-old war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight. Decentralizing reconstruction The administration plans to expand an existing program to decentralize reconstruction efforts. Ten units known as Provincial Reconstruction Teams will be expanded to 19, with the additional units based in Baghdad and in Anbar province, seats of most of the worst violence. The teams, under State Department control, will administer some of the economic aid, including an effort to provide small loans to start or expand businesses. Bartlett did a round of interviews on television morning shows to set the stage for the president’s address. “A vast majority of the American people are not satisfied with the progress in Iraq,” Bartlett said. “President Bush is in their camp. He’s not satisfied, he’s going to say the strategy was not working, he’s going to tell them specifically how we’re going to fix the strategy.” Bush will say that the infusion of additional American forces will depend on Iraq taking specific steps to curb sectarian violence and making other moves to deal with political and economic problems. The first batch of new U.S. troops is expected to be in Iraq within three weeks. Bartlett also said that Bush will “make very clear that America’s commitment is not open-ended, that benchmarks have to be met, that milestones have to be reached both on the security side but just as importantly on the political side and the economic side. It will be unequivocal in President Bush’s speech tonight that the Iraqis have to step up.” Mistakes to be acknowledged In his speech, Bush was to acknowledge that mistakes have been made, Bartlett said. “The president will say very clearly tonight that there were mistakes with the earlier operations, that it did not have enough Iraqi troops or U.S. troops, that the rules of engagement — the terms in which our troops would actually conduct these operations — were flawed,” Bartlett said. After nearly four years of fighting, $400 billion and thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, the White House calls the president’s prime-time address from the White House library just the start of a debate over Iraq’s many problems. The address — one of the most pivotal of Bush’s presidency — is the centerpiece of an aggressive public relations campaign that also will *** detailed briefings for lawmakers and reporters, trips abroad by Cabinet members and a series of appearances by Bush starting with a trip Thursday to Fort Benning, Ga. Crafting the new policy took the president nearly three months. Relevant agencies conducted reviews, outside experts were called in, and the president consulted several times with al-Maliki and other prominent Iraqi leaders. In the meantime, the sectarian violence in Iraq continued unabated, and public approval of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war hit a record low of 27 percent in December, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The president will say that the 132,000 troops now in Iraq will be augmented with more sent to both Baghdad, which has been consumed by sectarian violence, and the western Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters. Moving first into Iraq will be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is now in Kuwait and poised to head quickly into the country, a defense official said. The brigade, numbering about 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The president will ignore the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he *** Syria and Iran in discussions about efforts to staunch Iraqi bloodshed, the official said. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/ ---------------------------------------------------------- Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan** By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE The New York Times January 10, 2007 WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war. Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq. The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message. The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war. In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war. The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists. “If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.” The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself. While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan. They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake. “We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.” On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee. But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution. In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.” But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said. The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night. On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify. Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq. “We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.” Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue. “We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents. “Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/wa...gewanted=print ---------------------------------------------------------- Text of Bush's speech... Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq. The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. 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, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work. Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders 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 prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation." This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution. America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq. As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad. Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq. Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region. We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region - to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East. The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists - or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom? The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will. Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren. This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. 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. In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed. Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration. It will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny. In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail. We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night. Last edited by BlueStar : 01-11-2007 at 11:22 AM.

01-10-2007, 09:23 PM	#5
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	political carnage in t minus 39 minutes

01-10-2007, 10:01 PM	#7
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,975	Is there anyone who fights to be relevant more than Ted Kennedy? For anyone who disagrees with more troops in Iraq, let me put it this way: either put in a shitload of troops, or take them all home now. I said this on this forum years ago, this war is being run in a half-assed fashion, and you either need to fight a WAR or you don't.

01-10-2007, 10:02 PM	#8
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	he only took one sentence to mess up, awesome

01-10-2007, 10:06 PM	#9
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	his advisors report that "this plan can work"

01-10-2007, 10:08 PM	#10
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,579	haha

01-10-2007, 10:08 PM	#11
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,965	Has he listed anything that didnt already happen. Iran will be emboldened? No shit!

01-10-2007, 10:10 PM	#12
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,579	Iraq is suppose to have control of the provinces by NOVEMBER?? hope so, but . . .

01-10-2007, 10:14 PM	#14
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,965	Oh I do, but the level of BS in that section forced me to vent.

01-10-2007, 10:16 PM	#15
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,579	i just wish that they had thought this through more when we first invaded. the fact that they didn't have strong provincial teams coordinating economic growth to match the strength of our military is crazy. they're just NOW boosting these teams and assigning better coordinators. they should have been essential to our strategy from the beginning and not as a last resort.

01-10-2007, 10:23 PM	#16
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	oil revenue sharing, is this new?

01-10-2007, 10:24 PM	#17
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,579	haha. Nancy Pelosi already issued a statement saying she rejects this strategy before Durbin responds. gee, what a shock. haha.

01-10-2007, 11:05 PM	#23
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	500,000 perhaps NOT ONE DOMINO SHALL FALL

01-10-2007, 11:46 PM	#25
JokeyLoki has great self of steam. Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS Posts: 24,305	Meh, 20k is going to maybe make a small dent, but do not-shit in the long run. Our military has been downsized too much to handle something like this the way it should be handled. I can't believe Rummy and pals thought the war would be an wham bam thank ya ma'am type of thing, with no backup plan. We'll be hailed as liberators! Hah!