OUTLINE OF SPEECH:Bush To Admit Iraq Mistakes Dems Don’t Understand The Constitution
By: Pam On: Jan/10/07 -
Here is the outline of the President’s speech to be given this evening:
- President George W. Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night that he should have sent more troops to Iraq to fight the war during the earlier stages of the nearly four-year conflict, a senior administration official revealed.
- Bush will also acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed and seek support for a new strategy to win the unpopular war
- The new approach includes sending 20,000 additional U.S. troops to join the 132,000 already there. Their purpose will be to help “break the cycle” of violence to “allow for the type of breathing space that the Iraqis need to get the type of political and economic reconciliation we all know that’s necessary for that country to move forward,”
- he will describe the need for a gradual build-up of U.S. troops along with other steps, including an expected increase of $1 billion into Iraq’s economy and more benchmarks from the Iraqi government.
- say that the infusion of additional American forces will depend on Iraq taking specific steps to curb sectarian violence and make other moves to deal with political and economic problems. The speech will include a call for Iraqis to have control of all 18 Iraqi provinces by November 2007.
- Bush is expected to link increases in both U.S. troops and economic aid to moves by the Shiite-led Iraqi government to bridge sectarian divisions. Those include taking steps to curb Shiite militias, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to all the country’s sects and easing government restrictions on deposed leader Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
- Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., told FOX News that Bush is expected to announce that al-Maliki will put up a sizeable Iraqi contribution to the war effort ” the senator said it was to be some $11 billion.
- The president will ignore the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he include Syria and Iran in an effort to staunch Iraqi bloodshed, the official said.
Here is the preliminary reaction from the Democrats:
- In the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy has sponsored legislation to require Bush to get congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks Democrats have enough GOP support to reject escalation, assuming Congress has the authority to stop a troop build-up.  “Last count, there’s nine Republicans who in one way or another say they don’t support the surge. Now, whether they’ll all hang in there, that remains to be seen,” Reid, D-Nev., said.
- Tom Vilsack, who is leaving his post as Iowa governor, told state lawmakers Tuesday to register condemnation of Bush’s plan. “Now the president and the Congress are poised to make a big mistake even bigger,” the Democrat told a joint session of the Iowa Legislature in his final condition of the state speech, The Des Moines Register reported.
Others Blogging this:Â Riehl World View, Outside The Beltway, Gateway Pundit, CorrenteWire, The Caucus, Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, Don Surber, Unclaimed Territory, Liberty Street, AMERICAN FUTURE, Pajamas Media and The Raw Story
Discussion:
James Joyner / Outside The Beltway: Â Kennedy, Congress, and the Surge
Lambert / CorrenteWire: Â White House ends embargo on approved frames for tonight’s Iraq speech from Bush
Kate Phillips / The Caucus: Â Kennedy: ‘George Bush’s Vietnam’
Glenn Greenwald / Unclaimed Territory:  The Leader is with us “ Boston Herald columnist Jules :
Marc Schulman / AMERICAN FUTURE: Â The Mistaken Mr. Kennedy
January 10, 2007 - 10:58 AM on January 10th, 2007
I had heard that the rules of engagement were too restrictive from many different sources. If thats so then it’s really no wonder this war has become a mess.
I hope this is a tip off to all the politically correct libs that there are just some times you have to kick ass.
This is a different kind of war and we need a different set of rules.
January 10, 2007 - 11:46 AM on January 10th, 2007
I agree. The only way to wage war is to WIN. I’ve said before no CIC should ever commit our military to combat unless their commanders have only one rule of engagement: WIN!
Political correctness is a recipe for disaster, just as it is everywhere else.
BonBon I think the reason you are criticized for your opinions is because you base them squarely on common sense. Not lofty academic constructs that don’t work in the real world, just plain logic and common sense firmly based on the lessons of history and the reality of human nature.
Some people can’t handle that. It’s too basic, too simple, too real for them to accept.
January 10, 2007 - 11:53 AM on January 10th, 2007
The only rule should be find the enemy, kill the enemy, period. I think that if the enemy is found to be an Associated Press Stringer, that he/she should be killed immediately.
I wish someone would sponsor legislation to permanently deny Ted Kennedy all forms of Alcohol.
January 10, 2007 - 12:39 PM on January 10th, 2007
Peejz,
Since when do ANY liberals bother to read the Constitution? They put judges on the bench that ignore legally legislated laws and the Constitution itself to render their own vision of what they think should be the law.
Liberals are the biggest juvenile hypocrites on the face of the Earth.
Liberals hate the reality that in this country that there can be facts and opinions that prove them wrong and that people can adhere to them.
January 10, 2007 - 12:55 PM on January 10th, 2007
4-:lol: PCD, I only highlighted the words that the author of the article chose to use..That made me laugh:wink:
January 10, 2007 - 01:09 PM on January 10th, 2007
“He will describe the need for a gradual build-up of U.S. troops…”
This got my attention- I wonder how big and how gradual the buid up will be, and if this is above the 20,000?
January 10, 2007 - 01:09 PM on January 10th, 2007
Too little, too late. This would have been a great plan a year ago, but not now. And anyway, public support for the war has eroded significantly. Bush is just plain out of touch with what America wants now.
January 10, 2007 - 02:45 PM on January 10th, 2007
do you think he’ll also admit that he should have known the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite as well?
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
January 10, 2007 - 02:57 PM on January 10th, 2007
It’s kind of interesting to look back at how this situation has evolved. It’s not about ‘kicking ass’ or ‘restrictive rules of engagement’. It’s mainly about not having a plan about the post invasion period. Remember back in 2003 when this was supposed to last weeks, mabye months? Contrary to what has been said, many commanders did want more troops, twice, three times as many as they had to keep the peace once we brushed Saddam aside. But the civilians, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et. al. didn’t buy into that. They thought it would all just work itself out. And then they sent Bremer in there who made a lot of stupid moves like disbanding the Iraqi army who became a large component of the insurgency. They let the looting happen which broke down respect for the law and the US Army. They didn’t lock down the ammo dumps because they didn’t have enough people. The people they did have were running around looking for WMD which weren’t there. I’m sorry, but after 4 years they have messed this up so badly the only thing left to do is get out. It really could have worked but this administration does not know what it is doing and it’s doubtful has evolved the sense to deal with a situation that is 10 times more complicated now than it was in 2003.
January 10, 2007 - 03:08 PM on January 10th, 2007
If the “decider” thinks these measures are going to make a significant difference in cleaning up the mess his past mistakes have created, he is learly delusional and needs immediate psyhological help. He can’t undo his ignoring the chaos after “Mission Acomplished” caused by disbanding the Baathist government, disbanding the army, and having the buffoon Rumsfeld threatening to fire anyone who mentioned a reconstruction plan (which the state department had, by the way, but was ignored.
This is an unfixable mess at this point and it’s his fault. Get us out of there and let the Iraqi’s decide on their own fate. If that means Sadr, so be it. As can be said about our own head of state, people get the leaders they deserve sometimes…
January 10, 2007 - 03:17 PM on January 10th, 2007
Bush’s speech this evening
Fox News has a sneak peek at some of the things the President will be addressing in tonight’s speech. Here’s a sneak peek:
WASHINGTON ” President George W. Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night that he should have sent more troops t…
January 10, 2007 - 03:37 PM on January 10th, 2007
which the state department had, by the way, but was ignored.
At best, the State Dept. is a bunch of imcompetent idiots. At worst, it is a nest of traitors who leak classified vital info to the enemy.
Don’t put your argumentive eggs in that basket.
January 10, 2007 - 05:26 PM on January 10th, 2007
Man, it would be really funny if it wasn’t (apart from the precious US-dollars) so much human life that is wasted…
Shit, you folks ain’t political correct either:
What an idiot of a president, elected by a majority of idiots!!!
*MUA-HAHAHA-HAHA-HAAAAAAAA*
January 10, 2007 - 05:28 PM on January 10th, 2007
PS:
I don’t fell a bit sorry for the American taxpayers and voters… only for the men on the battlefields who were abused by your Mafia-government!
January 10, 2007 - 07:11 PM on January 10th, 2007
You guys really do amaze me.
Does it occur to any of you that much of what President Bush is going to say tonight would have gotten anyone else who posted the exact same thing 3 months ago branded an idiot???
January 10, 2007 - 07:29 PM on January 10th, 2007
14.
By whom?
January 10, 2007 - 07:41 PM on January 10th, 2007
I think you know.
January 10, 2007 - 08:02 PM on January 10th, 2007
16.
If I knew, I wouldn’t have asked. Assume…you know what THAT means, right?
January 10, 2007 - 08:30 PM on January 10th, 2007
My point exactly.
January 10, 2007 - 10:49 PM on January 10th, 2007
“This is an unfixable mess at this point and it’s his fault. Get us out of there and let the Iraqi’s decide on their own fate.”
Yes and Yes.
January 10, 2007 - 10:50 PM on January 10th, 2007
18.
Then instead of ducking the question can you please directly answer it, as posted in post #15 of this thread?
January 10, 2007 - 11:02 PM on January 10th, 2007
“…Their purpose will be to help “break the cycle”of violence”
I seem to remember me mentioning the need to break the cycle of violence more than a time or two here on RV.
I’m fairly certain I didn’t find much agreement.
January 11, 2007 - 07:50 AM on January 11th, 2007
21. So you think San Fran that if we left the Iraqi’s alone to handle their affairs when Iranians, Al Queda and other insurgents are in such proportion that these people can’t even leave their homes to go to work they would be better off?
Please explain how that breaks the cycle of violence?
January 11, 2007 - 08:18 AM on January 11th, 2007
BonBon, SFL doesn’t really care about that. He just wants to cut, run, and give Bush a black eye. It is as simple as that.
January 11, 2007 - 07:24 PM on January 11th, 2007
20. TedintheShed;
Okay, you’re usually pretty reasonable and rational; and you asked me a direct question.
Bon Bon
Peejz
Mike Kilo
PCD
And more, but I don’t remember the names right now
The same thing has happened to San Francisco Liberal and shiloh. Things that they (and I) have said in the past that President Bush stated last night have resulted in them (and I) being called the equivalent of “idiotâ€.
If I had the time I would go back and provide a link for each and every person I listed.
January 11, 2007 - 08:16 PM on January 11th, 2007
“So you think San Fran that if we left the Iraqi’s alone to handle their affairs when Iranians, Al Queda and other insurgents are in such proportion that these people can’t even leave their homes to go to work they would be better off?”
More or less, YES.
Let’s not forget why all this is happening in the first place: GW Bush and his poorly made decision to invade and occupy.
Bush, and those of you voted for him, need to be reminded EVERYDAY that this mess in Iraq is 100% HIS and YOUR fault. (!)
Remember the “domino theory” regarding Vietnam? Remember how many predicited doom and gloom for the free world if the communists won there? One country after another would fall and become communist. Did that happen?
…no, it didn’t.
January 11, 2007 - 08:25 PM on January 11th, 2007
…and all the people saying “better to fight them over there than here” and “we’ll be wearing burkas” etc as just as wrong as the ones who said “the free would will fall like dominos if we loose in Vietnam”.
This sectarian violence thing is ALL THEM…let them fight it out on their own.
US troops should get the hell out of the way.
Sending more troops there just means more targets.
Bad Idea.
January 11, 2007 - 08:25 PM on January 11th, 2007
Actually Zelda, you tried to say that the war was a mistake which is what we argued about!
January 11, 2007 - 08:27 PM on January 11th, 2007
“TedintheShed;
Okay, you’re usually pretty reasonable and rational; and you asked me a direct question.
Bon Bon
Peejz
Mike Kilo
PCD
And more, but I don’t remember the names right now
The same thing has happened to San Francisco Liberal and shiloh. Things that they (and I) have said in the past that President Bush stated last night have resulted in them (and I) being called the equivalent of “idiotâ€.
If I had the time I would go back and provide a link for each and every person I listed.”
Thank you Z for the direct answer- it is appreciated.
January 11, 2007 - 08:31 PM on January 11th, 2007
25- Isn’t Vietnam a communist country?
Bush, and those of you voted for him, need to be reminded EVERYDAY that this mess in Iraq is 100% HIS and YOUR fault. (!)
Therefore we can also claim the successes that have come from this war as well..
January 11, 2007 - 08:32 PM on January 11th, 2007
CLEARLY the war was a mistake, Peejz.
Look at it.
Look at what we’ve done.
We have stuck our once mighty fist into a hornets nest, and it’s godamned stuck in there! Now what?!?
January 11, 2007 - 08:36 PM on January 11th, 2007
“Remember the “domino theory”regarding Vietnam? Remember how many predicited doom and gloom for the free world if the communists won there? One country after another would fall and become communist. Did that happen?”
We’ve had that discussion as I recall. The conclusion was that the Domino Theory was not proven, nor was it in any way disproven.
The US maintained South Korea and South Viet Nam as we stopped Communist advances there. Our continued prescence there prevented those nations from being turned/conquered by Communist. We also provided entire armed forces throughout Europe for said cold war defense- are you implying then that we should have completely pulled out of Europe instead of staying there? If there was no need, why did we stay?
Unfortunately, when we left Viet Nam en force Cambodia did fall, and two million people were slaughtered as a direct result of our abandoning that cause. The same would no doubt happen in Iraq.
January 11, 2007 - 08:37 PM on January 11th, 2007
“Isn’t Vietnam a communist country?”
That’s not the point. The point was that many people like yourselves said OTHER countries would fall and become Red if Vietnam fell.
They were wrong.
And those who say “we must fight them in Iraq so we don’t fight them here” or “our women will be wearing burkas” will be just as wrong when we leave Iraq…which is inevitable, sooner or later.
January 11, 2007 - 08:40 PM on January 11th, 2007
Yes, Ted…but was the free world endangered by The fall of Vietnam and Cambodia?
No, it wasn’t.
Are you suggesting we become the World Police Force and fight wherever there is injustice and all that?
Very noble of you, but very impractical.
January 11, 2007 - 08:44 PM on January 11th, 2007
“CLEARLY the war was a mistake, Peejz.
Look at it.
Look at what we’ve done.”
That’s what you don’t understand. The war was not a mistake. It the execustion of the post invasion occupancy strategy that has indeed failed.
“and all the people saying “better to fight them over there than here”and “we’ll be wearing burkas”etc as just as wrong as the ones who said “the free would will fall like dominos if we loose in Vietnamâ€.
To say that if we didn’t take the fight to them then they won’t bring it to us is a horrible mistake on your part. Namely that fact that history has already proven you wrong. The Cole, The Embassy Bombings, The WTC Bombing and 9/11 and fly in the face of your “logic”.
We have stuck our once mighty fist into a hornets nest, and it’s godamned stuck in there! Now what?!?
Change strategy. If this doesn’t work, we continue until we find one that does work, or find a President who will find a strategy to win in Iraq keeping in mind winning doesn’t mean “redeploying” or withdrawal and actaully losing like in Viet Nam.
January 11, 2007 - 08:49 PM on January 11th, 2007
32- That’s not the point. The point was that many people like yourselves said OTHER countries would fall and become Red if Vietnam fell. Uh, I believe it is exactly the point, but it doesn’t fit into your arguement.
30-CLEARLY the war was a mistake, Peejz. Supports my answer in 27.
34- Supports answer in 27, which is how the discussions went with Zelda..You had a few with her as well..
January 11, 2007 - 08:55 PM on January 11th, 2007
“The Cole, The Embassy Bombings, The WTC Bombing and 9/11 and fly in the face of your “logicâ€.”
Ted - Saddams Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THOSE.
We should not be in Iraq. We should be focused ENTIRELY on Afghanistan, militarily speaking.
“Uh, I believe it is exactly the point, but it doesn’t fit into your arguement.”
No, the domino theory was that if Vietnam fell, then other countries would. Vietnam falling is not the point, like I said. Other countries falling with it is what the theory was all about.
January 11, 2007 - 09:06 PM on January 11th, 2007
“If this doesn’t work, we continue until we find one that does work, or find a President who will find a strategy to win in Iraq keeping in mind winning doesn’t mean “redeploying”or withdrawal and actaully losing like in Viet Nam.”
Your entire reply here could easily fit into a discussion about Vietnam, Ted.
We changed strategies countless times back then, and we even changed presidents and we still failed.
And here we are again, stuck in another quagmire.
I can not understand for the life of me what it is that makes so many of you conservatives (what is it now, 30% who still support the war?) think this is a winnable situation over there.
January 11, 2007 - 09:43 PM on January 11th, 2007
All 100% of the conservatives I know are wondering when they will be called to answer one of those surveys..they also want to know how 900 people responding to a question equals any percentage of our population..
January 11, 2007 - 10:25 PM on January 11th, 2007
#32 SFL: “That’s not the point. The point was that many people like yourselves said OTHER countries would fall and become Red if Vietnam fell.”
Actually, we’ve seen that phenomena occur right within this country! San Francisco and Berkeley have both become Red!
January 11, 2007 - 10:28 PM on January 11th, 2007
From the gateway Pundit: “How Democrats Lost Vietnam… And, How They Plan On Losing Iraq”
So true…so very true…
January 11, 2007 - 10:37 PM on January 11th, 2007
“Yes, Ted:but was the free world endangered by The fall of Vietnam and Cambodia?
No, it wasn’t.”
Yes, it was.
At least 2 million of the world was. Are you justifying their deaths?
We stood in South Viet Nam, South Korea, Germany and all over Europe to prevent the domino theory from happening. We threw up blockades around Cuba and almost went to outright war. We fought two actual wars, plus thoisands of skirmishes and conflicts to prevent it.
Are you suggesting we become the World Police Force and fight wherever there is injustice and all that?
Very noble of you, but very impractical.
“No One Is Free When Others Are Oppressed”
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine
So, I see you are content in your own freedom, and it is “impractical” to assist others who are without.
Unfortunate, but exactly an example of the type of complacency I’ve mentioned before. The exact type that is the downfall of this great nation.
January 11, 2007 - 10:41 PM on January 11th, 2007
“Ted - Saddams Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THOSE.
We should not be in Iraq. We should be focused ENTIRELY on Afghanistan, militarily speaking.”
This reply once again show how narrow your world view is SFL. Iraq is a battle, not a war. Saddams Iraq was proven to be a state sponsor of terrorism. You are shifting definition as a matter of convenience.
January 11, 2007 - 10:45 PM on January 11th, 2007
“Your entire reply here could easily fit into a discussion about Vietnam, Ted.”
Of course it would. We left viet Nam not because we were losing the war militarily but because of political reasons. Politically driven reasons was also why it stretched out for 10 years.
In both instances, if the Powell Doctrine was utilized then we wouldn’t have the extended war in Viet Nam. And relatively speaking, troop casualties are exremely low in Iraq. Although I fully expected us to be in Iraq a full generation at least, it was foreseeable that like Viet Nam, politics would would over shadow the well being of the nation. it is expected.
January 11, 2007 - 10:48 PM on January 11th, 2007
38.
Want to see a poll?
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing,” even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration “from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism,” and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
Source
In other words, SFL’s and Eben’s “cut and run” position is NOT supported by the vast majority of Americans.
January 11, 2007 - 11:48 PM on January 11th, 2007
There are a few topics I’d like to touch on here.
1. Up until the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year sectarian violence was on a downwards trend. The fact that Al Quaeda not only blew it up but also effectively blamed the US (if only temporarily) for it increased violence between the Shia and the Sunnis and left the US which had already begun a draw down in a bind.
2. The number of Iraqis who actually want the US out of Iraq is relatively small. Were it even as much as 10%, we would not be able to withstand the onslaught without burning the place to the ground. Hence, only a small minority want us out badly enough to take up arms against us. Why should a .1 - .5% minority (bolstered by a few hundred at most foreigners) be considered the majority opinion? That’s almost like saying that Los Angeles should be turned over to the Crips and Bloods and the police forces withdrawn.
3. Sufficient quantities of WMDs were found to kill a few thousand victims were they utilyzed properly by a terrorist organization. Enough enriched uranium was found to make a number of really nasty dirty bombs. Dirty bombs require no technology other than a normal car bomb.
4. Rules of engagement are ridiculously tight. Letters written by Marine snipers tell of finding a known or suspected insurgent/terrorist and having to hold their fire because an officer wanted to pad his resume by trying to capture the terrorist rather than simply killing them.
5. Murphy’s laws of combat says that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy intact. In other words, you never know what the other guy is going to do, so you can never plan for every contingency.
6. Harry Reid, D-NV was calling for a troop build up as recently as 12/17/2006. Doesn’t it just show what a liar he is that he is so adamantly opposing one now? Want to see him flip-flop again? Give his four lobbiest sons shares of stock in a body armor or ammunition manufacturer.
7. If the troops are used properly, and allowed to shoot terrorists on sight without fear of prosecution if they make an error, this war will be effectively over in the very near future. We simply have to stop trying to fight a PC war. Go in, hit them hard, and call in an airstrike from a B-52 if necessary. Nothing cleans out a village of terrorists like a carpet bombing pass of 2000 lb bombs from a B52.
8. There is NO diplomatic solution to this situation. It is not possible to negotiate with people whose only desire is to kill you and die in the attempt if possible. Negotiation requires that both sides be willing to compromise and give up something that the other side wants. That simply isn’t possible in this situation.
I really wish war weren’t necessary. However, there are people in this world who only respond to one thing - overwhelming force. Breaking the backs of the insurgency is the only way to stop the violence.
January 12, 2007 - 10:43 AM on January 12th, 2007
Bravo, FAO. Another post containing common sense, logic, and plain truth, all backed up by the lessons of history and the known reality of human nature.
I have been totally amazed that I haven’t heard anybody, not Bush, not the Republicans, nobody in the media, nobody point out that at least some, and probably much of what is called sectarian violence is perpetrated by Al Qaeda and other terrorists to inflame Sunni-Shia hatred. The Golden Mosque is a great example. I remember when that happened, I thought it wondered if that was the case. It’s a perfect setup.
Why is nobody talking about this???
January 12, 2007 - 11:46 AM on January 12th, 2007
6. Harry Reid, D-NV was calling for a troop build up as recently as 12/17/2006. Doesn’t it just show what a liar he is that he is so adamantly opposing one now? Want to see him flip-flop again? Give his four lobbiest sons shares of stock in a body armor or ammunition manufacturer.
I* just heard a soundbyte of that lying, flip-flopping pos Reid already trying to undercut Bush’s new Iraq startegy.
It’s clear, folks. POSs like Reid want failure, period. As long as Bush’s name is on it, they want it to fail. Doesn’t matter what it does to America, their own self-serving goals are paramount in their diseased, degenerate, evil minds.
Time to initiate an investigation of Reid’s crooked land deals in Nevada. Put that POS in prison where he belongs.
January 12, 2007 - 10:00 PM on January 12th, 2007
Thanks Robert.
The real pain in the butt about the whole thing is that Al Quaeda is providing aid to the Sunnis and the Iranians are providing aid to the Shia, both for the purpose of destabilizing the country enough to be able to establish their own enclave in it and giving the US a black eye in the process.