White House: We will send more troops in Iraq

[KidRocks]

Will not run the war by committee?

Why, the fool (Bush) started the Iraq war by committee as the Bush administration loves to point out most every chance they get, and now, all of a sudden, Bush will go it alone?

LBJ and Nixon made the same mistake when they escalated the war in Vietnam!










White House: We will*send more*troops in Iraq - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, facing opposition from both parties over his plan to send more troops to Iraq, said he has the authority to act no matter what Congress wants.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday night.

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that lawmakers' criticism will not influence Bush's plans and he dismissed any effort to "run a war by committee."...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I love this line by the President.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes"

I can understand why you're so jealous, kid.

 

[KidRocks]

I love this line by the President.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes"

I can understand why you're so jealous, kid.

It seems it doesn't matter how many American troops come home in body-bags, President Bush will not let that deter him either, he's made his decision and he's going foward, after all, President Bush has his legacy to think about.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

President Bush will not let that deter him either, he's made his decision and he's going foward,

Now you're catching on.

 

[1069]

It seems it doesn't matter how many American troops come home in body-bags, President Bush will not let that deter him either, he's made his decision and he's going foward, after all, President Bush has his legacy to think about.

And Congress's only option is to cut off funding for this war.
But they're scared to, because they're scared that it'll look, to the American public, as if they don't support the troops that are already there.
But I think they underestimate the American public's opposition to the escalation, or even the continuance, of this war.
The American public wants the troops brought home.
If Congress cut off funds, I think the public would understand that they are not "abandoning the troops", but rather using the only means at their disposal to accomplish this goal: to bring the troops home, to de-escalate this war.
If congress approves more funds, it won't go to help the current troops anyway; it'll all go toward this escalation. And then the next one, and the next, and the next.

 

[KidRocks]

Now you're catching on.

I knew that, you knew that, everyone knew that, President Bush will send as many American troops to their deaths until President Bush wins in Iraq!

President Bush has said as much, ..."no matter how long it takes"!

 

[1069]

I knew that, you knew that, everyone knew that, President Bush will send as many American troops to their deaths until President Bush wins in Iraq!

President Bush has said as much, ..."no matter how long it takes"!

But Congress does have the power to stop him, and history will not judge any of them kindly, if they don't use that power now.

 

[KidRocks]

But Congress does have the power to stop him, and history will not judge any of them kindly, if they don't use that power now.

It's a very slippery slope, I'm not sure Congress has the power to stop Bush, do they?

 

[1069]

It's a very slippery slope, I'm not sure Congress has the power to stop Bush, do they?

They control the funds! Of course they have the power.
The "surge" is already underway; the new troops are already moving.
Bush is counting on that to tie Congress's hands, to make them powerless to deny him money for escalating the war.
But they do have that power.

It's not even about "Do they have the power to stop him?"
If they give him the funding, then they're enabling him to continue.
By doing nothing, they would stop him, and he'd have no choice but to bring the troops home.

 

[jujuman13]

I do find this attitude of yours faintly ironic.
I have been arguing that the commencement of this war was illegal and certainly not for the benefit of the USA or even the western world, I get so much flak for having that opinion also for calling Bush an idiot.
Yet now when it becomes of vital importance that the US be seen as being a trustworthy nation, and do act with Iraqi assistance to leave some form of a civilized society in place.
Here we go with the cut and runners.
In my book if you start something you better finish it, else what is the point of starting it in the first place?

If the Iraqi Government headed by Maliki prove that they are unwilling unable to help, then by all means make preparartions to leave.

Bush has al;ready written his Legacy, that cannot be changed.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Bush has al;ready written his Legacy, that cannot be changed.

No one can know the Bush legacy until time and history has their chance to define it. I abhored Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon. Thirty years later and I understand how wise of a decision it was. You might disagree with Bush now, but if the Middle East becomes a viable democratic region, he will take his place along side the greats. Unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot predict one's legacy.

 

[Gibberish]

"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes"

Translation.

"I want to go to continue with the War so we are continuing with the War. I don't care what the American people want."

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Translation.

"I want to go to continue with the War so we are continuing with the War. I don't care what the American people want."

That is how you would translate it, in your misinformed opinion. You obviously don't understand what it means to be commander-in-chief.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

That is how you would translate it, in your misinformed opinion. You obviously don't understand what it means to be commander-in-chief.

He may be Commander-In-Chief, but he is still an elected official and therefore a servant of the public.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

He may be Commander-In-Chief, but he is still an elected official and therefore a servant of the public.

So by your interpretation of things, he should change directions every time the polls say so? Who do you think he is, John Kerry?

 

[Dr_Patrick]

So by your interpretation of things, he should change directions every time the polls say so? Who do you think he is, John Kerry?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that he should at least take what the public and pretty much the rest of the world says into serious consideration. This isn't a monarchy and he most definitely isn't a king.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that he should at least take what the public and pretty much the rest of the world says into serious consideration. This isn't a monarchy and he most definitely isn't a king.

You can be certain he has taken the public into consideration. This morning, I considered whether or not to let my kids play outside. It's below zero and they didn't like my answer, but I decided to tell them no.

With regard to the democratic talking point that Bush regards himself as King, I would invite you to provide evidence showing where he has ever said such a thing.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

You can be certain he has taken the public into consideration. This morning, I considered whether or not to let my kids play outside. It's below zero and they didn't like my answer, but I decided to tell them no.

The difference here is that we aren't children. Your comparison would also be more valid if it were just a handful of Americans who were opposed to this. His Generals were opposed to this, so he had them replaced. Congress is opposed to this as are a majority of Americans, but he has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care.

With regard to the democratic talking point that Bush regards himself as King, I would invite you to provide evidence showing where he has ever said such a thing.

I never said that he regards himself as King.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

His Generals were opposed to this, so he had them replaced.

Are you sure about this? Was their opposition to the surge the reason given for their replacement? Champs and I went around and around on this. I understand the president wants to surge. I understand that some military personnel do not want to surge. But how did you make the leap that their dismissal was connected to their opposition? By the way, it was after this same question that Champs ran off from the debate.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I never said that he regards himself as King.

Excellent. Neither the the President.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Are you sure about this? Was their opposition to the surge the reason given for their replacement?

Of course that wasn't the reason that was given. It just seems rather coincidental and ironic. I guess after all these years I'm a bit cynical and skeptical about the motives of this current administration.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Excellent. Neither the the President.

The reason I brought up that Bush isn't a king and is an elected official is because it was based on my interpretation of your statement that Bush is commander-in-chief. I was merely reminding you that he is an elected official and a servant to the public rather than his own agenda.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Of course that wasn't the reason that was given. It just seems rather coincidental and ironic. I guess after all these years I'm a bit cynical and skeptical about the motives of this current administration.

Then it is your cyinical and skeptical opinion, isn't it? It's not based on anything other than partisanship. Otherwise, what would you say to the military personnel who believe the President is wrong because they feel he should surge more than 20,000? Should he replace them too?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

The reason I brought up that Bush isn't a king and is an elected official is because it was based on my interpretation of your statement that Bush is commander-in-chief. I was merely reminding you that he is an elected official and a servant to the public rather than his own agenda.

Not in matters confronting the Commander-in-Chief. He alone makes the call.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Then it is your cyinical and skeptical opinion, isn't it? It's not based on anything other than partisanship. Otherwise, what would you say to the military personnel who believe the President is wrong because they feel he should surge more than 20,000?

Yes, it is my opinion. I always assumed that debate involves arguing your opinions and viewpoints with others. Aren't your views based on your opinions as well? It also has nothing to do with partisanship. That is merely your assumption. I don't see completely eye to eye with any political party. In fact, I think a person severely limits themselves by alligning with any specific party. However, based on your judgment, one could also say that your views are based on partisanship as well.