| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bush Refuses to Cave in to Critics |
| 2007-01-15 |
| WASHINGTON - President Bush concedes he isn't popular, and that the war in Iraq isn't either. Yes, progress is overdue and patience is all but gone. Yet none of that changes his view that more U.S. troops are needed to win in Iraq. "I'm not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so," Bush said in a television interview that aired Sunday night. Digging in for confrontation, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it. "I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward." As the president talked tough, lawmakers pledged to explore ways to stop him. "We need to look at what options we have available to constrain the president," said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a possible White House candidate in 2008. Democrats remain wary, though, of appearing unsupportive of American troops. A defiant Cheney, meanwhile, said Democrats offered criticism without credible alternatives. He pointedly reminded lawmakers that Bush is commander in chief. "You cannot run a war by committee," the vice president said of congressional input. The aggressive White House reaction came as the House and Senate prepare to vote on resolutions opposing additional U.S. troops in Iraq. As the White House watched even some GOP support peel away from the war plan, it went all-out to regain some footing. Bush gave his first interview from Camp David, airing Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes." It was his second prime-time opportunity in five days to explain why he thinks adding U.S. troops can help stabilize Iraq and hasten the time when American soldiers can come home. He addressed the nation from the White House last Wednesday evening. "Some of my buddies in Texas say, 'You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours?'" Bush said of Iraqis. "And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America." Yet when asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said, "Not at all. "We liberated that country from a tyrant," Bush said. "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." Beyond promising to go on record in opposition to the president's approach, the Democratic leadership is considering whether, and how, to cut off funding for additional troops. "You don't like to micromanage the Defense Department, but we have to, in this case, because they're not paying attention to the public," said Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who helps oversee military funding. It is unclear how any effort by Congress could affect Bush's plan. National security adviser Stephen Hadley said the White House already has money appropriated by Congress to move the additional forces to Iraq. GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a potential 2008 presidential contender who endorses Bush's call for more troops, said votes to express disapproval were pointless. "If they're dead serious then we should have a motion to cut off funding," he said of those fighting Bush's strategy. Many Democrats favor a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, along with new diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors. The Bush administration had hoped that the president's overhauled strategy would lead to some bipartisan unity or that the White House would at least get an extended hearing before legislative leaders made up their minds. Instead, it encountered majority opposition in Congress and a public that rejected by large polling margins the military and political ideas Bush announced. In the CBS interview, Bush rejected an assertion that, time and again, his administration hasn't been straight with the American people about Iraq. He said his spirits were strong. "I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy,'" Bush said. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 Dean Barnett addresses the issue of Bush's failure to win the support of the people: The Great Non-Communicator? I pretty much agree with what he says, though I'm slightly more hopeful about Bush dealing with Iran. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-15 19:47 |
| #7 "This President could have done something historic AND explained himself in the process--but for whatever reason, chose not to. I still don't get it." That's the part I'm having the most trouble with, too. Sometimes I've tried to chalk it up to "terminal Nice Guy-ism", sometimes to his truly pathetic extemporaneous speaking skills (the only one in my living memory as bad was Eisenhower), and other times to the extreme constraints imposed by the unholy alliance between our MSM and a Democratic Party hell-bent on acquiring power and utterly unconcerned about what cost America has to pay while they go about grabbing it. Regardless of why, though, the fact remains that he hasn't succeeded in doing the single most important thing needed to ensure we prevail in this conflict: getting and keeping the support of the American people. And I fear the price our children and grandchildren will end up paying for that failure-- regardless of who deserves the blame for it and who does not. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-15 19:18 |
| #6 ...the entire Bush team needs to play offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq That'll be the part of the Bush presidency that I'll never understand--they played ZERO offense for the entirety of the two terms. This President could have done something historic AND explained himself in the process--but for whatever reason, chose not to. I still don't get it. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2007-01-15 18:31 |
| #5 nailed it Sarge. offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq. Some to like: "We are there, we ain't going to allow the terrorists to win, and if you think we should let them win then tell why." "Ok you want our troops out of Iraq, if that happens how to you see things in that country is say 12 months? Would that be good for the world?" They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, or Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them. In about a week the MSM would FEAR press conferences. my pick for the individuals who have both the talent and fierce moral clarity to see Mortal Danger to our existence on the planet and to our way of life. 1) Big Picture, 2) Know the difference between strategy and tactics. 3) a studied background therefore an empirical knowledge of the enemy, consequently having a force of insight and perspective of their character and nature. 4) Have the skill to put in writing/words the big picture, the critical strategy and tactics for winning. concise compact yet poetic prose. first picks; Fred, John, writing and final edit. writers: RBees [naming just a few] Army of Steves, .com, Dave D, Zen, phil_b, ExJag, Verlaine, Frozen Al, Joe Sarge's picks seem like fine group of choices to deal with drooling idjits in the media. "They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, Ivan the Terrible's wife and Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them." |
| Posted by: RD 2007-01-15 18:03 |
| #4 Folks should be mad about Iraq - but they are mad about the wrong things Sing it Baby. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-01-15 16:53 |
| #3 Cyber I cannot agree more! If Bush had just somewhat competent skills to rally and speak we would still be rolling with 60+ approval of the WOT. He has the right ideas and plans but just absolutley falters in the rally the people part. My question to every pansie would be "If we pull out can you garantee we wont have to go back?" "so since you can't when the next generation has to go back in this time with NO PRO US Iraqi's left alive at ALL how bloody will it be then?" Is Afghanistan not a living testoment example of why we would have to return anyway "To force tommorows generations to sacrifise horrificly becuase the current generation of leaders cannot stomach the current HISTORICALLY MINOR SACRIFISES is the definition of deriliction of duty and I will not allow such under any circumstances PERIOD". "our current generation of military have the will, if only the current generation of So Called leadership could just match such maybe the next generation can be saved the slaughter". |
| Posted by: C-Low 2007-01-15 16:06 |
| #2 Folks should be mad about Iraq - but they are mad about the wrong things. Iraq is a critical front in the greater war on Islamofascist terror (WIT). The US (if not the West) must win the WIT and the American people should be outraged that we are losing in Iraq. Yes there should be congressional investigations, not about the fabled "lies" that got us into the war, but into the reasons why we are losing. Meanwhile, our military leaders (from the commander-in-chief on down) should be figure what is necessary to win, and then do it. But of course this will never happen. Congress cannot investigate what went wrong lest the investigations seek explanation for why our ruthless 8th century enemies openly and publicly cheer on the "loyal" opposition here and elsewhere in the West. For all the investigations that will be forth coming, they will seek only the desired answers. Now this is Bush's war, and to many people, the worst possible outcome in Iraq would be to have success there. The '08 elections will guide every decision, and by then the outcome in Iraq must be unquestionably bad, and unquestionably Bush's fault - all else pales in comparison - even the ramifications of actually losing Iraq. |
| Posted by: Hank 2007-01-15 15:18 |
| #1 Saw the interview and really think that the entire Bush team needs to play offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq. Some to like: "We are there, we aint going to allow the terrorists to win, and if you think we should let them win then tell why." Too much pussy-footing around for me and how about some probing question to the naysayers and detractors? "Ok you want our troops out of Iraq, if that happens how to you see things in that country is say 12 months? Would that be good for the world?" They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, or Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them. In about a week the MSM would FEAR press conferences. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-01-15 12:05 |