TOPICS
TOPICS
Bush admits errors, but orders more troops to Iraq
President Bush took responsibility Wednesday night for mistakes made in Iraq but rebuffed calls for phasing out U.S. involvement and outlined a new policy that includes sending an additional 20,000 American troops to the country.
"To step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government" and would require U.S. troops to stay longer, Bush said in a 21-minute address from the White House while protesters outside chanted "stop the war."
The president said previous efforts in Baghdad, where most of the new troops would be headed, failed because there were too few soldiers and too many restrictions on their activities. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," he said.
He also warned that even if this plan works, "deadly acts of violence will continue."
The speech put the president on a collision course with Democrats who now control Congress and at odds with some lawmakers from his own party, not to mention a growing number of Americans who are critical of the situation in Iraq.
In what could be a last-ditch effort to turn the tide in Iraq and rally his increasingly skeptical countrymen to his side, Bush said this latest strategy for the war would succeed where others had failed because the United States would now have sufficient troops to not only clear but to also hold conquered territory. And the newly augmented forces will also have a "green light" to move into neighborhoods racked by sectarian violence, Bush said.
Bush outlined a series of steps to be taken by the Iraqi government and warned that the U.S. commitment was not open-ended. But he set no timetable for drawing down either the new troop deployment or the U.S. commitment in general.
Bush also promised a renewed diplomatic initiative, saying U.S. allies in the region would be enlisted to support the Iraqi government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will leave for the region Friday.
"Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States," as well as for other countries in the Middle East, he said.
The Democratic response was swift and strong.
"It's time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so they can begin coming home soon," said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill. He said the extra troops were "too few" to make a difference and "too many" to put at risk. In a separate statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the latest Bush plan would "endanger national security."
Even some of Bush's staunchest backers had lukewarm reactions. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, for example, did not take a stand on the call for additional troops, saying only that victory "is our only option" and that Bush's plan "deserves thorough consideration by the U.S. Congress."
And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., while backing Bush, said his presidency would probably be judged by "his success or failure in Iraq."
Not all Democrats are opposed to Bush's plan. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., said Bush "did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course."
Lieberman, whose backing of the war helped cost him his party's nomination in last year's Senate primary and forced him to run as an independent, also said Bush outlined "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."
While most Democrats were critical of the plan, they took pains to say they opposed the handling of the war, not the job done by U.S. troops.
"The issue is do you support the president's policy. That will be the vote," Pelosi said after she and other lawmakers met with Bush before the speech. "Democrats will always support our troops."
COMMENTS
- Mark, It is worse than that. The definition of insanity is the belief that the results will change if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and you keep failing. It is like a gambling addiction when you know the house has the percentages and you keep throwing your money away on slots expecting a big payout. The administration can't be bothered by facts or logic. It has dug a hole for itself. Only the insane would continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper thinking that is the best approach for getting out of the hole. I feel like I'm living in Chelm where everyone is running around thinking of the most insane solutions to the problem which will just make it infinitely worse. If the president was really sincere in admitting the mistake than he would be working to fix it. But he can't really admit a mistake so the solution is to hit them harder!!! I've been reading a bit of mysticism over the past few months -- but for a few hundred hanging chads in Florida, the federal government would have had plenty of resources to fix New Orleans, and solve many, many of our social problems instead of being in the deep hole of debt and their solution of course is to cut more taxes. Welcome to Chelm. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted January 17, 2007 7:19 AM
- Almost a week since the President's announcement concerning his renewed efforts and re-enforcement in pursuing his unpopular war, he now dares Congress to try and stop him. Grit or stupidity makes no never mind -- this country is run by the people for the people and a president who does not respect the views of the people or their Congress is not suited to lead this country. President Bush, it is time to acknowledge that you are not smarter or wiser than the will of the people. Mark Gibson Posted January 14, 2007 7:21 PM
- I watched the speech last night and I could not sleep. There is just no understanding of the historical and cultural roots of this conflict. The president can add another 21,000 or another 21,000 or even another 210,000 soldiers and it will make no difference except to increase the number of body bags coming home. Only someone with a really big ego can think that they can stop a conflict that has been raging since the 8th Century CE. The external force needed to stop this conflict is the type of force wielded by Hussein. To put ourselves between warring Arab tribes is simply insane and an open invitation for another war but this time with the Persians. There is no dishonor to admit a terrible mistake and to move to fix it. There is only dishonor in escalating further in a lost cause. As is evident from the British experience in the War of the Colonies, you can't beat terror this way-- you will only create more terror and a greater wish for freedom. Anyone who wants to see this terror and fight for freedom only needs to rent Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." And what is our national interest in creating more terror and horror for the Iraqi people. Putting a garrison in Iraq and occupying that country for years is the wrong path to take. Let the Iraqis sort out this mess and tell the Iranians to butt out or face real nuclear consequences. If the administration wants to be tough it is being tough in the wrong place with the wrong people. Only a coward kicks a person on the ground -- the real danger is that person's neighbor to the East. And that dangerous neighbor will soon have very real WMDs! GovExec.com reader Posted January 11, 2007 11:09 AM









