Bush: Troop surge is on no matter what Congress wants

Rawstory

Bush vows to 60 Minutes that 'no matter what Congress wants' surge is on

RAW STORY
In an interview set to air on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq "no matter what" the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do.

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."

Knock knock. Hullo? Mr. Bush? How you planning on getting the funding for these additional troops if Congress votes to stop your money? Hey. You could always borrow a few trillion from Halliburton. And I'm sure they'd give it to you interest free.

It is clear to me that this President is above the law, beyond Congress, and terminally out of reach of the will of the people. The blinders and ear muffs have been cast molded on his head, and are clearly non-removeable. He just don't get it. His support has evaporated, and even his own party is proposing legislation to prevent him from going into Iran. But if this is any indication, what good would it do?

Might as well face it, you're a dictator Dub. Ya.

Good find, TA. Not like I didn't know this already, though. He will do whatever he wants and scoff at the Constitution and the other branches of the gov't in stubbornness to do what HE wants, not what his employers (that's us) want.

I think he knows he's a dictator. He's always wanted to be. Now, it's a matter of the American people realizing and admitting it.

However at this point I believe there may be a good reason he is doing this. Like keep us from getting our military there from being squashed. Acoording to sources, ( Check out this web address : www.washingtonpost.com... ) our military WILL get ransacked if we do not send in more troops. Just lame THAT WE HAVE TO.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think he knows he's a dictator. He's always wanted to be. Now, it's a matter of the American people realizing and admitting it.

Well, don't know if you caught it but-

I might be addicted to love, but I sure ain't addicted to Dub. Ya.

President Bush is Commander-in-Chief. Getting Congressional approval for each stage of a war is outrageous. Just imagine Truman having to get Congressional approval for dropping the A-Bomb?

The difference between President Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress, is Bush wants to win this war and the Dems don't.

Our troops are doing a great job. They clean out a certain area, then the mission is complete and they leave. But without enough troops to stay in the area, the insurgents return shortly thereafter. With more troops this problem could be rectified.

A defeat in Iraq hurts Bush, and their is nothing the Dems want more. If the U.S. is weakened in the process, so be it.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I might be addicted to love, but I sure ain't addicted to Dub. Ya.

Yeah, I got'cha. But as we can see, there are many who are... This government is set up to run efficiently without one branch overrunning the others. But that doesn't matter to those who don't realize the dictator thing yet. That's what I meant.

Right, we Dems would love nothing more than "to see the U.S. lose the war" Why in the world would you believe that nonsense? Honestly, RRC, I find that very offensive. How can you possibly know what I'm thinking? All you're doing is spreading hate, divisiveness and stupid lies. I'm really tired of your constantly saying ridiculous, offensive statements like that one against the Democrats, you've done this ALOT on this board. How can you possibly paint such a diverse group of people with one brush stroke? How would you like it if I constantly bombarded this site with statements about Republicans being stupid,l blind, non-compassionate, hate/war mongerers who want to destroy America?

It would be nice if for once, you would take the high road and try to lead by example instead of just spewing out vitriolic statements.

I think it's very telling that it's the Repubs who introduced this bill, that says alot about the current state of affairs in Congress adn in our country.

Yeah well RR, even if I agreed that we should be in Iraq in the first place, which I don't, what gets me is that- like Vietnam- they go in there with one hand tied behind their back. Does it take a military genius to figure out that if you don't hold an area, the bad guys are gonna come back?

Why in the hell didn't they go in there with half a million troops in the first place, secure the damn thing, and route the insurgents out permanently? Oh, because the public never would have gone for that? Bull. The public was with em, barely, until they failed to make a convincing case that we should be in Iraq in the first place. I don't think too many had a problem going into Afghanistan, at least, at first. But it's not like public opinion really matters anyway to this administration.

But no, instead they go in there with barely enough (and now, clearly not enough) troops, get 3,000 of our people killed, turn the place into a civil war, and continually lose ground that they had already gained. Now dammit, I don't know about you, but that ain't no way to fight a war. Maybe that's why they decided to pull George Washington's picture down from the Library, cause even Washington wouldn't be that stupid. :shk:

If they can't handle war strategy planning for Iraq, they how in the HELL are we trusting these people with the defense of this country against the real threats? Can you imagine what would happen, if say, China or Russia were to get involved and we had to deal with state-of-the-art weapons and militaries coming in at us? These are just insurgents with AK-47's and RPG's!

I don't understand why during Afghanistan the CIA didn't just incite Saddam against Iran again, causing a war that we never woulda had to fight. That would have weakened both of their armies to the point where we coulda had a much easier time with both of them if the decision was made to go into either country.

And remember that we had much more evidence and reason to go into Iran or Pakistan, way before we shoulda been in Iraq in the first place. And that's only if you believe in this "War on Terror" to get even that far. Until questions surrounding 9/11 get answered more clearly, I'm not convinced this war on terror is even justified. At all. Let's hope the giant gorilla helps us come to some more acceptible conclusions.

So much for the USA's vaunted "checks and balances."

Bush dismantled them long ago.

President Bush is Commander-in-Chief. Getting Congressional approval for each stage of a war

I may be wrong, but I don't believe congress has made any declaration of war.

From what I understand, and this all may have changed, but I was under the impression that the commander-in-chief only has control of military forces for like 90 days or something, without congressional approval.

And RR, grow up some. The world isn't divided into Republican and Democrat. Why do the dems want to hurt bush? He's gone in 2008, period. There is nothing that says he can stay, yet.

Unless of course you meant to say, that a loss in Iraq hurts 'republicans'. But then again, only a party extremist thinks along those lines. The rest of us know, that a loss hurts us all.

quote by forestlady

How would you like it if I constantly bombarded this site with statements about Republicans being stupid,l blind, non-compassionate, hate/war mongerers who want to destroy America?

You don't?


BTW when I speak of Democrats, I am talking elected Democrats. The ones that compare our troops to Nazi's, loathe the military, and think the troops are stupid. (Durbin, Clinton and Kerry, in that order.)

@ nextguyinline

Congress authorized "Use of Force", same thing as a declaration of war. It's just like calling a jungle a rainforest. No difference.

Why do you think Al-Queda gave applause to the Democrats after the 2006 elections? Because they both have the same vision for Iraq. A U.S. Defeat.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by RRconservative]

i thnk the senate and congress gave bush authorization for military operations in a war against terror

i think the bill is open ended, just when is a "war on terror" over

he is gonna use this bill to its fullest extent; whoever he deems a terrorist or sponsor he will attack at will

unless the senate and house pass a new bill

Originally posted by forestlady
Right, we Dems would love nothing more than "to see the U.S. lose the war" Why in the world would you believe that nonsense?

Gee, I don't know. Could it be all the things "you" dems say here and in congress about cutting and running from iraq? The stuff, you know, that makes the insurgents think that if they just hold out a little longer, the U.S. will be forced (by "you" dems) to leave. Pssst. That's just the type of thing that also destroys the moral of troops with their life on the line. But I think you know (in your heart but can't admit publicly) that, as well, but don't really care as long as it hurts the current administration.

Earth to "you dems". The soldiers in iraq volunteered for service - and except for a tiny minority, they fully knew what that entails. If "you dems" bothered to ask the troops, you'd find that your efforts to "bring them home" are not what they want. They'll tell you that what they want is the support (from "you dems" and the current administration) to let them finish the job they went there for. Cutting and running will only make the sacrifices made so far seem worthless, and I can guarantee you that is not what the troops want. So, if "you dems" really support the troops, why not try listening to them instead of just using them as a pawn in your relentless bush witchhunt?

Yeah, I know, I know. You "support" the troops but are against the war.

[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Knock knock. Hullo? Mr. Bush? How you planning on getting the funding for these additional troops if Congress votes to stop your money? Hey. You could always borrow a few trillion from Halliburton. And I'm sure they'd give it to you interest free.

It is clear to me that this President is above the law, beyond Congress, and terminally out of reach of the will of the people. The blinders and ear muffs have been cast molded on his head, and are clearly non-removeable. He just don't get it. His support has evaporated, and even his own party is proposing legislation to prevent him from going into Iran. But if this is any indication, what good would it do?

Might as well face it, you're a dictator Dub. Ya.

Knock knock- Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, and he doesn't have to have permission from the Congress for every military decision he makes. That doesn't make one a dictator. Furthermore, Halliburton doesn't have trillions of dollars to loan anybody, interest free(or otherwise). Lastly, it'd be political suicide for the Democrats to cut off funding for the troops, and they know it.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by GT100FV]

Originally posted by RRconservative

A defeat in Iraq hurts Bush, and their is nothing the Dems want more. If the U.S. is weakened in the process, so be it.

That's my problem with the Dems- they'd rather see Bush get egg on his face at any cost, than have us win.

Originally posted by GT100FV

Originally posted by RRconservative

A defeat in Iraq hurts Bush, and their is nothing the Dems want more. If the U.S. is weakened in the process, so be it.

That's my problem with the Dems- they'd rather see Bush get egg on his face at any cost, than have us win.

And what do you base this on? Seems like mere opinion to me. This question is for both of you.

Originally posted by forestlady
Right, we Dems would love nothing more than "to see the U.S. lose the war" Why in the world would you believe that nonsense? Honestly, RRC, I find that very offensive. How can you possibly know what I'm thinking? All you're doing is spreading hate, divisiveness and stupid lies. I'm really tired of your constantly saying ridiculous, offensive statements like that one against the Democrats, you've done this ALOT on this board. How can you possibly paint such a diverse group of people with one brush stroke? How would you like it if I constantly bombarded this site with statements about Republicans being stupid,l blind, non-compassionate, hate/war mongerers who want to destroy America?

It would be nice if for once, you would take the high road and try to lead by example instead of just spewing out vitriolic statements.

I think it's very telling that it's the Repubs who introduced this bill, that says alot about the current state of affairs in Congress adn in our country.

You and many others here have absolutely no qualms in painting those that disagree with your points of view with broad brush strokes though. How about we as a country get together, win this war, and then....bicker about policy, and/or vote in or out those candidates you like/dislike. Hanging our dirty laundry out for the world to see gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and is absolutely not helpful in winning this war(you do want to win right?)

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by GT100FV

Originally posted by RRconservative

A defeat in Iraq hurts Bush, and their is nothing the Dems want more. If the U.S. is weakened in the process, so be it.

That's my problem with the Dems- they'd rather see Bush get egg on his face at any cost, than have us win.

And what do you base this on? Seems like mere opinion to me. This question is for both of you.

By personal observation of their rhetoric. If the Dems want to change my mind, then they need to offer helpful suggestions in how to win, not just criticism of Bush. There just seems to be a completely different mindset on the left- the blame America first mentality.

Originally posted by GT100FV
...it'd be political suicide for the Democrats to cut off funding for the troops, and they know it.

That is such hogwash, myth and concocted Republican propaganda!

The majority of the American people, I can say with reasonable confidence, put the Dems in there expecting a change of course in Iraq. And since no one's about to walk into the Oval Office and physically remove him, it would be reasonable to assume that the people expect this to get done through appropriate legislation and any legitimate means the Dems can muster to achieve the change of course in Iraq.

This includes not only stopping funding for the additional troops, but if need be, to stop funding alltogether, or whatever they've got to do. And I suppose if he still persists, they can always play the impeachment card. But the people spoke. And even though it always takes a while, they know they have no choice but to ultimately listen. Political suicide will be, GT100, if the Dems FAIL to achieve a course reversal in Iraq.

So you don't think it could be a serious political liability for a Dem in '08, to have voted to cut off funding to the troops? It's true that most are not happy about what's going on in Iraq, but.....most still support the troops. If you vote to cut off funding for them to be able to do their job, that hurts the troops, not Bush, and that's why it wouldn't be a very saavy political manuever.