CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › White House: We will send more troops to Iraq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

White House: We will send more troops to Iraq

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Cheney says White House will act on its own

Quote:
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."

"The president is the commander in chief. He's the one who has to make these tough decisions," Cheney said.

The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies.

"He's the guy who's got to decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force," Cheney said. "And Congress obviously has to support the effort through the power of the purse. So they've got a role to play, and we certainly recognize that. But you also cannot run a war by committee."

Any attempts to block Bush's efforts would undermine the troops, Cheney said. He took particular aim at Democratic lawmakers who have blasted the president for increasing troops despite opposition from Congress, military advisers and a disgruntled electorate that in November ousted the Republicans as the majority party on Capitol Hill.

"They have absolutely nothing to offer in its place," Cheney said of Democratic leaders. "I have yet to hear a coherent policy from the Democratic side."

Yet many Republican lawmakers, too, have begun to criticize Bush's war management. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, for example, said last week he feared Bush's plan would be the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

Responding to that, Cheney said the most dangerous blunder would be to give up on the global fight against terrorism because the United States has decided the war in Iraq is too difficult. That is just what America's terrorist enemies are counting on, he said.


"They're convinced that the United States will pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," Cheney said. "They can't beat us in a standup fight, but they think they can break our will."

Bush announced last week he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to halt violence, mainly around Baghdad, as an essential step toward stabilizing the country's government. That plan -- along with economic and political steps -- are meant to allow Iraqis to move ahead with securing the country themselves and allow U.S. troops to gradually return home. (Full story)

Like Bush, though, Cheney said Americans need to look at the war in Iraq as part of a much longer effort.

"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term."

The White House also said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they "put our people at risk."

"We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Added Cheney: "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq."

The U.S. military in Baghdad said five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq last week were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq.

"We do not want them doing what they can to destabilize the situation inside Iraq," Cheney said.

Bush's revised war strategy seeks to isolate Iran and Syria, which the U.S. has accused of fueling attacks in Iraq. The president also says Iran and Syria have not done enough to block terrorists from entering Iraq over their borders.

"We know there are jihadists moving from Syria into Iraq. ... We know also that Iran is supplying elements in Iraq that are attacking Iraqis and attacking our forces," Hadley said.

"What the president made very clear is these are activities that are going on in Iraq that are unacceptable. They put our people at risk. He said very clearly that we will take action against those. We will interdict their operations, we will disrupt their supply lines, we will disrupt these attacks," Hadley said.

"We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq."

Iran's government denied the five detainees were involved in financing and arming insurgents and said they should be released.

Hadley was interviewed on "This Week" on ABC and "Meet the Press" on NBC. Cheney was on "Fox News Sunday."
post #2 of 14
When Cheney begins to be right with any assessment, then we should consider listening to him. The fucknut hasn't been correct on anything since he became Vice President. In addition, if they're so sure those 5 Iranians they arrested in Iraq (by the way, I thought Iraq was a sovereign country so how are Americans busting into the buildings of foreign gov'ts on another Iraqi soil?) are tied to the insurgency, then put up some proof or let them go. They're probably torturing the kats right now trying to get info on Iran, but lets see how far that goes.
post #3 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Cheney
They can't beat us in a standup fight, but they think they can break our will.
Comments like this make me wonder if Cheney and the Gang really look at this whole thing like they're a bunch of tough cowboys. A standup fight? What does that even matter in a conflict of this scale with such consequences?

And how can Cheney talk about undermining the troops when he was part of the cadre that helped send them to an avoidable, unnecessary conflict? And then feeding them and the American public lines of bullshit and not taking accountability seems to be a good example of undermining them as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Cheney
This is an existential conflict.
That man has a way with words.
post #4 of 14
Yet nothing will be done.
Its starting to be sad, in a somewhat amusing way, how all these voices against the war do nothing. And if what Cheney states is correct, not even the congress can stop a president gone cowboy.

So either, there is the silent majority which still supports the war, or somehow the concept of democracy only works on paper.
post #5 of 14
Or maybe the White House is about to get a rude awakening. Cheney and Bush are both still acting like they're untouchable--they were a year ago. Now it's not so, and if the Demomcrats can persuade enough Republicans to join them, they can supercede the President's authority pretty damn quickly. That is, unless there's something in the Patriot Act that I don't know about that totally incapacitates Congress.
post #6 of 14
Actually, I think there's something in the Patriot Act that says only the President gets to read it, and can decide whether or not to paraphrase the relevant section for Congress when he utilizes the powers granted therein.
post #7 of 14
The Patriot Act says that I am awesome and can do whatever I want. It's in the super-secret section, written in invisible ink. Only I have the special goggles that allow me to read it. Also, it says you have to get me a Slushee.
post #8 of 14
The forces holding Vader's leash don't give two greasy &^%$s what congress thinks, much less what the people think. They know that congress doesn't have the stomach to impeach these greedy scumbags, and therefore Bush and Cheney are like the kid that knows his parents won't spank him even as he tortures the cat. The only way they will stop is if they are removed from power, and that will only happen if congress girds its loins and impeaches these clowns.
post #9 of 14
They can't beat us in a standup fight, so they're fighting us in ways that allow them to actually win. What a bunch of cheaters!
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dick
"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term."
ex·is·ten·tial
Pronunciation: "eg-(")zis-'ten(t)-sh&l, "ek-(")sis-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or affirming existence <existential propositions>
2 a : grounded in existence or the experience of existence : EMPIRICAL b : having being in time and space
3 [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : EXISTENTIALIST
- ex·is·ten·tial·ly adverb

Can we take up a collection to buy this administration a dictionary?
post #11 of 14
Only if this dictionary will be used to beat Bush into a coma.
post #12 of 14
That certainly seems more likely than him reading the thing.
post #13 of 14
Oh, silly me. All this time I thought it was an absurdist conflict, when in fact it was existential. Sorry Mr. Cheney.
post #14 of 14
Well, nothing grounds your knowledge of existence like being shot at.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › White House: We will send more troops to Iraq