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.”
So to summarize, they lied us into Iraq, they screwed up and let the country turn into a quagmire of civil strife, let outside fighters in and now they say they’re the only ones that can be trusted to run things. These are not men much less leaders they’re arrogant cretins. Just think after they finish screwing over the Iraqi people and America they get a pension, free health-care and Secret Service protection for life courtesy the American taxpayer. I would like to see Cheney’s copy of the Constitution where it says, “And Congress obviously has to support the effort through the power of the purse.” Congress has to continue to finance the president’s betrayal of America? Interesting take on presidential powers. Congress has already put money in the pipe-line for Iraq, but they are under no Constitutional obligation to continue to finance Bush’s Iraq debacle. Staying in Iraq has little to nothing to do with America’s national security. It’s all about arrogance and false pride. They just can’t admit they were wrong and redeploy the troops . Jim Webb (D-VA) wrapped it nicely, Webb And The Armed Services Committee
I also want to say something about my longtime friend, Senator McCain’s comments when he was talking about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq and in your statement, Secretary Gates, you list some of these as an emboldened and strengthened Iran, a base of operations for jihadist networks in the heart of the Middle East, an undermining of the credibility of the United States. In many ways, quite frankly, those have been the results of the invasion and occupation. There’s really nothing that’s occurred since the invasion and occupation that was not predictable and in fact, most of it was predicted. It was predicted in many cases by people with long backgrounds in national security…and in many cases there were people who saw their military careers destroyed and who were personally demeaned by people who opposed them on the issues, including members of this administration. And they are people in my judgement, who will be remembered in history as having had a moral conscience. (emphasis mine)
We have a president and vice-president without a conscience. No matter how strategically wrong or morally wrong they are determined to have things their way and they are willing to lie for the umpteenth time to get their way. Administration leaving out important details on Iraq
“They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate,” Bush said. “Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.”
That version of events helps to justify Bush’s “new way forward” in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq’s U.S.-backed Shiite government to – perhaps – disarm its allies in Shiite militias and death squads.
But the president’s account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.
Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing risks policy errors because it underestimates the depth of sectarian hatred in Iraq and overlooks the conflict’s root causes. The Bush account also fails to acknowledge that Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite groups stoked the conflict.
President Bush met at the White House in November with the head of one of those groups: Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI’s Badr Organization militia is widely reported to have infiltrated Iraq’s security forces and to be involved in death squad activities.
They seem to think lying is always justified because they see their grand cause as worthy of the Big Lie or they are psychologically incapable of distinguishing reality from their delusional perceptions
The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.
Whether many of the administration’s statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn’t been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee. .
Especially at the local and state levels, where the fundamental fights for control of a nation less red and blue than complexly purple play out, daily newspapers remain essential arbiters of what passes for news and what Americans think about it. For all the talk about television’s dominant role in campaigns (less and less because of its importance as a source of news for most Americans, more and more because of campaign commercials) and all the new attention to the Internet, newspapers for the most part continue to establish the parameters of what gets covered and how. Moreover, neither broadcast nor digital media have developed the reporting infrastructure or the level of credibility that newspapers enjoy. So candidates for the House, the Senate and even the White House still troop into old gray buildings in Denver and Omaha, Louisville and Boston, Concord and Des Moines in search of a forum where they can talk with reporters and editors about issues and where those conversations will, they hope, be distilled into articles and editorials that set so much of the agenda for the political debate at the local, state and national levels.
For all their faults newspapers do still remain the best sources for news. The broadcast media despite a huge viewership has been horrible at covering the issues much less analyzing them.