Hot Topics » H1N1 • 'Balloon Boy' • Latino in America • Commentary • more topics »
  International Edition
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush's plan may please no one
I just landed in Washington and am heading to a round of meetings in advance of President Bush's speech tonight.

I always find it interesting how momentum seems to build in Washington before a speech like this one and how a sort of conventional wisdom develops. Frankly, I'm always wary of conventional wisdom. Rarely, it seems, is it very accurate.

By now, some of the president's proposals for Iraq are well known, and "last chance" is the term a lot of observers are throwing around, Republicans and Democrats alike.

The plan to escalate or "surge" some 20,000 more troops is unlikely to truly satisfy anyone. The troop number is lower than many hawks would like and too high for those who would like to scale back our involvement. There are also real questions about the Maliki government's willingness or ability to make good on its reported promises to go after Shia militias.

As always, it's easy to get caught up in the politics of an event like this one, and no doubt that is what much of tonight's coverage will explore. But I also think it’s worth remembering that human lives are at stake.

For American servicemen and women and for all Iraqis, this is not some laboratory experiment. I've been on enough patrols in Iraq to know that our brave soldiers and Marines will continue to do what is asked of them, no matter how difficult, no matter how dangerous. Lets hope what we ask of them is worthy of their sacrifice.

We've assembled a really smart panel to talk about the speech tonight -- Joe Klein of Time, former presidential advisor David Gergen, blogger Andrew Sullivan, as well as military analysts, and of course our best reporters.

What are you anticipating from the speech? Is there anything you would like to ask our panel of guests?
Posted By Anderson Cooper: 12:55 PM ET
  116 Comments
Will the infusion of 20,000 more troops make us more vulnerable in other parts of the world?
Posted By Anonymous Laure, Toronto, Canada : 1:51 PM ET
We elected new leaders to get us out of Iraq, no to send in more troops to die for Bush,s private WAR.
Posted By Anonymous Anthony,Marthas Vineyard,ma : 1:53 PM ET
I am anticipating a speech that no one will completely agree on. It will be said that more troops are needed, no one will agree and we will again be at a loss for a solid, effective solution. My question is, will it matter who agrees or disagrees with it? My concern is: why aren't the public, the troops, the real soldiers experiencing everything in Iraq asked for their opinions? When this country was founded the judiciary system was based on a system of checks and balances. Who's checking on the president now? The American public needs to start taking an aggressive stand and asking the real questions (regarding Katrina, the war, home land security).
Posted By Anonymous Melissa, Canonsburg, PA : 1:57 PM ET
I have a question Mr. Cooper. WHy is it we are ignoring world history in this international conflict may of my friends and aquantiences are calling the "Oil Wars"?

Allow me to clarify.

Throughout the worlds history true revolutionary change in any government has always come directly from the people. In the American, French, Russian, Mexican (pick a country) Revolution(s) it was always the people of that country that stood up and said they had had more than enough. True, Saddam and his ilk are worthy of the fate that befalls them but in order for the mindset of a centuries old people to truly shift the people have to be fed up. No amount of foriegn influence will accomplish this.

For how many years will we police a country that is not truly ready for sweeping large scale change? Why do we not explore the history, faith, and traditions of these people in our approach to creating this change and ending this war?
Posted By Anonymous Davin Kimble, Stephenville, Texas : 1:59 PM ET
I would like to ask what our service men and women think since this is effecting them. Do they want to stay/go there to see if they can make this salvageable or cut our cost now. They and their families are the ones that had make the sacrifices.
Posted By Anonymous Barb Kozlowski,Phoenix, AZ : 2:02 PM ET
I just don't get it. After four years of absolutely no progress, I don't get why we are considering sending more troops to fight. Moreover, I think I have used up all the anger I had with George Bush, which is being replaced with anger towards our congressmen and the American people to a degree. Mr. Bush lied to us about w.m.d.'s, Iraq's connection with Al-Queda, as well as letting Osama go after being cornered, destroying our credibility all around the world and also making the U.S. a larger target for terrorist attacks, ruining the fragile friendships we had around the world, and the list goes on and on. What I am angry about is how we put up with this every day , and why have we for so long put up with a president that has nothing good going for him?! As an American who served his country, who has morals and values, I AM OUTRAGED! President Clinton got impeached for his little thing, as where our current president would have been tried for treason if he were a civilian, but yet he is allowed, and almost encouraged to keep making the same decisions he has with no regard for the people, and no smarts to implement a real working plan. It is time for him to step down before this country revolts and there is no country left to defend.
Posted By Anonymous richard allen hurley 3719 chalmers ave, bartonville il. 61607 : 2:02 PM ET
Can Congress take any action to prevent our young men and women from going into Harm's Way? They acheived this goal stopping Johnson in the 70's why not now?
Posted By Anonymous Terri from Tulsa,Okla : 2:03 PM ET
First off, I am still a supporter of the Bush administration, and specifically I am still a supporter of Bush... I was not in support of sending more troops until I started listening to why it is important to send more troops... I agree with you Anderson, that our troops will continue to do what is asked of them, and I am sick to death of how many of our troops we have lost, and I am certainly not in favor of loosing more, but I think Bush will have a good plan, and I think we need to listen closely, with intellegence, to the whole plan before jumping to conclusions or automatically disagreeing because the plan may mean more loss of life... I know the number one question to your panel will be "will it work?" whatever the plan is... I would like to add the question, if not, why not?
Posted By Anonymous Sherry Sarasota, Fl : 2:08 PM ET
Why are you aginst our President all the time, He was elected successfully for the second time by our Nation.
If you want to publish falls propoganda then don't say that it's NEWS.
THANKS
GEORGE RAJA
OCEANSIDE, NY
Posted By Anonymous GEORGE RAJA, OCEANISIDE, NY : 2:08 PM ET
20,000 more troops doesn't sound like enough to stop the insurgents. Can the US afford to lose 20,000 from somewhere else? Will these be first timers or troops who have been before and know the dynamics of the conflict? Why doesn't the US send 50,000 or all they can and end this once and for all?

Ok, that's enough questions for today! ;) But enquiring minds, you know!
Posted By Anonymous Em, Toronto, Ontario, Canada : 5:37 PM ET
I have to agree with the idea of sending more troops to Iraq. I think a main problem in the 4 years that the US led military has been there has been not enough troops. People have to remember that the troops were also responsible not for only fighting the enemy but also training the Iraqi police forces and Iraqi troops. There is only so much that can be done when you don't have the proper equipment and amount of troops needed. Send what is needed so victory can be achieved more quickly and the troops can come home. Doesn't surprise me that the Democrats are disagreeing, doesn't matter what plan a Republican President came up with they were not going to back it. They more concerned with what is best for their party with the upcoming Presidential election. I honestly don't think the Democrats have a plan to help fix the mess in Iraq, at least Bush is trying. Democrats strategy is to run when things get tough, showing they are not the right party to fight terrorism.
Posted By Anonymous Paul Lirette, Moncton, Canada : 5:38 PM ET
Don't you think that sending more troops to Iraq will result in more US deaths as it did when Lyndon Johnson escalated Vietnam between 1965 and 1968?
Posted By Anonymous Alan, Ft. Lauderdale, FL : 5:39 PM ET
Watching the CNN show today I read a screen heading, "a damaged legacy", next to Anderson Cooper who is bashing the president. As a patriotic person who loves this country I felt total disgust for your tone. Your criticism of the president is full of immature whining. Yes, there have been mistakes, but now that a different approach is introduced, your bashing increases and this is even more wrong. Anderson you are not perfect and have been given second chances in your life. The least YOU can do is give the struggling Iraqis and our president one more chance. The odds are worse without one more try. The goal to bring troops home this year should make you cheer. You show no understanding of the total extremist impact. If you drive an SUV, sell it today for a hybrid. If you want to criticize someone, criticize the U.S. automakers who keep manufacturing gas guzzlers, keeping us even more dependent on foreign oil. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Posted By Anonymous Jean Memphis, TN : 5:42 PM ET
Hi Anderson.

I'd like to know more about the President's decision-making process. Eight weeks ago, during the elections, Mr. Bush kept saying he looked forward to receiving and implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker. When the Group's report came out, though, Bush was backing away from the recommendations within the week.

Now Mr. Bush is pushing a plan that seems unpopular with his own party and which has been publicly questioned by senior members of the military.

My question is, who's advising Bush if he's ignoring the advice of the people who are supposed to be advising him? Is he just rejecting advice and asking another "expert" until someone tells him what he wants to hear? Or is there someone behind the scenes with real knowledge who is helping him formulate these plans?
Posted By Anonymous Darrell, Atlanta GA : 5:43 PM ET
I'm anticipating the speech to go just as the press has been predicting it would, which makes me very angry. A huge majority of the country is against a troop surge and the President takes it onto himself to keep pushing for one. Did Mr. Bush miss the memo about how he serves the people, not his own personal fancy?

My question for the panel is whether the Democrats will finally stand up to Bush's insane plans. We know that they can do things to prevent the President from doing this, but will they? It's a question that's been asked many times on both of my news channels and I have yet to hear a straight prediction without side-stepping.

Either way, good luck in DC, Anderson. Here's to hoping America will be told the truth for once.
Posted By Anonymous Danielle, Knob Noster, MO : 5:45 PM ET
Billions of dollars? I am astounded that no one is asking the question, How we are going to pay for this? Look at the deficit already!
Posted By Anonymous Maggie, Boulder, CO : 5:52 PM ET
Only congress has the authority to declare "war" why are they not exercising their authority and doing what they were elected to do?Yes we need to support the troops but that also means removing them from harm's way.
Posted By Anonymous R. Swanson,Elbert,CO : 5:54 PM ET
Anderson, President Bush has made a big mistake we all know that, but throughout the years he kept saying that things are going fine in Iraq. Success will come but it will take some time. Today, it has come down to people are saying: this is his last chance, he better do something about the situation in Iraq, fast. They are all right, he needs do something. But really what are his options? And whatever decision this decider makes it will be quite embarassing for him to accept that this was a terrible mistake. I think the only reason he kept this whole thing going on for so long was he trying to escape this excruciating situation.
Posted By Anonymous Sahira, Chicago, IL : 5:57 PM ET
This is not our war. We're like someone who tried to stop a guy from beating his wife. Admirable, to be sure, but an act that can have unexpected consequences. You can end up with both the hubby and the wife in your face because no matter how strongly you feel about what you see, IT'S NOT YOUR FIGHT!! We started a civil war by taking Saddam out, but it's THEIR CIVIL WAR and nothing we can do will make it ours. So, we're irrelevant, standing around watching 20-year-old Americans be killed and maimed to no good end. My question is, what is wrong with congress cutting off money to fund this madness? They were elected and sent to Washington to govern, and financing or not financing policy is just that: government. Isn't it?
Posted By Anonymous Jim, Encino, CA : 5:58 PM ET
Big surprise. Bush doing whatever he wants regardless of what we want. Things never change.
Posted By Anonymous Mr. Poe, Seattle WA : 5:58 PM ET
More troops to Iraq. More billions diverted to building up Iraq rather than the U.S. More attempts to protect his ego? When will impeachment proceedings start- HOW ABOUT TOMORROW MORNING!
Posted By Anonymous R. Dorsey, Assonet, MA : 5:59 PM ET
Hi Anderson,

With all this news of a surge of 20,000 troops, I haven't heard or read any information on whether these troops will be new troops (who haven't been to the Middle East) or troops on rotation? Will men and women have to serve for a longer period of time without coming home? Where will these 20,000 troops come from?

Thanks!
Posted By Anonymous Shruti Bala, Glendale, AZ : 6:13 PM ET
I am very concerned about our president's obvious inability to listen and to reflect. Clearly our commitment in Iraq cannot be "open-ended," but after so many years and so many lives, neither the American people nor the Iraqi people have received an acceptable answer to one fundamental question: Why are we there in the first place?

American foreign policy has never been about taking down vile dictators or "spreading democracy," despite political rhetoric. Given the number of reprehensible rulers of countries across the globe, only the most naive American voter could possibly buy this argument regarding Iraq.

Yet here we are. We invaded a sovereign nation on the most questionable (and regularly revised) pretexts and created a situation so convoluted and so nightmarish for both us and the Iraqis that noone can even glimmer an Exit sign that will allow for stability in Iraq and some dignity for Americans in justifying our "mission."

This president should either provide both quickly, or be forced to remain in public service until he cleans up the mess he created.
Posted By Anonymous Janet Newbury Massachusetts : 6:14 PM ET
Personally, it's kind of sad when idiots keep lying to us about how we just need some new way of sending more troops to Iraq - when it's obvious to this former Army Sergeant that we need to just leave ASAP.
Posted By Anonymous Will Affleck-Asch, Seattle, WA : 6:16 PM ET
What can 20,000 troops do?kill more innocent people.Example if you had 1000 people unarmed having a peaceful demostration and things got out of hand and they had a riot. It would take 2000 police to stop the crowd and restore peace with not to many people getting hurt.What do you think is going to happen when you have thousands of armed Iraqi people ready to fight?
Posted By Anonymous steve jellen sr LI ny : 6:21 PM ET
Like many other ordinary Americans, I have been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning because the Administration, in my view failed to quantify or even justify the invasion. From the beginning, it appeared to me a personal vendeta was driving Bush to war and not any prevailing facts. It is almost 4 years now, and we have 3,000+ soldiers killed, 20,000+ soldiers injured, and tens of thousands Iraqis dead. We have not accomplished much else in Iraq.

My question to the panel is, "What will an additional 20,000+ soldiers do that could not have been done by the 135,000+ soldiers in Iraq today? In the business world, we are tought that at some point in time you must cut your losses. Is it that difficult for the Administration to grasp such a simple idea?
Posted By Anonymous paddy Mwembu : 6:25 PM ET
Anderson,
I wish the brave American soldiers and Marines to fulfill the difficult task of winning the war to the end and the comming speech inspire them on it.
Posted By Anonymous Baktygul, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. : 6:25 PM ET
Hey Anderson - I guess you really can't please all the people all the time. George wants to know why you are against our president all the time, to those of us on the other side, I think you let him get away with way too much. Maybe that means you are doing your job just right.

Have a safe trip home.
Posted By Anonymous Christina, Windber, PA : 6:26 PM ET
Hey Anderson - maybe you can explain to me how people electing Democrats into office because they wanted out of Iraq, gives the President a green light to send more troops. Did I miss something?
Posted By Anonymous Christina, Windber, PA : 6:26 PM ET
No problem is not having too few troops on the ground, the problem is having too few people in the US supporting this war.
Posted By Anonymous Keren, Colorado Springs, CO : 6:46 PM ET
There is no other option for a mind that works like Mr Bush's. The measure of sending more troops will only prolong postpone the sensation of deja vu: more humiliation, disgrace and division amongst the battered nation of Iraq. And a what a cost!
It is about time someone harness this mind. Mrs Bush?
Posted By Anonymous Paulo Miranda, Pitangui, Brazil : 6:47 PM ET
It's a shame the President wasn't sober during the Vietnam War, he might not be repeating the Vietnamization mistakes his predecessors made.
Posted By Anonymous Doug S Grand Forks ND : 6:47 PM ET
I have heard it mentioned that this "low" number of troops to be sent to Iraq is really.....a protection force for a withdrawal.

I look forward to hearing any comments.
Posted By Anonymous Diane, Pittsburgh, PA : 6:47 PM ET
No one has answered for me yet what we are trying to really accomplish in Iraq. I realize we have a mission to finish. Just what is that mission? Do they even know or has their pride just gotten in the way of sensibility in Washington? I expect to hear a lot of rah-rah bull so deep I'll need waders tonight. At some point the real truth has to be told. America spoke loud and clear. When does Bush listen? I think the American people and soldiers deserve real answers. I'm tired of the games in Washington on this. Nothing in Iraq was worth my friend Mike's life. Nothing over there is worth my cousin's if he has to go for round three. When do our own matter more to Bush and his buddies than whatever his reasoning is for us being in Iraq? I just don't get it.
Posted By Anonymous TA Cheramie, Berwick, LA : 6:53 PM ET
Semantics, "spin" or strategy?

On adding 20,000+ troops: if you are in favor of the war (and White House policy), it's "surge"; if you oppose either (or both), it's "escalation".

When did "support the troops" become a synonym for "support the war in Iraq"?

And is it "finishing what we started" or "saving face for the White House, i.e., President Bush"?

Rudyard Kipling once said, "Words are the most powerful drug used by mankind".
Posted By Anonymous Susan...Long Island, New York : 6:57 PM ET
Even on the now slim chance we can build a stable democracy in Iraq, the real question is...will the terrorists care? Will they then just lay down their arms and go back to their normal lives? Just because we build it, doesn't mean they will stop coming (after us).
Posted By Anonymous Andrew Cornforth, Aliso Viejo, CA : 6:58 PM ET
I do not support the president in any way shape or form. I am married to a US Marine and I've been so close to loosing him, that to think that Bush wants to send MORE troops agrivates me. We don't need to send more troops what we need is to slowly get out of there so that Iraqis can start to take care of themselfs. We are not their babysitters and they don't need any so therefore if they want to kill them selfs and live like wild animals LET THEM BE!! Now if they attacks us again the problem should be solved by finding the people who attacked us not with innocent people that have no idea whats going on. I don't want to have a marine dressed in dress blues come to my door and tell my that my husband was killed in Iraq.
Posted By Anonymous Mrs. Harris, Oceanside, California : 7:01 PM ET
Troops stay...Bush goes.
How could we pull this off?
Posted By Anonymous G Thistle Annapolis, MD : 7:02 PM ET
As a former soldier who still has many friends in the 3rd infantry division in Georgia, I can tell you that many of those serving now are tired and angry.

They have every right to be. The war was initially marketed as the patriotic thing to do; the real American-Liberation-of-the-proletariat kind of thing. But now as we stand at a crossroads, where our "leaders" have admitted mistakes and lapses in judgment, caused by rushed, faulty intel, the popular, and correct, political sentiment is that this entire was was in error. I agree, and so do most of my active duty friends.

But how sad is it that there will never be accountability for the 3000+ sons and daughters that have perished for a "mistake," something that never should have happened, and cannot be resolved in the Hollywood, Happy-Ending, Banner on a Battleship (oops, we did do that one) kind of way...

It disgusts me...
Posted By Anonymous Jason Braxton, Santa Clara California : 7:02 PM ET
When and how will the U.S. know the Iraqi government has fulfilled or failed its promises to eliminate the rogue militias permitting U.S. military ground efforts to cease and desist?
Posted By Anonymous Jack Griffin, Genoa NV : 7:06 PM ET
What has not been addressed is the role Iran will play in all of this . Iran will be given a moritorium on their nuclear development during this plan phase for fear of provoking them into retaliation by bombing their nuclear sites. By the time this plan phase complete (1-2years my guess) we will see where Iran's first bomb will fall
Posted By Anonymous Richard, Bonita , FL, USA : 7:06 PM ET
From across the ocean I can say more troops are needed. But not only troops but all the support that will enable them to help the new Iraqi goverment and nation. It is also true that if the Iraqis are not themselves commited progress will not be made...and of course all the media will make sure to blam eit on Bush.
If the US pulls out of Iraq then I suggest they dont get involved in any other conflict for the next 20 years since no one will respect our military nor our politicians. What the democrats need to do is support the president and help bring the other nations of the world in to cooperate. Because as much as the other nations complain and critizie they benefit from US troops being there, taking the brunt of the problem while they are safer. Here in Spain Aznar lost the presidency over Iraq and the subsequent bombing in Madrid...but terrorism still is here, only it is national which does not earn the wide spread critisism internaly... i.e. if ETA bombs well they have a reason anyone else its because of the US.

My view is either we go full force and finish this job or we get out and become isolatate.. because why would you help protect nations that do not help at all...
I thank the Brits for their support..
Posted By Anonymous Eva, Barcelona Spain : 7:07 PM ET
"Win or lose..." I always feel somewhat out of these words. War is murder.
Peace will never come with force and arms.
Posted By Anonymous Yukako,Japan : 7:24 PM ET
Why does this stubborn man not listen to his advisors nor to anyone else about this horrible war. If he hasn't been able to win the hearts and minds of the majority of people in Iraq or the countries around it, isn't the writing on the wall? Doesn't he recognize his Waterloo?
Posted By Anonymous Kei, Boulder, CO : 7:26 PM ET
Hello:

I am so disgusted with these spineless Congresspeople and Senators who are so afraid to stand up against this war, I am nauseated. Most are so afraid they will not be politically correct and damage their run for President, that they are afraid to be leaders. I would not vote for any of them! The rest are just concerned about being re-elected. None of them are true leaders because they have no SPINE ! This includes Barrak Obama, Senator Clinton, etc..

Mike Johnson
Houston Texas
Posted By Anonymous M. Johnson, Houston Texas : 7:28 PM ET
As a mother of a soldier who has just returned from a year deployment in Afghanistan, I appeal to all Americans to call for accountability of this president.

As always, looking forward to your show tonight!
Posted By Anonymous Sarah, Boca Raton, Florida : 7:32 PM ET
Mr. President,

You've asked the Military families in America, to send their best young men and women to fight in Iraq, does it ever occur to you that you're let them down?
Posted By Anonymous Billy J. Bell, Hartselle, Al : 7:37 PM ET
Hi AC-I truly have faith in the military and our brave men and women serving. I'm just not so sure about Mr. Bush. Who has he been listening to? Hasn't he gotten rid of those who disagreed with him? I would love for him to prove me wrong and stabilize Iraq. It would even be better for Iraq to assume a larger role. I always try to be a possitive person, but I'm not really feeling confident about this conflict. We will just have to see how it plays out. As always, thanks AC, for your wonderful support and coverage!
Posted By Anonymous Kathy Chicago,Il : 7:38 PM ET
Why are we asking our military personnel to do the "work'that the soldiers who citizens of the country won't do themselves.
Posted By Anonymous Hazel Gourley, Eastland TX : 7:49 PM ET
Every American can expect a continued ignorance towards the attitudes and values of the voting public. The "freedom" of representative democracy that we are trying to spread by taking sides in a civil war that is not our own will only continue to cause problems for us as a nation.

Why has the concept of a free, democratic, and progressively thinking society been lost on our nation's leaders, especially the executive branch? Why has the debate and compromise of our earliest statesmen been lost, and how can we get it back?
Posted By Anonymous Graham Kukucka, Pittsburgh, PA : 7:49 PM ET
From advance excerpts, it looks like Bush's speech is going to add insult to injury, sternly warning the Iraqi government to control the chaos as if it were this fledgling government's fault. Bush admits mistakes in military tactics, but not the overarching mistake of invading an independent nation based on bad intelligence (WHERE ARE THE WMDs?!). The deep apology that is needed will probably never come. That apology (and switching military dollars to foreign aid) might in some ideal world solve this. But rather than do that, we're pulling out and saying "it's your responsibility." This was OUR fault.
Posted By Anonymous John, Waco, TX : 7:51 PM ET
I have a comment and a question. I don't think any amount of U.S. troops can "win" this war. These are factions in Iraq that hate each other now, have hated each other for generations, and teach their children to hate. The people of Iraq, not U.S. troops, need to step up and secure their country and make a better life for their people. My question is, since Bush led us into this war with lies and, I think, a personal agenda, where is his accountability? I would think he could be impeached. The troops who have been killed did sign up for armed forces duty, but if I were a relative of one of the U.S. citizens who has been killed in this war based on lies, I would sue Bush for the wrongful death of my loved one.
Posted By Anonymous Jan Duncan, Manhattan, KS : 7:51 PM ET
Why should his plan please anyone...he's the only one in this country that believes in it!
Posted By Anonymous Coolbreeze, Fort Lauderdale, FL : 8:00 PM ET
President Bush is repeating the same mistakes LBJ and Nixon made in Vietnam. I expect him to call for more and more troops; I just hope Congress has the backbone to cut off the funding so more of our brave troops don't die for a cause that is already lost.
Posted By Anonymous William Bogy, Cleveland OH : 8:01 PM ET
Why isn't the speech tonight being given by Maliki? Shouldn't he be reaching out directly to the American people, committing to taking control over his country and pitching a surge strategy? He needs to make believers out of us because America's Commander in Chief cannot.
Posted By Anonymous Dave, Milwaukee, Wisconsin : 8:12 PM ET
All I want to know is how the President thinks a half-measure will work. Half-measures are how we got into this mess in the first place, by failing to guard stockpiles of ammo now used to make IEDs.
Posted By Anonymous Mike from Austin, TX : 8:13 PM ET
In a way I feel the President is in a no win situation - almost like he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't....but you know what, he created this mess !! Everything up to this point as been wrong and ill prepared. Hopefully we can see some changes and we move forward. God knows we need it.
Posted By Anonymous Andy Abelman, Los Angeles, Ca. : 8:13 PM ET
I would like to know why it is taking Bush so long to send our troops home. Instead of sending 20,000 more troops over to Iraq, we need to start taking out the troops and sending them home. I hate watching 360 and as well as other new programs and hearing of all those who have been killed or severely disabled because of this war. Its sad to see all those young men and women who have dies before they got to experience their lives. I also hate hearing about the parents who dies over their. I think we have been in Iraq for so long and its time to pull out.
Posted By Anonymous Cassandra, Sugar Land, TX : 8:14 PM ET
I am a soldier of the United States Army Reserves. I plan on listening to Bush's plan, but honestly I am outraged right now. Bush has no idea what is really going on over there and it seems he doesnt even care. So many soldiers have died over ther and for what? Nothing!!! The people do not even want us over there. Sending more troops overseas will simply end in more mothers,brothers, sisters, wives, fathers, etc killed. I pray for all my battle buddies that are fighting and dying for no reason.
Posted By Anonymous Mike St. Louis, MO : 8:18 PM ET
Why is no one having a sensible exit stragety? We have to stop spawning more terrorists and sending more troops will just spawn more attacks. Same old, same old, no more cannon fodder,Mr.President.
Posted By Anonymous Christa-Maria,Charlevoix, MI : 8:27 PM ET
This is a POLICE ACTION, not a war!
Mr Bush does NOT have a SOUND EXIT STRATEGY!

Place our troups at the border, only. (Not in the middle of the cities.) Have them inspect everything coming into the country to stop weapons and ammunition from going in.

Let the authorities in Iraq show us that they will not tolerate insurgents FIRST before placing more of our men and women in harms way.

Protecting our troups from a bad policy is the BEST way to show our support.
Posted By Anonymous Lisa, KC, MO : 8:27 PM ET
Looking forward- how do you (& your panel) think this speech (and resulting fallout) will affect the State of the Union address which is less than two week away?
Posted By Anonymous Debra, Dundalk, Maryland : 8:30 PM ET
To address Ms. Koslowski's question, my brother is awaiting orders to be deployed to the Middle East, whether Afghanistan or Iraq. He does not agree with sending more troops to Iraq, since our approach there is not working. He would be more willing to go to Afghanistan as our approach seems to have worked better there. So if our enlisted men and women, the ones actually putting their lives on the line, are questioning whether more troops will help or not, why are we sending more of them?
Posted By Anonymous Lauren, Bowie, MD : 8:45 PM ET
Really, I am just so tired of all the bad mouthing of President Bush! It is getting old!! He was elected by a majority vote..he didn't just make himself president. If the Democrats or anyone else doesn't like his ideas on Iraq then they should stop yapping and get busy and make a plan that works!! All they can say is pull out! If we do that sure our troops won't die but many, many innocent men, women and children will because the violence will triple without us being there!! Then the whole world will look down on us for that!! It's a no-win situation! Like it or not, we toppled their government, we are the cause of all this chaos, we have to stay there and make sure the new government can stand and fend off all the radicals who want to bring it down so they can take over. If we don't then we are no better than Saddam...letting millions be slaughtered for nothing!!
Posted By Anonymous Cynthia, Covington, Ga. : 8:51 PM ET
I am not so much against Bush personally, I am sure that a part of his motives were sincerely to bring democracy to the middle-east region, specifically Iraq, but I don't see how increasing the number of troops can benefit us or outweigh the disadvantages. I wish that the opinions of the armed forces in that region were more loudly projected and heard.
Posted By Anonymous Suzanne, Valparaiso, IN : 8:53 PM ET
The whole reason for adding troops is to change the course of the political debate at home. Sending in more troops effectively invalidates the recomendations of the Iraq Study Group and puts control of the debate back in Bush's hands. Escalating the conflict buys Bush time... or so he seems to believe. If we were making these strategic decisions for, say, strategic reasons, instead of political ones, we would have pulled out by now. Iraq was about politics and getting Bush his clearly undeserved second term and now it continues as such. It's disgraceful to kill people for the sake of partisan politics, but here we are. Thank you George Bush. And thank you, especially, Republican Party for giving us such an able politician at a time when we need a leader. God help us.
Posted By Anonymous John T. Korab - Albany, NY : 8:55 PM ET
What happened to the Iraq Study Group's report? Was this one of their proposals? And what about their plan? Doesn't seem like the Bush administration was ready to swallow the pill they published, and I wondered why did we even bother asking the commission to take up the task if Bush was going to come up with his own plan.
Posted By Anonymous Colleen O'Brien, Pottstown, PA : 9:04 PM ET
I think Congress should take steps stop funding for any new troops going to Iraq.
Posted By Anonymous Mark, Southington CT : 9:13 PM ET
Bush says
�Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for America.� Then he lists what sounds like the old domino theory that kept us justifying more Americans dying in Vietnam. We finally had to leave Vietnam, and in the future we�ll have to leave Iraq in the same chaotic way.
Posted By Anonymous Susan, Gettysburg, PA : 9:15 PM ET
I am extremely torn between supporting the war for the sake of the troops and standing up against it. My hope is that there is an end in sight. I come from a Marnie family and I was also a Marine myself. It is very upsetting to see such division in our country over this war. It is the top event in the news everyday and night. I would like to know who will be tracking the progress of this new strategy?
Posted By Anonymous Mary D., Washington DC : 9:18 PM ET
I'm not sure the meaning of surge-but as a mother of a soldier fighting in Iraq a surge for me would look something like the first gulf war-if we need that area to stabilize the rest of the area supposedly-Iraqi leadership has failed, at this point we should be in control, waiting on al queda to take over isnt the answer- what are we waiting for.
Posted By Anonymous pennie Orange Texas : 9:27 PM ET
Bush's plan and advisers sound a lot like Johnson and his advisers (McNamera and Westmoreland) and look what happened. Bush's legacy! A modern day Vietnam!! How many American's must die?
Posted By Anonymous John Pompano Beach, Florida : 9:27 PM ET
I feel that is time the American Public calls for the resignation or impeachment of our president. Now that we have heard his speech and it is more of the same only with more of our troops we need to do something now before it is too late. I hope and pray that our congressional leadership and the media will not fall for his attempt to buy time. Our country is not going in the right direction and it is time that we get new executive leadership.
Posted By Anonymous Gloria Muffley, Lehighton, Pa. : 9:35 PM ET
We have been in Iraq since 2003, with this year making 4 years in Iraq, if it hasn't worked yet, what will sending more of OUR Troops to an area, where the people there probably don't even appreciate the fact that WE are there. I served 20 years in the military and I support our TROOPS 150 percent, but I can't say I support sending more troops to this area. We are spearding our services to thin. They are suppose to support and defend the constitution of the United States!!! God Bless our Service men and women, they need our support now more than ever..
Posted By Anonymous J Smith, Summerville, SC : 9:36 PM ET
At what point and at what cost do we start to see the futility in trying to establish a Western-style democracy in a country where western thought and ideology are not necessarily accepted or appreciated by a people who are more closely loyal and "faithful" to their religious philosophy and background. The differences between the Shias and the Sunnis cannot be solved simply by sending in more troops to hold the hands of the perceived puppet government of al-Maliki. Nor will the militias stop their violent actions as long as they are engaged in a 'holy war' against the infidels occupying their country, both within and from abroad. The Iraq Study Group Report gave this administration a variety of options to pursue, yet, once again, this administration is Hell-bent on proving that they are much more "qualified" to choose for the American people what is best for our "common good". Evidently the November elections failed to show this administration that the American people are tired of this same, tired approach to Iraq. Bush talks one great plan after another, yet still fails to provide concrete proof that anything this administration has tried so far has had any lasting effect to bring about peace in the region. Even the hanging of Hussein was botched and has worked to inflame more people in the Middle East. I am hopeful that, at some point, GW will put his huge ego away, tell hid neocon buddies that enough really is enough, and start using more reasonable resources in this failed strategy.
Posted By Anonymous Joe Woods, Madison, OH : 9:40 PM ET
I would be willing to give Bush this "last chance" if he were willing to give the American Public the promise that if this doesn't work, then he would resign in no confidence vote.

The Lebanese people got fed up with the Sudanese influence in their government and came out in mass and ousted that influence. How about a similar show of confidence in the Iraqi people that they are fed up with it all and will stand up to the bullies in their society.
Posted By Anonymous Mike, San Francisco, CA : 9:41 PM ET
It amazes me that Bush is still our President. We as Americans have ignored the abuse of leadership that he has shown. If Bush thinks that we need more troops then he needs to send his kids. I am disgusted by everyone who ignores what is going on. Bush has no plan, only to send more troops and increase our casualities. What about the responsibilities of the Iraqi people. We can not control other countries and people need to realize that. For all of you who support Bush take a day and do some research into what is really going on.
Posted By Anonymous Kerry, Cincinnati, OH : 9:47 PM ET
George H.W. Bush obviously didn't buy George "W" those little army sets with the soldiers and tanks when he was a child. Maybe he did and because he never won while playing by himself in the basement he's decided to try it with real people. Unfortunately he can't win again only this time people are dying. Time to bring them home. I'll buy him a new set of army toys, maybe he can win that battle.Yes I am Canadian but our boys are dying to. I support the troops,however it is time to come home.
Posted By Anonymous Larry Halbert ,Ontario ,Canada : 9:51 PM ET
Joe Klein, David Gergen???? Hmmm....is there an agenda, Anderson?

For those of you who say "too many American troops have died" and for those who say "leave now"....the same was said during WWII. Was that a mistake in your opinion?

I am a member of a military family. Yes, educated military members senator Kerry. Some have died while oters survived wars and battles. I support our fight against all terrorists; be they in Iraq, Iran, Syria or Somolia.

I want the best for the Iraqi people. We've only been in Iraq for 3 years. Come on people, this isn't Jack in the Box. Things take time. Especially the war against terror. We'll be fighting against terror for the remainder of our lives.
Posted By Anonymous Mary, Dallas, Texas : 10:03 PM ET
I'm sick of George Bush and this unnecessary war and the lives that have been lost fighting for this lost cause. Why in the world should this work? Insurgents are in Iraq because Bush opened Iraq up for them to come in. Why don't politicans learn from past history! Vietnam is the war that we should have learned from. The only thing we can do at this point because the situation is so out of hand is to pull out our troops. It's a civil war and we don't need to be trapped in another civil war. The next thing we need to do is recall President Bush. He needs to Go.
Posted By Anonymous Brita Pruitt, Sacramento, California : 10:12 PM ET
He is playing politics with this, still. He is baiting the new Congress.
Posted By Anonymous J. Perna, Montauk, NY : 10:18 PM ET
Even though he acknowledged the mistakes that occured, President Bush decides to deploy 20,000 or more additional troops to Iraq. Personally, I don't feel that sending more troops will fix the problems in Iraq, but rather make them worse.
I really wonder how much improvement we'll see in the next few months.
Posted By Anonymous Manisha, Los Angeles, CA : 10:25 PM ET
I think giving people to opportunity for freedom is never, ever a wrong choice for the President or the American people. Has our plan worked over the last 3.2 years, not to well, agreed.
This does not make our position in Iraq wrong contrary to popular thought. Again, it is the opportunity for freedom that is the right choice and that my fellow Americans is NEVER wrong. I have served 24 years and always will put it on the line for Human Beings rights to freedom.
Posted By Anonymous GySgt Shumaker, San Dieg CA : 10:34 PM ET
I have just returned from a year in Baghdad, and I really have alot of skepticism that this plan of the President's will really work from being over there. I would be surprised to see the Iraqi Army going head to head with the Mahdi Army in Baghdad. Also the President doesn't really specify how hard of a strain this is on the US Military. It is like we are just property to him to use at his disposal. Alot of soldiers are on their third trip back to Iraq. How many soldiers did you see go to Vietnam 3 times as compared to Iraq 3 times? Also, Did not President Johnson say in 1967 that we just need a surge of troops and we will have victory? He also wants to incrase the size of the Army and Marines, but where are these people going to come from? Is there a draft coming in the near future?
Posted By Anonymous SGT Phillip Bowman Fort Hood Texas : 10:35 PM ET
"The situation in iraq is unacceptable to the american people ". FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MR BUSH, YOU ARE THE REASON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ IS UNACCEPTABLE.ITS ALREADY A DISSASTER, AND ITS ALREADY A FAILURE.YOU SHOULD HAVE LEFT WHEN YOU HAD A CHANCE . THE MINUTE YOU CAPTURED HUSSIEN. Please explain to the american people again , why did you go there in the first place ?. The iraq people never picked up the phone and dialed 911, please help us. Why would they when they conscider the west to be the enemy. The reason there is failure is because our cowboy of a president did not sit down and think about the effects of his decision to invade iraq. The country may have been unsteady but you pulled out the one block that was holding the structure together. There is something very, very wrong with this picture and i fear the worst is yet to come. GOD HELP US.
Posted By Anonymous Valerie, Hesston KS : 10:41 PM ET
Why don't we question politicians who point to the fact that we have not had an attack for 5 years as support for the administrations success on terrorism when in fact it was 8 years between the attacks on the world trade center at a time when we were not even publicly fighting terrorism? So you can not say that we have been successful in fighting terrorism by simpling pointing to the fact that it has been five years since the last attack.
Posted By Anonymous Mike, Olean, New York : 10:45 PM ET
Regardless of political party offiliation...be you Democrat or Republican, and there are and will always be disagreements based soley upon those , trivial though they may be, deep inside every American is the hope and prayer that the leaders elected to guide our country will acheive some measure of success; doing what ultimately is best for America and its intersts as a whole.
But to witness our President blindly move in his own direction, ignore the reccomendations of a panel put together to bring the American people back together and in support of "his" war, ignore the voice of the American Voting mandate of the November elections, and continue to make empty promises and flimsy bold statements that will do nothing more than bring more suffering to the Iraqi's, not to mention the outrageous sacrifice he continues to force American Military familes to make...is just too much.
I am dumbfounded, outraged, humilated and ashamed of our leadership for allowing this hollow, cowardly stick figure of a man we must acknowledge as our Commander in Chief for the next 2 years, to continue to assume the role of some self styled monarch who answers to no one.
To ask where the checks and balances, written in to the constitution are at this dark and shameful hour of American history is moot... for there woulod surely be a"signing statement" scribbled and initialed by Bush that has secrectly given him the crooked crown he rests on a troubled and obstinate head.
Posted By Anonymous r.young knoxville tn : 11:08 PM ET
Isn't this the same rhetoric from this administration that we have heard over and over? Wasn't it 'unacceptable" when the 1st American was killed by the Iraqis? Wasn�t the situation in Iraq "unacceptable" last year, or the year before, maybe even before �we� decided to invade? It�s too bad this administration couldn�t admitt to it�s own agenda prior to losing 3018 American men and women. When are the people of this country going to stand up and make some noise? I have been waiting and waiting to hear a clear plan on the war in Iraq, and this is the best our commander in chief can give us, 20,0000 more men and women to risk their lives, for what? I am disgusted once again.
Posted By Anonymous Molly Alter, Murphysboro, IL : 11:18 PM ET
Outrageous! Wake up America! Enough already. Enough blood shed. Enough money wasted (some half million per minute. How many hungry could that feed? How many sick could that treat? How many children could that educate? How many Prada shoes could that buy me? The HORROR! More simply put...Don't buy it America! Bush LIES. Anderson, you ROCK! Keep on keeping them honest!!!
Posted By Anonymous Rico Bartlett, Atlanta GA : 12:03 AM ET
I can't understand why our men and women can't come home and let the people in Iraq fight their own war!
Bert,
Bremen, Ky.
Posted By Anonymous Bert Piper-Bremen, Ky. : 12:14 AM ET
I'd like to know why Bush has seemed to have forgotten who Osama Bin Laden is. He talks about the war on terror and the people who planned the 9/11 attacks. Why hasn't made that big of an effort to find him? Iraq had nothing to do with that.
Posted By Anonymous Alexandra, Phoenix AZ : 12:19 AM ET
I just listened to the speech and mostly i was thinking as "new" plans were listed by the President, was "What? Didn't you know you needed to do that before? and if you didn't -- why not?" It feels like throwing more lives and money down a bottomless pit.
Posted By Anonymous Christel Klein, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada : 12:35 AM ET
Would the politicians who support the plan to "surge" the Iraq War be so willing if it was their child who was next to go?

This is not about politics, it is about human lives...
Posted By Anonymous Frank, East Meadow, NY : 1:01 AM ET
Anderson,

What could have been more obvios all along and even more relevant now is that the US should have gone to war with a sufficient number of troops, the assortment of violence would have perhaps not spun so out of control or escalated to the chaos that now exists . Unlike the narrow minded critics of our president, he must remain fully committed to a successful outcome. I truely believe the last thing on the mind of the president is his historical legacy, it's clearly a well intended effort to turn up the heat and pressure of the Iraqi goverment to take control of it's future or demise. What would be so God awful of the democrats for once to unite with republicans and the president in restoring Americas greatness (speaking of course of a much larger world wide picture) fighting against and attacking the president has served no purpose and no better alternative in the middle east. could you think of one?

Maritza San Jose Ca,
Posted By Anonymous Maritza Munoz, San Jose, Ca : 1:09 AM ET
Anderson, your team completely missed the point of Bush's "admission of mistakes."
Bush DID NOT admit to mistakes. Read his quote EXACTLY: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." This statement DOES NOT say that he admits any mistakes, just that he has (finally) "accepted responsibility" for mistakes that were made - again, not that he made any!!!
I finally had to quit even watching CNN when I realized that NO ONE had caught this.
Posted By Anonymous Don Chapin, Talent, OR : 1:11 AM ET
Love your show, I would like to know why you allowed Mitch McConnel to get away the comment, we succeded in keeping the terroist from attacking us here for five years by fighting in Iraq. He made this comment three times. This seems to suggest again that the Irag war had some connection to us being bombed on 9/11. You should have called him on that. On there is on iotta of evidence that our fighting over in Irag as migated the terrorist threat by even the smallest of margins. Keep them honest, thanks.
Posted By Anonymous David Coxen Ontario, CA : 1:29 AM ET
After watching the speech, I am not satisfied and slightly worried. Okay, so he's sending more troops, but repeatedly saying that the reason is to secure freedom, over and over and over again, exactly HOW is that going to be accomplished by sending more people? I'm not sensing real answers, just reaffirming what he has been preaching for the past three years or more.

Won't it just disrupt the current military infrastructure? Did Bush even think about how this sudden influx will affect the status quo?

Our troops are deserving our applause, especially for this one.
Posted By Anonymous Aruna Rao, Minneapolis, MN : 1:34 AM ET
I am absolutely appalled at the audacity of a President(Presidency) that would purposely put more of our American troops in clear and present danger WITHOUT any clear and present resolve.
Posted By Anonymous Vincent Jones, San : 1:36 AM ET
This is the first time I heard Mr. Bush admit the reality of this War. It is also sad it took this long to acknowledge. Diplomatic effort seems to be distant memory at this point, but that and increasing the number of troops from other countries especially Arab countries would have lessened the opposition�. There must be better and intelligent way of fighting terrorism, sacrificing more US and Iraqi lives does not seem right�.
Posted By Anonymous H, San Francisco,CA : 1:48 AM ET
Sending more American troops into Iraq in such a helter-skelter(20,000, concentrated,isolated,and targeted)manner is like an outfielder trying to catch a homerun ball that is already in the fan's glove.
Posted By Anonymous Vincent Jones, San Antonio, Texas : 2:56 AM ET
I don't see how 20,000 more troops will make any difference when the issue at hand is centuries of conflict between Sunni and Shiites. If the current Iraqi government can�t control the Shiite militias I don�t see how a �surge� of troops will help in the long run. Like it�s been said, this number is way too low for the proponents of the war and way too high for those that want to bring the troops home.

I don�t know what the solution to Iraq will be, but I doubt it will be a military one.
Posted By Anonymous Alvin Barron, Irvine CA : 4:15 AM ET
What has changed? This is just more of the same. More Rhetoric, more politics, and more BRAVE AMERICANS sacrificed.
With all respect, I question our Presidents judgment and even his mental health. Does he really think We the People can be fooled by his so called 'tough talk'? What has he been waiting for over the past five years or so?! Call it what he will - it is still the same tunnel and there is still no cheese!
Who was it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results?!
If I suddenly disappear, at least I tried to say my piece. God help us all!
Posted By Anonymous Robert Harbin-McGee Nipomo, CA : 4:27 AM ET
Bushito wants more troops and more of OUR money. Fine: Make hiim (who "missed" the Vietnam war) and his friends (like Cheney who like shooting--hopefuly he will not shoot at other American citizens this time!--)go to Iraq, and of course with the money his friends from oil companies stole!
Give us a War Tax Break!
Cris.
Posted By Anonymous Cris, Easton, PA : 4:56 AM ET
The plan will not work because the Iraqi people do not want it to work.

It sounds black and white in a world of gray, but it's just that simple.

For anyone who has lived there and interacted with Iraqis, rich and poor, educated and not - there is too much of a disparity between what they are and what we want them to be.

Bush and the four-star generals that advise him would know this if they looked past the politics and talked to the people of Iraq, interacted with them on a daily basis and saw how they really function.
Posted By Anonymous Joe, Natick MA : 7:47 AM ET
If you add 40,000 extra cops into New York City would it not make a difference there?
Visibility, being close by and able to respond quicker, being in an area and "stumbling" on to a fake check point, being able to do more frequent and deeper searches, gathering intelligence, establishing contacts, these can make a difference.
It will also present an exit strtegy if the Iraqs don't step up to the plate.
When will CNN get over their "personal war" with the twice elected President of the American people?
Posted By Anonymous Tim, Boca Raton, Fl : 8:39 AM ET
I cannot help but think that our President is trying to hedge his bets by seeking more troops (too little, too late) to satisfy neocon support, who want him to demonstrate some backbone in the wake of the "thumping"
GOP took in last election. At the same time challenging Dem leadership so that if funds for further deployments are denied he can blame Dems for holding out on our troops and insuring a failed military effort.
Posted By Anonymous MBenson, New Providence, NJ : 8:45 AM ET
I think it's very interesting that the entire world is being given advance notice of our tactical plans in a war. Most chess players don't hand over their "playbook" to the opponent. I suspect there is more going on here than meets the eye.
Posted By Anonymous Dave Ryan, Cleveland, OH : 9:36 AM ET
Anderson, I am not impressed with Mr. Bush's plan, which sounds very much like more of the same strategy with more troops. Oh yes the Iraqis MUST this and that, but what if they don't?Just telling al Maliki he must do things isn't necessarily going to get them done. Mr. al Maliki appears to be more interested in his Shia backers than in a untied Iraq.
I am a two tour Viet Nam vet, and although the circumstances are different in many ways, we tried to install an American style democracy in Viet Nam. It didnt work. A democracy cant be imposed, it needs to develop. In Viet Nam we tried more troops, escalating to 500,000 troops and still didnt stop the enemy. American troops are there to "help" the Iraqis as we were in Viet Nam, yet i imagine there is a major obstacle in communications, as there was in Nam.
What is history for but to learn from our mistakes. 58,000 American servicemen died in Southeast Asia pursuing the same type of strategy we are using in Iraq. It need not happen again.
Posted By Anonymous Brett, Oriskany, VA : 9:40 AM ET
If 20,000, 40,000, or even 100,000 more troops are needed to make Iraq a safe place for Iraqis, I'm all for it. If a million troops are needed, then by all means, a million additional dedicated, well trained troops combating insurgents they should have.

But not American troops. With the Iraqi unemployment rate estimated at 27% by the U.N., or 70% if you believe Al Jazeera, there's a huge pool of able bodied otherwise unemployed Iraqi citizens who can and should, fill those boots.

If they're drawing a paycheck from the Iraqi government, with which to support themselves, they're far less likely to plant IEDs for a handful of dinars.
Posted By Anonymous Robyn, Pittsville, MD : 9:41 AM ET
Anderson, why did you not question Mitch McConnel last night when he said three times -- by my count -- that our actions in Iraq, starting with the invasion, have kept the United States (mainland) from being attacked by terrorists? Were you really listening to those answers? Do you believe this is true? Well, I believe McConnell's statements were false, purposefully and knowingly false. In fact, I believe he's lying. The propoganda that McConnell and his ilk have been spreading since 9/11 has landed us where we are. It seems to me that you missed an opportunity as a journalist -- at an important time -- to hold the Senator's feet to the raging and consuming fire that he, Bush and his crew have set. I implore you not to let another such opportunity slip by, whether your questions are pre-scripted or impromptu. No matter the topic, no matter the interviewee, no matter what.
Posted By Anonymous Sean, New York, NY : 9:51 AM ET
Hey Anderson,
Watched your show last night and it was clearly obvious to anyone watching that you HOPE that we lose this war. I think your constant negativity towards this war and our President shows how truly unbalanced you are. What happened to FAIR reporting. Why can't you present facts and ideas without the political bent CNN and other major networks seem to have. Personally, I think that shows like yours GIVE COMFORT AND SUPPORT to our enimies. If I were a terrorist watching your show, it would confirm that WE (the terrorists) are winning this battle and the US is clearly fractured on the mission and does not have the stomach to hang tough and do what is necessary to rid the planet of this cancerous evil. I think your show ought to be renamed Anderson Cooper 180. Since clearly there is no other side to your story.
Posted By Anonymous Rob. Baltimore, Maryland : 10:11 AM ET
One question...Why can't we learn from history? (You know the saying, If you don't learn from it, you're doomed to repeat it)
There is evidence that more troops just doesn't work. You can go all the way back to 1898 and the Spanish - American War to find the truth about what happens when you keep feeding a war with more troops against "insurgents"; and as recently as Viet Nam. (Both wars we eventually pulled out of with no clear victory)

Insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results. This is insanity pure and simple.
Posted By Anonymous Renae, Appleton, WI : 10:16 AM ET
I watched 360 last night and noted that Dave Gergen stated we need to send approximately 250,000 troops to Iraq in order to get the job done. If Bush would have sent
the appropriate amount of troops over to Iraq to begin with, we could be done and out of there by now or at least beginning to send troops home. Instead Bush has done a
half ___ job and now he's doing another half___ job abd all it is going to accomplish is more American soldiers dying.
I didn't vote for Bush either time.
Posted By Anonymous Tamara, Loveland, Colorado : 11:09 AM ET
Do you realize that our we has taxpayers will be paying for the cost of this war for the rest of our lives? I don't mean just in taxes, but also with all the domestic government programs that will have to be cut and eliminated to pay for this conflict. Our children and grand children will also be stuck with the cost of this stupid war. I think what is very interesting too is that are billions and billions of dollars be wasted and disappearing over in Iraq but yet not one single private contractor has been convicted of fraud or abuse yet. We has taxpayers should be outraged by all the waste and corruption going on right now.
Posted By Anonymous Steve, Salt Lake City, Utah : 11:22 AM ET
Of course its not just American troops in the firing line. My country is also involved in this mess - all so that we can drive gas guzzling cars !.

I would like both Bush and Blair to focus on using diplomacy, this is what eventually brought a truce in Northern Ireland and as unpleasant as that might sound, I really think Bush and Co should put their hands up and admit help is needed - involve the UN and other countries in the region. Who can control the insurgents - I really don't think sending more troops will do this? What else can be done to help the Iraqis - these people have really suffered and continue to do so today.

I would also like to say that I do not think CNN and in particular AC360 is biased one way or another. What I do see are valid questions being asked.
Posted By Anonymous Sarah, Canterbury, UK : 5:38 PM ET
Folks you need to pay attention.

The polls before the election didn't say "get out of Iraq." The polls said simply that Americans were not satisfied with the level of progress in Iraq. In other words, I can order a digital movie through my cable box instantly, why can't we fight a war instantly.

A little perspective folks. The terrorists have it, why don't we? Oh never mind, let me just fire up my i-Pod or go back to watching "neato" videos on YouTube, like the rest of this country's "informed" voters.
Posted By Anonymous Joseph P, Fort Worth, TX : 5:40 PM ET
Add a Comment
« Back to Blog Main
ABOUT THE BLOG
A behind the scenes look at "Anderson Cooper 360°" and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper and the show's correspondents and producers.




SUBSCRIBE
    What's this?
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Money  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Work With Us  |  Tools & Widgets  |  Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  My Profile |  E-mail Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
CNN en Espaňol  |  Arabic  |  Japanese  |  Korean  |  Turkish
International Edition  |  CNN TV  |  CNN International  |  HLN  |  Transcripts
© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of service  |  Privacy guidelines  |  Advertise with us  |  About us  |  Contact us  |  Help