posted on December 13, 2006 12:30:01 AM new
Bush Decides Direction of Iraq Policy
Updated 2:35 AM ET December 13, 2006
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has decided the general direction he wants to take U.S. policy on Iraq and has asked his staff to work out the details as he wraps up a highly public review of the war and its aims.
Military commanders who met Tuesday with Bush sought more advisers to train the Iraqis, not more U.S. combat troops in Iraq. They also urged the administration to pour significantly more funding into equipment for Iraqi security forces, according to a defense specialist familiar with the meetings.
Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the top general in Iraq, want more armored vehicles, body armor and other critical equipment for the Iraqis, said the defense specialist, who requested anonymity because the discussions were private.
Abizaid has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that troop levels in Iraq need to stay fairly stable and the use of military adviser teams expanded. About 140,000 U.S. troops and about 5,000 advisers are in Iraq.
The message to Bush, the defense specialist said, is that the U.S. cannot withdraw a substantial number of combat troops by early 2008, as suggested in the Iraq Study Group report, because the Iraqis will not be ready to assume control of their country. Bush is delaying making public his new Iraq policy plan in part to allow officials to work out the funding, he said.
Bush scheduled a session Wednesday with senior defense officials at the Pentagon. He already has visited this week with State Department officials to review options, hosted a few outside Iraq experts, and met with Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi. Last week, the president held talks with the leader of the largest Shiite bloc in Iraq's parliament, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, and with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the president's staunchest war ally.
Iraq has proposed that its troops assume primary responsibility for security in Baghdad early next year and that U.S. troops be shifted to the capital's periphery, The New York Times reported on its Web site Tuesday night.
Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told the Times that the plan was presented during Bush's meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30.
Bush's meetings at the Pentagon were expected to cap his high-profile outreach effort, which surrounded last week's presentation of the Iraq Study Group report, a blistering review from an independent, bipartisan commission.
The Iraq Study Group recommended most combat troops be withdrawn by early 2008 and the U.S. mission changed from combat to training and support of Iraqi units. It also called for an energetic effort to seek a diplomatic solution to Iraq's violence by engaging its neighbors, including Iran and Syria.
Bush, cool to both of the commission's central ideas, had been expected to follow his information-gathering with a pre-Christmas announcement of his own altered blueprint for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the White House, citing the president's request for more time to refine and game out new policies, said Tuesday that Bush would wait until early next year.
"It's not ready yet," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "There may be some areas on which there are still going to be debates, but most have kind of been ironed out."
Dissatisfaction with the president's handling of the war is at an all-time high. Democrats take control of Congress on Jan. 4 because of midterm elections that turned in large part on that issue.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., about to become Senate majority leader, criticized Bush's decision to delay unveiling the new Iraq plan.
"It has been six weeks since the American people demanded change in Iraq. In that time Iraq has descended further toward all-out civil war and all the president has done is fire Donald Rumsfeld and conduct a listening tour," Reid said. "Talking to the same people he should have talked to four years ago does not relieve the president of the need to demonstrate leadership and change his policy now."
The White House first began suggesting the pre-Christmas goal a month after outgoing Pentagon chief Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned and Bush nominated Gates to replace him. Gates plans to go to Iraq shortly after he is sworn in next Monday.
Snow said Bush told his staff Tuesday that he wanted more information about the ramifications for the U.S. military, Iraq's internal politics, regional relations and other matters.
Bush showed no indication of his leanings.
"Our objective is to help the Iraqi government deal with the extremists and the killers, and support the vast majority of Iraqis who are reasonable, who want peace," the president said Tuesday, al-Hashemi at his side. He took no questions.
___
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Anne Plummer Flaherty contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
posted on December 13, 2006 12:32:50 PM new
Bush: I Won't Be Rushed on Iraq
Dec 13, 3:16 PM (ET)
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday he would "not be rushed" into a decision on a strategy change for Iraq, saying that in a round of consultations he heard both some interesting ideas and some "ideas that would lead to defeat."
"And I reject those ideas," Bush said after meeting with top generals and Defense Department officials at the Pentagon. He said those ideas included "leaving before the job is done, ideas such as not helping this (Iraqi) government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."
Bush spoke with reporters after wrapping up a round of high-level talks on revising his Iraq war policy. Earlier he spoke by telephone with two Kurdish leaders in Iraq as part of what the White House called efforts to forge a "moderate bloc" behind the shaky central government in Baghdad.
Standing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bush said he and the nation's top military commanders had "a very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and about how to win a war that we now find ourselves in."
Bush made it clear that "there has been a lot of violence in Iraq. The violence has been horrific."
Although the White House had initially suggested that Bush would deliver his speech on Iraq strategy before Christmas, he has decided to delay it until early next year.
Defending that decision, Bush said, "I will not be rushed into making a difficult decision ... a necessary decision."
Joined by Vice President Dick Cheney and outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Bush met with the military leaders and other members of his national security team at the Pentagon, where war commanders are calling for more U.S. trainers and equipment for beleaguered Iraqi forces.
He addressed some of his remarks to members of the nation's military, including some 140,000 now stationed in Iraq. "I appreciate their sacrifices, and I want them to know I'm focused on developing a strategy that will help them achieve their mission," the president said.
"I know there is a lot of debate at home, and our troops pay attention to that debate," Bush said. Directing his remarks to the troops, he said: "It means I'm listening to a lot of advice to develop a strategy to help you succeed."
Bush's meeting at the Pentagon lasted more than 90 minutes.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on December 13, 2006 12:38:40 PM new
The arrogant little man is going to do just what he has said he is going to do, "stay the course," and no one should be surprized by that in the least.
What I now expect the new Congress to do is exactly what they were elected to do, ALTER that course, whether the little despot likes it or not. IF he doesn't have the money to spend on his little "war game" he will have to start putting his toy up.
What a shame that so many GREAT American men and women have had to die and return home permanently disabled just to satisfy the little tin horn's need to compensate for lack of his own personal attribute.
posted on December 13, 2006 02:19:23 PM new
I predict that the next fiscal year military budget will be both reduced in size, scope and that funds appropriated will be directed in such a manner as to require the beginning of downsizing our military presence in Iraq.
I also predict that Congress will begin, in the first part of the year, through Congressional hearings while they exercise their constitutional responsibilities of oversight, to put pressure on the administration for definitive timetables and measurable goals and if the administration fails to do that, Congress will act to do such.
posted on December 13, 2006 04:19:36 PM new
LOL....now that's showing them who's STILL IN CHARGE, President Bush - the CIC is. Don't let those yo-yo's push YOU around.
Seriously I read his reason for doing this was because he wants to give Gates some time to familiarize himself in his new job....so that he [Gates] can give the President HIS input also.
=======
RPC: 'The Consequences of Surrender in Iraq'
12/8/2006 2:22:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Republican Policy Committee, 202-224-2946; Web: http://rpc.senate.gov
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ --
The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) released a paper titled, "The Consequences of Surrender in Iraq" on Dec. 4.
The enemy in Iraq is comprised of both Sunni extremists, namely al Qaeda, and Shia extremists, such as terrorist sponsors in Iran, who both seek to fortify their influence in the region, and expand it beyond.
-- Democrats have claimed that a recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that the war in Iraq has "made the war on terror more difficult to win" - even though the terrorists see the war in Iraq and the war against terrorists as one in the same.
-- The NIE actually concluded that, should jihadists be perceived to have failed in their efforts to undermine democracy in Iraq, "fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
-- Thus, the terrorist influence can be prevented from growing if it is defeated in Iraq, which clearly counsels for staying in Iraq to secure in place an Iraqi government that can defend itself against jihadist influence.
-- Yet, Democrats continue to push for the "phased withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq without any regard for the ability of the government to govern, defend, and sustain itself.
-- As the president contends, "If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable - and absolutely disastrous."
-- Iran and al Qaeda would be the greatest beneficiaries of a premature withdrawal.
They would see it as a victory for political violence and their extremist ideology.
-- Moderate regimes in the region would then similarly be threatened by extremist groups in their own countries who rely upon political violence, and by state sponsors of terrorism.
-- The enemy would then have a base of operations, like Afghanistan under the Taliban was for al Qaeda - only this time with oil resources to draw upon.
-- The terrorists would use this base and those resources to continue to export their extremist ideology and to target U.S. interests for attack - even if U.S. troops were no longer in Iraq or the region.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 13, 2006 04:34:10 PM new
This might make some liberals really go into fits of rage. LOL
Reuters reports that in February the President will request another $100 Billion dollars for the wars. Most of that for Iraq. Down some from what he was going to request....$130 billion.
And here's the part I was THRILLED to read:
"Senior Democrats, who take control of both houses of Congress next year, have indicated they would support additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though many want a phased withdrawal to begin in 2007."
"What I now expect the new Congress to do is exactly what they were elected to do, ALTER that course, whether the little despot likes it or not. IF he doesn't have the money to spend on his little "war game" he will have to start putting his toy up."
Oh my oh my....who said something about the dems CUTTING funding for the wars????
============
And YES, it sure does appear the President is holding to his original position.
Bush: Iraq Enemy Far From Being Defeated
Dec 13 7:38 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON
President Bush on Wednesday said the enemy in Iraq is "far from being defeated," but he vowed not to be rushed into adjusting his strategy and gave little indication that he intends to veer sharply from the direction his war policies have taken.
"We're not going to give up. The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave," Bush said after meeting at the Pentagon with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's designated successor, Robert Gates.
posted on December 13, 2006 06:18:08 PM new
The bi-partisan Study Group on Bushy's Iraq Invasion Released their report on 12/06/06.
Sorry Bushy the majority of Americans no longer believe your BULL ROAR. Below are the facts from the last 6 or 7 days
As of TODAY 12/07/06
As of TODAY 12/07/06 America had 2,920 dead American troops. Today 12/13/06 America has 2937 dead troops up 17 in 6 days of nothing from Bushy.
As of TODAY 12/07/06 America had 22,057 wounded American troops. Today 12/13/06 America has 22,229 wounded up 172 in 6 days of nothing from Bushy.
As of TODAY 12/07/06 America had spent 348,000,000,000 billion tax dollars on Iraq on Bushy's invasion of Iraq. Today 12/13/06 America has spent 349,000,000,000 billion tax dollars up a full 1 billion in 6 days of nothing from Bushy.
Finally how long before America asks the last American Soldier to die in Bushy's failed invasion of Iraq Nam.
posted on December 13, 2006 09:22:52 PM new
I'll tell you one thing. If Bush decides to double-down, add more troops in Iraq, I will join the crowds marching in the street.
posted on December 13, 2006 09:53:39 PM new
I guess instead of all this guessing what the new Congress will or will not do, we will all just have to wait and see what precisely is PASSED into law, after all, that is the only thing that matters. Everything else is mental masturbation.
posted on December 14, 2006 12:36:27 AM new
Of course georgie isn't in a hurry....HIS kids aren't being slaughtered and maimed in Iraq. And he can't say what he's going to do until Cheney and rummy and the other puppeteers pull his little strings.
I heard him on the radio today...sounded like a tired old man...or hypnotized....nothing new, nothing interesting...
Can't that simpering nothing librarian of a wife of his tell him that in a sentence the letter "a" is pronounced ah NOT AY !!!!!!What an illiterate dope!
posted on December 14, 2006 08:29:24 AM new
Crowfarm: "Can't that simpering nothing librarian of a wife of his tell him that in a sentence the letter "a" is pronounced ah NOT AY !!!!!!What an illiterate dope!"
I've noticed this too, and it really bugs me. The way he says the long A is the way children just learning to read say it every time. I know it's petty, but it goes to his lack of real education and ability to think.
posted on December 14, 2006 09:54:23 AM new
crow said;
"Of course georgie isn't in a hurry....HIS kids aren't being slaughtered and maimed in Iraq. And he can't say what he's going to do until Cheney and rummy and the other puppeteers pull his little strings."
------------------------------------------------
No their not, in fact the "Twins" were just in South America celebrating their 25th birthday and now that their legal partying their rears off.
OF course it's different for Bush kids, just look at Jeb Bush's drug addict daughter in Florida. After about her 3rd arrest, AGAIN for drug possesion IN FLORIDA, guess what, she ONCE AGAIN gets sent to Rehab. I guess it just pays to have the last name BUSH these days.
posted on December 14, 2006 10:19:03 AM new
Roadsmith, you're not being petty....despite being able to buy his way through college (or have Daddy-kins buy his way through college) it's well known that georgie drank, snorted and partied his way through college.
He is not an intellectual in any sense...
anyone with enough money can make it through college and learn very little.
It's obvious he didn't READ much...or he'd STILL BE IN COLLEGE
Poor dumb george...had to be pushed and pulled into his positions on his daddy's influence and coattails and someone else's agenda.
Anyway you look at it, he's an embarrassment as president....
posted on December 14, 2006 10:26:49 AM new
And just to show how 'OUT' of mainstream America mingo is....Laura Bush is a very highly respected First Lady.
And very popular with MOST Americans. Course mingo tree feels so inadequate compared to her...she has to constantly insult her to make herself feel a little better. So sad.
====================
But the point is: You can't run as a phony patriot and then claim your victory is a mandate for surrender.
That would be like awarding yourself undeserved Purple Hearts and then pretending to throw them over the White House wall in protest.
No, that's not fair - nothing could be as contemptible as throwing someone else's medals on the ground in protest.
Is it the report of the "Iraq Surrender Group" that suddenly caused everyone to say we're losing?
The ISG report was about what you'd expect if the ladies from "The View" were asked to come up with a victory plan for Iraq.
We need to ask Syria to tell Hamas to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Duh!
"Dear Hamas, Do you like killing Jews, or do you LIKE killing Jews? Check yes or no."
Most of the esteemed members of the ISG were last seen on the "Dead or Alive?" Web site. Vernon Jordan's most recent claim to fame was getting Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon when she was threatening Bill Clinton with the truth.
He's going to figure out an honorable way to get out of Iraq?
We're still trying to figure out a six-part test from some decision Sandra Day O'Connor wrote back in 1984, but now she's going to tell us what to do in Iraq.
Have things changed on the ground in Iraq?
Are our troops being routed?
Hardly.
The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year.
If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years.
====
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 14, 2006 11:27:30 AM new
<sigh>
I would hope most here can distinguish between US deaths and coalition deaths. HOPEFULLY anyway.
Even if SOME can't grasp the difference. tsk tsk tsk
Then of course....we see why Stonecold continued to REMIND "waco"peepa that this IS/has been a very SMALL number of US deaths...compared to any war.
And we are at WAR....I don't think ANYONE expects no one EVER dies in a war.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 14, 2006 11:52:09 AM new
They love to play these little "increment" games. It's as if they think somebody in the beginning said "lets see this is worth xxx dead people, but not XXX+1 dead people", as opposed to being forced to do a nasty job, no matter what it takes.
Of course we lost more CIVILIANS in 2 hours than the whole war. And they can't even conceive of the collateral dead if Iran gains control over the MidEast. You know, the thousands that die because the hospital doesn't buy those add'l dialysis machines because EVERYTHING they purchase rises in price due to material and transportation cost increases, cutbacks to every social program that exists, research funding, on and on. All of which has "casualties".
