Tag: Iraq

White House Publicly Pissed Off at Senator’s Defiance

Trish

It wasn’t just that U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) went to Syria this week that’s pissing off the White House. It was the fact that he went even after they made it known they really, truly, “wait until your father gets home ’cause you’ll be in big trouble buster” didn’t want him to.

This idea seems lost on Snow and Bush — he doesn’t need the White House’s permission… ”Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government”

The White House on Thursday escalated its criticism of Sen. Bill Nelson’s defiant diplomacy to Syria as other senators prepared to meet with the president of the country the United States accuses of aiding terrorists.

At a news briefing, White House spokesman Tony Snow repeated his contention that the Florida Democrat’s trip was ”not helpful” and ”not appropriate…”

”The United States has a clear position, and you want to make sure that you’re sending a clear message, and not mixed messages, to the Syrians about the fact that they have obligations,” Snow said…

Snow also suggested that the senators could end up with egg on their faces…

”It may cost some people their credibility,” Snow said.

Nelson’s response?

“Whatever.”

The two-week to Lebanon, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and yes, Syria, was — as you might imagine for a trip with these logistics — planned long ago, even before the Iraq Study Group released its recommendation that the United States enlist Syria’s aid to help us get out of Iraq. One might also venture that Nelson’s recent appointment to the Senate Intelligence Committee, along with his current seats the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, could have been factors.

Plus — and this idea seems lost on Snow and Bush — he doesn’t need the White House’s permission. As Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), who is also slated to visit with Syrian Pres. Bashar Assad, put it:

”Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government, and as a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, where oversight is a critical component, members need to go to hot spots not just garden spots,” Dodd said. “I can’t think of a more critical part of the world than the Middle East, and I can’t think of a more critical player in effecting events in the region for good or for bad than Syria.”

The White House hopes it will have better luck intimidating Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and perpetual presidential candidate John Kerry from their planned excursions.

Asked whether the administration would wave off the other senators, Snow noted, “Well, I think they know now. It’s out there, guys.”

Or not.

Dodd…said Thursday that Syria is still on his itinerary.

St. McCain: Salvage Bush’s Legacy, Send More Troops

Jon Ponder

Speaking from Baghdad, in the safety of the Green Zone, Sen. John McCain supported Pres. Bush’s secret plan to try to repair the tatters of his presidential legacy by sending thousands more American troops to die in the Iraq Civil War:

Sen. John McCain said Thursday that America should deploy 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to control its sectarian violence, and give moderate Iraqi politicians the stability they need to take the country in the right direction.

McCain made the remarks to reporters in Baghdad, where he and five other members of Congress were meeting with U.S. and Iraqi officials.

“The American people are disappointed and frustrated with the Iraq war, but they want us to succeed if there’s any way to do that,” McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said at a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq’s heavily fortified Green Zone.

The Arizona Republican said five to 10 more brigades of U.S. combat soldiers must be sent to Iraq. Brigades vary in size but generally include about 3,000 troops, meaning he was recommending 15,000 to 30,000 additional forces.

Rep. Rangel: Why Does the Media Demand a Dem Plan to Clean up Bush’s Mess?

Jon Ponder

Upon being asked for the umpteenth time why the Democrats don’t have a plan for Iraq, a Democratic leader — Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York — finally gave the right answer:

“I never understand that question, you have a President that’s in deep shit. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?’”

Saudis Say They Will Support Iraqi Sunnis When U.S. Leaves

Jon Ponder

Remember last month when Vice Pres. Cheney made a quick and apparently unplanned visit to Saudi Arabia? Cynics that we are, we suggested that the purpose of his trip was to raise money for Pres. Bush’s $500 million “lie-berry” to be built in Texas after that glorious day when Bush leaves office.

Yesterday, we learned that Cheney’s visit may have been in response to an announcement by the Saudis that they intend to side with their Sunni brethren in the Iraq Civil War when the United States deploys its troops out of the country.

Today, for what it is worth, Bush spokesman Tony Snow denied that the Saudis made the threat:

The White House said on Wednesday Saudi Arabia shared U.S. concerns about the future of Iraq and denied it threatened to take sides in Iraqi sectarian violence if the United States pulls out its troops.

The comments came in response to a report in The New York Times that Saudi Arabia has told Washington it might give financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in their fight against Shi’ites if the United States withdraws from Iraq. “That’s not Saudi government policy,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. “The Saudis have made it clear that they are committed to the same goals we are, which is a self-sustaining Iraq,” Snow said. “I’d refer any further comments to the Saudi government but, certainly, their stated public policy and the policy that they have shared with us does not reflect that.” According to the Times, Saudi King Abdullah delivered that message to Vice President Dick Cheney during Cheney’s visit to Riyadh last month. The Times cited unnamed U.S. officials and Arab diplomats.

So why did Cheney rush to Riyadh at the end of November?

Bush Will Do What’s Best for Bush in Iraq: Send More Troops

Jon Ponder
After Pres. Johnson sent an additional 50,000 troops to Vietnam, the United States remained there for another decade, during which tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and innocent civilians were killed and untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.

The front-page, above-the-fold headline on the Los Angeles Times this morning read, “Pentagon’s plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq.”

That was quick. Yesterday, we suggested the ISG report and Bush’s s “way forward” strategy sessions were all for show — that in fact Bush had decided earlier this year to send a “surge” of personnel into Iraq in 2007.

This prediction was based on looking at the options as the president saw them and choosing the one that would most benefit him personally and politically. Bush’s motives are focused entirely on salvaging his legacy. His short-term objective is to tamp down the violence in Iraq sufficiently to create a false perception of success. With a semblance of order in Iraq, he can declare victory before he leaves office. Whether the victory is real is irrelevant. If Iraq collapses under the next president’s watch, it will be his or her responsibility, not Dubya’s.

According to the Times article:

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive…

The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The flaw in this strategy, as we pointed out yesterday, is that it has been tried before — by Pres. Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam in 1965. After Johnson sent in an additional 50,000 troops, the United States remained in Vietnam for another decade, during which tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and innocent civilians were killed and untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.

Poll: Bush Losing His Base Over Iraq

Buck Banks

Wingnuts wig out: It’s finally started to happen — things have gotten so bad in Iraq and the president is doing such a horrendously crappy job of leading the nation that his once-solid Republican base is eroding. Not that they actually “get it,” they apparently are just tired of staying the course with George, according to National Journal’s PollTrack:

A CBS poll conducted late last week tracked a 21-point drop-off among Republicans in support for Bush’s handling of Iraq.

President Bush’s approval numbers have long been somewhat deceptive. On the one hand, a popularity rating hovering in the 30s and 40s indicates that a lot of Americans don’t care for him. But partisan breakdowns have often revealed that he’s still popular with his conservative Republican base. A new CBS News survey shows the Iraq war sapping some wind from Bush’s sails.

In a poll that CBS News conducted with the New York Times in late October, 68 percent of Republican respondents approved of Bush’s war policy. Just 21 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats said the same.

Fast-forward to now. The long-awaited Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq is out, and Bush is scrambling to hear alternatives on how the White House should proceed before announcing what has been billed as a significant policy change in Iraq. The most recent CBS poll, conducted late last week, tracked a 21-point drop-off among Republicans in support for Bush’s handling of Iraq. Three-quarters of all respondents disapproved, a hike from the 64-percent disapproval in the previous survey.
[…]

Bush Strategy Sessions on Iraq: White House Creates Another Fake Reality

Jon Ponder
If the Bush team had used half the intellect and energy they have expended over the past six years on lying, spinning, smearing and political machinations to try to govern competently,the country wouldn’t be in this terrible trap — and they would not be the worst presidential administration in our history

They way the newsers tell it, Pres. Bush and his team read the Iraq Study Group’s indictment of their abysmal war-making in Iraq last week and immediately set out to get advice on the war from a wide range of experts in Washington.

After the president has gathered advice, he, as the Decider, will formulate a new way forward. He’ll announce the plan in a speech to the nation.

It sounds reasonable, but it is not true.

The Bush team has known the contents of the report for weeks, if not months. Condi and crew undoubtedly negotiated with the ISG over the wording, especially the sections describing Bush’s incompetence.

The president’s strategy sessions this week are strictly from Potemkin. The Bushies know what they must do in Iraq, and hardly anything can stop them from doing it. It’s all about politics for them. The deaths of military personnel and innocent civilians are unfortunate collateral damage attendant to their political goals. Ditto the billions of taxpayer dollars.

Their political goal in taking the country to war was to give Bush status as a “war president,” so that, among other things, he would sail to reelection in 2004. Now they are focused on their legacy. They urgently need to de-escalate the violence. which is why they have probably already decided to go for the “surge” of an additonal 30,000 to 50,000 more troops into Iraq that John McCain and others have proposed.

This is literally the last-ditch military solution and it fits their timeframe. Any new major operation needs to be over or winding down by January 2008, when the political necessities of the Republican presidential candidates, especially McCain, begin to assert primacy over Bush’s desire to tart up his legacy.

Sending in a large wave of troops is problematic because it is similar to a failed strategy Pres. Lyndon Johnson undertook during the Vietnam War. On July 28, 1965, he announced he was committing an additional 50,000 troops to the war effort. Then as now, the goal of the deployment was to quell escalating violence so that order could be established.

It failed utterly. The enemy was energized and met the surge with counter-offensives. The war dragged on for another 10 years, until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

Polls: Americans Agree Generally on Iraq Exit, Bush Worst President Ever

Buck Banks

Several ways out: As reported by National Journal’s PollTrack today, several recent polls show a marked preference among Americans for a measured pullout from Iraq, not a Vietnam-like mad dash. Most Americans agree that the botched war is pretty much due to George W. Bush’s utter incompetence.

Respondents seemed to think it’s still possible to make progress on the ground, although not possible to achieve victory as defined by the administration.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos Public Affairs survey finds that disapproval of the president’s policies on Iraq is at an all-time high of 71 percent. Bush apparently scores few points on non-Iraq policies as well; 64 percent disapprove of the job he is doing in general. That’s a slightly worse appraisal than the one given in mid-November.

It seems unlikely that Bush or Congress will embrace all 79 tenets of the Iraq Study Group’s long-anticipated report. But the two in particular the president has dismissed out of hand — drawing down U.S. forces over the next 15 months and bringing Iran and Syria into the discussion — are both policies Americans would like to see the administration pursue.

When asked about a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops by mid-2007, a half-sample approved by 60 percent. But when presented with a timetable that calls for troops to leave within two years, 71 percent approved. The results suggest that Americans aren’t exactly itching to quit Iraq simply because they feel things aren’t going well there, as supporters of the war might put it. Rather, respondents seemed to think it’s still possible to make progress on the ground, although not possible to achieve victory as defined by the administration.

Nearly two-thirds said a “stable, democratic government” in Iraq was probably out of reach. Thirty-five percent felt that a democratic foothold in the Middle East was still possible; half of Republicans queried said so, compared with 22 percent of Democrats, according to AP’s analysis.

A poll commissioned by WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks also shows that Americans’ concern over Iraq has at least as much to do with the welfare of that country as U.S. interests. Fewer than two in 10 of those respondents wanted an immediate withdrawal within six months. A 40-percent plurality favored a one-year or two-year timeline, while 38 percent wanted a withdrawal only “as the security situation improves.”

An overwhelming 79 percent backed a major summit on Iraq that would include the United States, Iraqi leaders and Arab nations. When asked if the United States should try to work with neighboring countries “with whom we have other disputes” on the problem of Iraq, three-quarters said yes — including 72 percent of Republicans. Those figures held when respondents were asked if such talks should be held with Syria.

WaPo Says Iraq Report Is ‘Repudiation’ of Bush, Neo-Con Policies

Jon Ponder
This is where George W. Bush has led the United States, to a choice between alternatives that are (paraphrasing Paul Krugman) “truly awful” and “much worse than that.”

Iraq and a hard place: Listening to the newsers’ chatter about the report released by the Iraq Study Group yesterday, two things are apparent: Experts on all sides of the war have found a lot to criticize about the group’s suggestions for extricating the United States out of Iraq, — but no one (outside the White House) disagrees with their finding that the source of the problem is gross incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration and its neo-con advisers.

The Wasington Post’s front page story, titled “The Realists’ Repudiation Of Policies for a War, Region,” sums up the bitch slap delivered by the gray beards to the Bush Administration about its incompetent management of what has become the Iraq Civil War:

From the very first page, in which co-chairmen James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton scold that “our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people,” the bipartisan report is nothing less than a repudiation of the Bush administration’s diplomatic and military approach to Iraq and to the whole region…

Overall, it strongly suggests that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have bungled diplomacy in the region with unrealistic objectives and narrow strategies.

And:

The report’s description of the violence in Iraq, which amounts to an attack on the administration’s understanding of the facts on the ground, will likely set the new baseline for how the Iraq conflict is portrayed.

“The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing,” the report warns.

The reason no one likes the ISG’s proposals for getting out of Iraq is that there is no way out that doesn’t risk the lives of thousands more innocent people.

A quick extraction is not possible. There are too many of our people there — not just the 100,000-plus military personnel but maybe another 100,000 civilian aid workers and private-sector contractors, plus the media. Evacuating these people would takes weeks, during which the they would be vulnerable as the level of violence among the insurgents escalates.

This is where George W. Bush has led the United States, to a choice between alternatives that are (paraphrasing Paul Krugman) “truly awful” and “much worse than that.”

Time for Bush to Stop Holding Our Breath and Turning Us Blue

Trish

So far, the Bush administration policy of freezing out governments who disagree with it and “enemy-izing” them is — who would have thought — not working. With North Korea and Iran, it’s taken us closer to nuclear annihilation. It’s made formerly friendly Central and South America defy us. European allies who thought that maybe the U.N. inspectors could be right about Saddam not having weapons of mass destruction have been turned into alienated exes.

The Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group is expected to suggest we commit to pulling troops out of Iraq. It will also say we need to stop acting like four-year-olds using the silent treatment on playmates who didn’t share their ice cream cones.

James P. Pinkerton in the Dallas Morning News says the Baker Commission will be right.

Back in the good ol’ days before that spoiled child who is our president took over, talking to people used to work.

[Baker] started the controversy in October: “I believe in talking to your enemies. I don’t think you restrict your conversations to your friends.” Then, anticipating his critics, he added: “In my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

…Baker was doing his best to clear a path toward negotiating with players in the Middle East – most notably Syria and Iran – without those negotiations being tagged with the scarlet letter “A,” for appeasement.

It didn’t work. On Monday, the hawkish Wall Street Journal editorial page sounded the alarm [and] worried that Baker and the “foreign policy establishment” might pressure Bush to “appease” Syria.

But there’s no good alternative to diplomacy, Pinkerton says. […]