US Features
By Mike McCarthy Sep 25, 2007, 22:32 GMT
Iraq a minor topic during Bush's UN address
And Also
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: US decision to join rights council welcomed by UN
- Ban, Obama to discuss Sudan, global economic crisis
- US to boycott UN conference on racism
- Bush calls on UN to expand freedom
- Iraq is world's problem, UN's Ban says in talks with Bush
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Albania set to take in Guantanamo suspects, but not Uighurs
- 2. Fort Hood suspect charged with attempted murder
- 3. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 4. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 5. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL26838311.html
MADRID, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein was prepared to take $1 billion and go into exile before the Iraq war, according to a transcript of talks between U.S. President George W. Bush and an ally, Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Wednesday.
During a meeting at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Feb. 22, 2003, Bush told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that Saddam could also be assassinated, according to the transcript published in El Pais in Spanish.
In Washington, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the report.
==================
www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3653848&page=1
Records Show Bush Pledging Iraq Invasion With or Without U.N. Backing
Pre-War Transcript Reveals Bush Erroneously Optimistic About Post-Saddam Iraq
Weeks before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush told Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that the attack would go forward with or without a U.N. resolution condemning the government of Saddam Hussein, according to a transcript of the private meeting obtained by a Spanish newspaper. 'This is like Chinese water torture,' Bush is quoted as telling Aznar. 'We have to put an end to it.'
Speaking to reporters at his ranch publicly later that same day, Bush left the impression that an invasion of Iraq was not inevitable.
'President Aznar and I agree that the future of peace depends on the disarmament of Iraq,' Bush said in the news briefing. 'We agree that Saddam Hussein continues to be in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. We agree that the terms of that resolution must be fully respected. By Resolution 1441, the Security Council has taken a clear stand and it now faces a clear choice. With all the world watching, the council will now show whether it means what it says.'
When Aznar said he would like to win the war without firing a single shot, Bush is quoted as agreeing, saying he understood the toll of war and had to call the widows and mothers of the dead.
'Also,' the president is quoted as adding, 'it would save us $50 billion.' That figure dramatically underestimated the cost of a war for which the administration has requested nearly $190 billion for the next year alone.
The transcripts also suggest Bush was privately strong-arming governments that could block a new resolution in the United Nations, saying, 'Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon should know that what's at stake is the security of the United States.
get a life.
Gee, surprise surprise, you are lying.
In the latest phony, trumped up controversy, the left is screaming their silly heads off about a leaked memo detailing a conversation between President Bush and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar shortly before the Iraq War. Terrorist sympathizer Juan Cole is leading the wolf pack, and he’s worked himself up into a high dudgeon, yelling for impeachment.
But Jose Guardia has posted a full, accurate translation of the memo at PJ Media, and surprise! It says exactly the opposite of what the left is claiming it says: Secret Bush-Aznar Memo Sparks Controversy.
See below;
Secret Bush-Aznar Memo Sparks Controversy
September 27, 2007 1:04 PM
The WMD controversy resurfaces
Juan Cole is calling for the impeachment of George Bush over the transcript of a private conversation the President had with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar in 2003. But startlingly enough, it could be the exoneration of Bush. PJM’s senior editor Jose Guardia translates the memo in its entirety from Spanish and comments.
by Jose Guardia
Much is being made of the scoop by Madrid’s daily El País of the - until now top secret- transcript of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Jose Maria Aznar during their meeting in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor & Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here.
Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:
“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”
All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.
That is the astonishing revelation in the memo, but Bush’s critics entirely ignore it.
The part being ballyhooed by them is that Bush was planning to go into Iraq under any conditions.
But even that is wrong. What the transcript doesn’t say in accurate translation, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not - many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.
Here’s the relevant section:
Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on I’ll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war as much a possible; that they were concerned of its human toll and that they were quite confident that they would obtain a second resolution. It was the threat that they would act if there wasn’t a second resolution that made them quite confident that there would be one.
At one point Bush explicitly says: “I don’t want war. I know what wars are like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wifes of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.” That doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent to going to war no matter what.
Both Bush and Aznar showed they wanted to work with allies; Bush even wanted to soften the rivalry with Chirac, thinking he was being ill-advised. He even asked Aznar to send the French president his best wishes, since Aznar was going to meet him in the next days.
This is the gist of it. Clearly this is not an equivalent to the Downing Street memo, but a leak from a Zapatero administration official to a friendly, anti-Bush, anti-Aznar newspaper in the hope of embarrassing the two, and atrociously translated to make it all look worse. But I’m sorry to say they only embarrassed themselves. No matter how much you spin it, the transcript shows exactly the opposite of what critics think it says. In layman’s terms, they got hoisted by their own petard.
Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)
President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].
PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.
Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”
Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed - we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].
Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.
Aznar: We’ll send you some text.
Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.
Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.
Bush: Perfect.
Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.
Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.
Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?
Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.
Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.
Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?
Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.
Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?
Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.
Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.
Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.
Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.
Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.
Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.
Aznar: That’s better than good.
Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.
Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.
Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.
Any more Bush derangement syndrome?
We don't need no stinking commie oriented, new world order UN to help the United States win in Iraq. We don't need the limey traitors, or cowardly
frogs who fight with their feet, or their low-life cousins in Spain who
are in love with bulls. We don't need nobody. We need ammo.
Maybe we could of used that little old Romanian lady referred to in the above post, to remove Saddam the insane, but then the American patriotic contractors would make any money.
Correction to above: with a little old Romanian lady helping remove
Saddam the insane, contractors would not......
'GI Jojo' is an adolescent leftist without the courage to actually say what he thinks.
dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070929&cat=news&st=newsd8rva0s01&sr c=ap
More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That's a triumph for military medicine. But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can't be assured quickly or cheaply.
These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans' groups.
'The wounded and their families no longer trust that the government will take care of them the way they thought they'd be taken care of,' says veterans advocate Mary Ellen Salzano.
Many are returning with multiple amputations or other disabling injuries not completely fixed even by fancy prosthetics, methodical rehabilitation, and job retraining. The Pentagon counts more than 29,000 combat wounded in the Middle East since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Tens of thousands more were hurt outside of combat or in ways that show up later.
(Instead of dumping so much fertilizer on the thread, try posting a link. Here's the link to the full discussion. The total link is lengthy, so any excerpts need to be considered in total context - but Bush's words are still Bush's words, and this section below is unedited.
The real problem is that every one of Bush's assumptions ended up wrong, and despite his presentation to Congress that war was 'an option', it's clear that's all Bush ever had on his mind. His verbatim second paragraph below is evidence of how totally flawed expectations were).
Bush's OWN WORDS within: 'It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.'
www.bloggernews.net/110573
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Bush:
'Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in.'
(War was inevitable, resolution or not; not an option)
'Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready.'
(Resolution or no resolution, the war is going to happen)
'I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March.'
(Again, it was a done deal)
'There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.'
(Bush dismissed the 'bribe' option, but knew of it via the Egyptians and Libya - this was apparently dismissed outright. THAT's the story).
'The tragedy of our wounded veterans'
Spare us your phony sympathy. You have basically shown contempt for them and everything they stand for on these forums. No one is going to buy it when you cynically use them to vent your lunacy. You really are a contemptible piece of sh*t.
'Instead of dumping so much fertilizer on the thread, try posting a link.'
I posted the piece in its entirety. Use google or drop dead you lazy bast*rd.
'The total link is lengthy, so any excerpts need to be considered in total context - '
I posted it all idiot, if they were to go to the link they will see exactly what I posted, idiot.
'but Bush's words are still Bush's words, and this section below is unedited.'
NO, what you posted is in fact EDITED. What I posted was NOT EDITED. You are out to spin the situation by taking quotes out of context because you have no problem with outright LYING.
'The real problem is that every one of Bush's assumptions ended up wrong,'
Gee, I thought the real problem was that 'Bush turned down Saddam offer to leave'... So I guess that was just BS. So I guess you are a liar.
'Bush's OWN WORDS within: '
I don't see anyplace where he has said that: 'Bush turned down Saddam offer to leave'... Indeed, the 'Saddam Hussein was prepared to take $1 billion and go into exile before the Iraq war,' was something that Bush seemed willing to allow to happen and was in communication with Egypt over:
'There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.'
So from that, you little liar, you spun it in to a story where Bush went to war even though there was a chance of getting rid of Saddam with out it. In other words you are a filthy little liar.
Now that you have been caught lying, you are trying to spin it in to something else. Nice try, liar.
Good lord, you are such a a duplicitous scumbag. You have absolutely no regard for the truth.
Return on Success?
By Michael Barone
For most of the last year, the dominant narrative in most media, and for most voters, has been that we are getting nowhere in Iraq and that the Democrats, after their victory in last November's elections, are going to get out of Iraq.
But events are not playing out that way. Last week, the Senate failed to pass an amendment that would have made it more difficult to rotate troops into Iraq -- and passed, by a 72-to-25 margin, a resolution denouncing the moveon.org ad that attacked 'General Betray Us' for 'cooking the books.'
Polls show that the public approves of Petraeus' performance and endorses his recommendations for going forward with the surge -- the first margin of approval for the administration's course of action in a long time.
Petraeus argued convincingly that we are making real progress in Iraq, that the downward spiral of violence has been turned around and that the battle against al-Qaida in Iraq is meeting with success. George W. Bush, in a Roosevelt Room interview with columnists, made it plain that he is determined to provide Petraeus with the troops he needs, and the Democratic Congress has made it plain that it will not stop him.
To be sure, Petraeus has recommended reducing forces, starting in December, and going back to pre-surge levels next summer. But this is a far different thing from what the Democrats had in mind six months ago. And the results on the ground seem to be far different from what they expected.
True, some Democrats persist in saying that the aggressive surge strategy has made no difference, and large numbers of voters are not convinced that it has. But it is now possible that the added troops will, in Bush's phrase, 'return on success.' That's a sharp change from what has been the dominant narrative.
Another event that undermines that narrative took place on Sept. 6, but only began to be appreciated in Washington last week. That was the Israeli air attack on Syria. Israeli officials have said nothing in public about this (although opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said he supported the action), and Bush flatly refused to comment in his press conference. But on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens speculated that 'the least unlikely possibility' was that the target was a North Korean nuclear installation.
North Korean technicians were known to be in Syria, and the North Korean government protested the attack. By Friday, The Washington Post reported that 'Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, said U.S. government sources.'
Bush has been mocked for calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'the axis of evil.' Suddenly that doesn't seem so far-fetched. Iran's ally Syria has apparently been in cahoots with faraway North Korea. And perhaps Iran has been, as well; perhaps this was part of the mullahs' efforts to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
The Syrian program may have been stopped by Israel's Sept. 6 air strike, just as Saddam Hussein's nuclear program was stopped by Israel's destruction of his Osirak reactor in 1981. That was condemned by just about everyone at the time, including the Reagan administration. But today almost every decent person is glad it happened.
The response to Petraeus and the emerging story about the Israeli air strike lead to two conclusions, both at odds with what has been the dominant narrative. It's a dangerous world. And we can make progress. Advocates of speedy withdrawal from Iraq talk as if there would be no bad consequences afterward, as we face no other threats in the world. But the possibility of a nuclear Iran is a real threat, one which Bush says he gives as much attention to as Iraq. The success so far of the surge strategy and the apparent success of the Israeli air strike indicate that there are things we can do to meet those threats.
The dominant narrative is that we are headed to defeat in Iraq, and Bush's political adversaries want him to acknowledge that. With stubbornness or steadfastness -- call it either one -- he has refused to do so and now has started to establish a different narrative, 'return on success.' Voters may come to understand that however delicious the Democrats find defeat, its consequences in a dangerous world would be devastating.
RE: 'Spare us your phony sympathy. You have basically shown contempt for them and everything they stand for on these forums.'
The men in the white coats are coming to take you to dinner. Go quietly. Bring extra toliet paper, because you're overflowing.
'Instead of dumping so much fertilizer on the thread, try posting a link.'
I posted the piece in its entirety. Use google or drop dead you lazy bast*rd.
(Then why not give the link, and assume that people can read? I always give a link and a portion of the content germane to the discussion, and the reader can then go to the link for full content. Is your browser locked to M&C?)
==================
'The total link is lengthy, so any excerpts need to be considered in total context - '
I posted it all idiot, if they were to go to the link they will see exactly what I posted, idiot.
(Then why didn't you give the link, which actually went to a couple of right-wing bloggers rather than news outlets?. Why post it ALL except to try to make this venue unreadable from sheer bulk?)
==============================
'but Bush's words are still Bush's words, and this section below is unedited.'
NO, what you posted is in fact EDITED. What I posted was NOT EDITED. You are out to spin the situation by taking quotes out of context because you have no problem with outright LYING.
(I posted his relevant PARAGRAPHS in their entirety, as the total discussion was pages long, and most of it was about other unrelated things. Anyone is free to read it all per the link. The PARAGRAPHS were unedited, and if I insisted on regurgitating EVERYTHING regardless of relevance, I'd be you.)
'Then why not give the link, and assume that people can read? '
I already explained this.... Tilt your head up and read.
' always give a link and a portion of the content germane to the discussion'
Good boy. When I post the whole thing I do not. You can drag and drop the text in to a search engine and find it yourself....
'and the reader can then go to the link for full content.'
For the 10,000 the time, they GOT the full content. I do not cherry pick and take things out of context as you do in order to lie. They got the whole frigging article.
'Then why didn't you give the link, which actually went to a couple of right-wing bloggers rather than news outlets?.'
It was a full and accurate translation, unlike what you sourced originally.
'hy post it ALL except to try to make this venue unreadable from sheer bulk?'
Once again, for the 10,000 time, I posted it all so that there would be no question that I was, as you were, taking anything out of context. That Is why I posted the WHOLE context. You of all people have a HELL of a nerve saying that ANYONE ELSE was making this 'venue' unreadable with a lot of bulk posts. This post was in answer to the topic that you tossed out after reading it on moveon.org. The storu that you posted had NOTHING to do with the story at hand. (again) Further, it was a LIE. Bush did not turn down an offer for Saddam to leave. You lied when you posted that and now you are trying to deflect attention away from that by whining that I am trying to make this 'venue unreadable from sheer bulk' when I am just answering your sheer unreadable bulk.
'I posted his relevant PARAGRAPHS in their entirety, '
No you did not. Liar. I posted the relevant paragraphs to prove you wrong AFTER you had made the baseless claim that 'Bush turned down Saddam offer to leave' deliberately leaving it context-less. Perhaps you just cut and pasted the move on article when your monkey brain saw the word 'Bush' and put a little extra BS in the title but either way it was UNTRUE. A LIE. STOP LYING.
'he PARAGRAPHS were unedited, and if I insisted on regurgitating EVERYTHING regardless of relevance, I'd be you.'
You posted unedited paragraphs only after I did. Go back and look. It is all up for everyone to see. The Beauty of the internet is that there is a transcript of your untruths and half-baked smear jobs. Denying it less then a page away just makes you look like even more of a boob.
Just the link, as it's all the same story, over and over again.
I found you in Google under 'turd'.
(I'm waiting for the jerk-in-residence to declare, 'Win one, lose one')
dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=071002&cat=international&st=int ernationald8s19f400&src=ap
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Violence in Afghanistan has spiked to its highest level since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, with an Associated Press count of insurgency-related deaths this year surpassing the 5,000 mark and a U.N. report finding that attacks have risen by 20 percent.
A new U.N. report found that while 76 percent of all suicide bombings in the country have targeted international and Afghan security forces, 143 civilians were killed by those bombs through August. The report, released in New York last week, also found that Afghanistan has averaged 550 violent incidents per month this year, up from 425 last year.
An AP count of insurgency-related deaths, meanwhile, reached 5,086 so far this year, the most deaths in Afghanistan since the invasion to topple the Taliban. The AP counted some 4,000 deaths in 2006, based on reports from Western and Afghan officials.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story