George W Bush is considering a gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq in order to prevent further desertions by members of the Republican party, it has been reported.
Officials and advisors to the US president are alarmed that political support for his war strategy among senators belonging to Mr Bush’s party is “collapsing around them”, according to the New York Times.
The president and his aides had thought they could wait to begin discussions about any change in strategy until after Sept 15, when the US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, and US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, are due to present a highly anticipated report on Iraq’s security and political progress.
But Mr Bush’s aides have acknowledged he may well be forced to present a compromise plan before the report is issued.
According to CNN, the Bush Administration is denying any such withdrawal. (Found by natefrog)
Cut and run. LOL!
That would be the first smart thing Dumbya has done in his whole pathetic, sliver-spooned life.
Last one out turn ON the lights. he he.
Finally an end to all the killing of innocents in Iraq.
How does it work then? The Sunnis will be so happy that the US is out of Iraq that they’re fine with Shiite majority rule? Or do they all agree to go back to the good ol’ days of Sunni minority rule?
The main thing is that Iraq will be able to get the country back on the right track towards peace.
RBG
uh-huh.
What makes you think this is true?
I haven’t seen any other sources saying Bush is reconsidering his course of action. He hasn’t shown any good sense so far and this author provided no evidence of action or statements by Bush to change anything.
When has Bush ever cared what anybody thought about his war?
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
5. Yes, I agree. Yet I am hopeful.
5. I’m with Mike Johnson on this one. Even the thought of Bush “considering” a course of action is ludicrous. Such a thing would involve Bush weighing different options, thinking about the positives and negatives, and reaching a logical and informed conclusion. Nope, Bush could never do anything like that.
Uh, CNN reported today that the White House has officially disavowed this story…
CNN Story
Not directly in response to the Telegraph story (which was in response to a NY Times story…), but the White House response was directed towards the Times.
Really, would it make any sense for Bush to pull out of Iraq when so many powerfully corrupt insiders are profiting so greatly from the war?
If Bush would withdraw from the Republican Party – Cheney, too – some of my conservative kin might consider rejoining. One of ’em left after 50 years.
On the other hand, the same opportunists and biblethumping numbnuts who supported Bush’ “leadership” are probably still stacked up in a holding pattern – ready to stay the course, marching steadily back to the 19th Century.
Bush panders to his hard core religious neocon base. That base will have no power next election if they can’t gain some cover by conservative Repugs. The conservative Repugs and some of the Religicons are worried there will be a wipeout for the Repugs if we are still in Iraq next election, so a pull out now gives them time to regroup.
It has never been clear who is in charge of Bush. Is he just a coked up religious nut case, or just a meat puppet for Cheney/Rove? If the former, we will be in Iraq during his term. If the latter, we will reduce troops slightly and take credit for a full withdrawal.
Finally, a bright light on the BushCo Presidency.
fact of the matter is this – if the Iraq war is a failure, the Bush presidency is a failure. he thinks that pulling out before we have shiny, happy, multiculti Iraq will mean failure.
and he is right.
but, unfortunately, he also seems to believe that keeping the US troops in Iraq will – eventually – mean success.
and he is wrong. it just means a delay in the current ongoing failure turning into eventual utter failure.
at some point, he may come to realize this, but I doubt it.
what Rove and the other Bushie strategy types need is to be able to leave the White House proclaiming that things were looking up when they left, and it is the next administration’s fault that Iraq goes all former-Yugoslavia. That’s what Nixon and Kissinger did after Vietnam, and the Big Lie stuck, at least in some circles.
Democrats have put themselves in position where success in Iraq means bad things for them politically, so now for them victory is not an option. Having the media tlak down the war to get Republicans to stop supporting the war is important for them. The Bush Administration still has their communications problems, so they haven’t gotten the Senators back on board.
12—Really? What a twisted political lens you look thru.
You act like success in Iraq is a choice? You act like Iraq is the only issue BushCo is vulnerable on? You act like the media can make a war acceptable or not to Republicans. You act like it is just a communication problem that has caused BushCo to lose Republican support.
As a developmental test for yourself, try posting for a week without ever using a politically charged word. Can you do it? Would you learn anything from it, or just find yourself speechless?
Let us know.
#13,
I think you are being too hard on #12. Instead, I think you should ask him how he defines victory in Iraq. Because the definition of victory is a political issue. He is right, on some level. Victory is not an option. When I look at how Bushler is now defining victory in Iraq, something that they call the “Korean Model” (basically we leave 100k troops there indefinitely with no changes in the current situation EVER, with the main strategic goal of protecting Chenys^h^h^h^h^h^hHaliburtons^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hAmericas Oil interests at what ever the cost in treasure and lives)
I would have to say, Bushes definition of victory is defeat in every one elses point of view.
In Closing, you are being too hard on the guy, he might be a major shareholder of Haliburton or something like that, and continuing the status quo there for the next 50 years is his retirement plan….
14—Well THAT is certainly a fool’s errand. Saying I am too hard on him and then suggesting I ask him a question that would be typical of a hard hitting media that he already disdains. No profit there.
I must be behind on my news. The Korean Model? Wow! Well, that should work to the degree the issues and personalities in Iraq parallel those in Korea?? Could that model even work “in theory?”
Too hard because I am attacking his retirement scheme eh? As a liberal, I certainly do support protecting retirement plans, so you have me in a quandry. Maybe supporting a plan that allows other people to enjoy their retirements will partially extricate me? I certainly hope so!
Keep me on the straight and narrow, I don’t want to change anybody’s outlook.
Bob Novak has reported on the communications problems, where Senators that visit the White House are assigned third-rate bureaucrats instead of getting meetings with the President. Couple that with a media that insists on highlighting American deaths rather than enemy deaths, and you get a view that all is lost, so of course the Republicans will jump ship. Only McCain seems willing to double down, and he was calling for this surge several years ago. In retrospect, the idea of not looking like an occupation was a mistake, and they should have pushed for more troops a long time ago.
This war was for all the wrong reasons… and there have been a lot
of ‘reasons’.
The main trouble with the whole situation in the middle east is that the
brits, french and germans started the problems and we did not try
and resolve the problems. In fact we worsened it by towing the same
line like the colonial powers in that region did.
For every instance of the middle east distrusting or hating us, we have
only our greed and prejuidice to blame for half of it. How can they look
at us as friends when we have descrecated their faith, backed
despots that rule over them as a dictator would and then forced
trade agreements that we would ourselves not sign off on.
If we don’t treat them as we would want to be treated, why should
they like us?
It is a two-way street… they only problem is we backed the wrong
people on their side of the road. Lying bastards that used us to
control their people and the wealth, only to bite us when we were
not careful.
Cursor_
#16. Can’t blame the media for this one, I’m afraid – the military has wanted to stay out of the ‘body count’ business they got themselves into in Vietnam. As well they should – even if the US had a 50 to one casualty ratio, we would still have had enough of this war.
And the communication problem? Maybe senators don’t get in to see Bushie because he has a congenital aversion to hearing differing opinions. That is the heart of the problem in the Bush Administration – the walls of the bubble are still pretty thick.
Finally, the surge won’t fix the troop level issue. Desert Crossing called for 350k troops to _prevent_ an insurgency. With one already well established, it would probably take more like 500-600k US troops to hold Iraq together. And for all their protestations that Iraq is critical to US security, the pro-war folks dont have the guts to ask for that level of commitment.
I’m all for getting out of Iraq, as soon as someone tells me who is going to replace the giant power vaccum that a US and British withdrawl would create. I mean, Iran can be trusted, and the UN did such a good job in the Balkans. I’m sure Iraq would be much safer and more Democratic if we left.
No matter if you support the war or not. You cannot deny that we are not helping stabilize Iraq. We have become part of the problem.
Terrorists are targeting us. Yes, secratarian vilolence is around too.
Yes, a civil war will probably occur when we leave. But that will happen if we leave in a few months or a few years. It’s out of our hands now. Get our people home and let them work it out. I have not seen much action from the Iraqi government in making peace.
To be frank, I see us getting involved in Iran, and this is not helping us prepare for that!
Actually, I didn’t think for a moment the story was true. Not when all Bush has to do is help lose the next election to blame Iraq failure on the Democrats.
A further personal observation is how the anti-Bushites are playing right into the hands of the Republicans by focusing in on the Bush personality. It’s now very easy for the Republicans to distance themselves from Bush in the coming elections allowing for “real” Republicans to take over. The story above being one example.
Now I am curious about when radical Muslims quote that Islam will soon take over the world… And Bin Laden laments the loss of Andalusia (Spain)… And proper Jihad to the death has been commanded by the radical Islamic leaders – just how and where you’d like this battle to take place.
Are you thinking our court system? Or over diplomacy and a few beers?
After Iraq, are you still going to count each anti-American death as diligently? Or will your grave concern then go to such things as forest industry deaths with the same fervor?
RBG
Everyone should watch C-SPAN 2 for the next two weeks. C-SPAN is free and streamed over internet for free at c-span.org. The Senate will be discussing the situation on the ground as each member sees it, along with 3 amendements that can shape policy. So far, Joe Lieberman is on the side of the President, thank god for independents.
As for partisanship, it bothers me that too many of the democrats’ objections are only because Bush is president. If Clinton had done the same things, most of the Democrats would be solidly on board, with a small anti-war contingent staying true. On the Republican side, I think the majority would still be in support, but a pretty significant contingent that is supporting this president would suddenly start whining about nation-building, ‘chicken-hawk’, etc. I don’t like these partisan games. During the Kosovo War, the House rejected a resolution of support, while the Senate barely supported it. John McCain called for more troops then, and more in Iraq now.
I don’t have a problem with Senators being opposed to the war, if the opposition is legitimate. Indeed I voted for anti-war James Webb in the last election.
#23. Thing is, wars are not interchangeable. The rationale for the Kosovo war was valid. The rationale for the Iraq war has turned out to be either a fraud or a mistake, depending upon who you believe.
Kosovo was also low-impact and a success. If it had a great cost in US lives and was failing, Democrats as well as Republicans would have opposed it.
And as far as partisanship goes – remember that many Democrats voted for Dubya’s war at the outset, so it cannot be said that they opposed it just because Bush was for it.
23—-Heres a good example of mindless partisanship:
“…. it bothers me that too many of the democrats’ objections are only because Bush is president. ”
Look in the mirror===and stop viewing the world in the same way you say you are against.
First read
And then wonder if that crazy guy is anticipating another 911 the sequel so he can inact his supreme kingship over the land as per his executive order
I tell you the truth is stranger than fiction.
I’ll try this one more time…
First read
And then wonder if that crazy guy is anticipating another 911 the sequel so he can inact his supreme kingship over the land as per his executive order
I tell you the truth is stranger than fiction.
(wish you’d make the submit code larger so near blind folk could see it)
No.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
@26: If that happens, I only have three words for our new dictator: Vive la resistance!
I’ve seen it from these Democrats. Whether it be there actions with regards to Iraq when Clinton was president, or Kerry calling for more troops in Iraq, then bashing Bush’s proposal to send more troops to Iraq.