[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Bush Planning Something BIG on Iraq The White House announced yesterday that President Bush's speech announcing his new policies for Iraq won't be given until January. The reason? CNN's The Situation Room mentioned "senior administration officials" who suggested Bush wants more time because he "is planning to do something big" namely, he is "very seriously considering agreeing with John McCain and increasing troop levels." In fact, the Los Angeles Times reports on its front page that "strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to 'double down' in the country with a substantial buildup in...troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government." The Times also notes that strategy would overlap "somewhat a course promoted by" McCain. And the Washington Times says "top military officials with whom Mr. Bush met yesterday backed Mr. McCain's stance."
Other interesting developments catalogued in this morning's newspapers could have an effect on Bush's eventual decision: A New York Times piece says Saudi Arabia has warned the US that, in the event of a US pullout, they may back the Sunnis in any fighting against the Shiites. Another New York Times story reports on a plan presented to US officials by the Iraqi army. The plan calls for Iraqi troops to take over Baghdad security by early 2007. A spokesman for the National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, "said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American military commander in Iraq, was assessing the plan." On the other hand, the Boston Globe runs excerpts from the diary of a US officer in Iraq, Army Captain Phillip Carter. The entries cast serious doubt on the feasibility of Iraqi security forces being ready to take over from their US counterparts any time soon.
While Bush ponders his options, media organizations are doing their best to remind him of his low levels of public support. ABC World News reported on its new poll, which "shows real intensity of opposition" to Bush's leadership: 70% disapprove of...the President's "handling the war in Iraq," while "57% strongly disapprove." The Washington Post says that according to the same poll, "Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the US mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. ... Overall, 52 percent now say, the United States is losing the war, up from 34 percent last year." The Los Angeles Times comments on its own Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which found "just 12 percent would support a plan to increase troop strength, an option under serious consideration by the military." In addition, USA Today says this morning that "in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, a 54% majority says Bush will be judged as a below-average or poor president, more than double the negative rating given any of his five most recent predecessors. ... Just 19% expect him to be seen as outstanding or above average."
Bush Criticized For Delay Until yesterday, the expectation had been that Bush would address the nation before Christmas to outline his new Iraq strategy. The delay came under fire in the media and from Democrats. The Washington Post ¸ AP and Los Angeles Times, among other newspapers, run the White House's benign explanation namely that Bush is taking the extra time to carefully consider all options. But a New York Times piece says the delay is due to divisions among Bush's advisers, while CNN's The Situation Room called it "a reversal that adds to the picture of a beleaguered White House groping for answers." In an editorial, the New York Times suggests politics are part of the reasons for the new timetable: "We fear that...[Bush's] political handlers are waiting for public enthusiasm for the Baker report to flag before Mr. Bush tries to explain why he won't follow through on some of the report's most important and reasonable suggestions."
Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, was also incensed at the delay. NBC Nightly News reports Reid said in a statement, "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 ball remains in his court and time is running out." CNN correspondent Jack Cafferty, in his "Cafferty File" segment on CNN's The Situation Room, said: "Bush apparently is in no hurry now to come up with a change of strategy in Iraq. Hey, what is the rush? Things are going so well over there, right?" And the Christian Science Monitor argues caustically that "there is a theatrical quality to at least some of" Bush's meetings on Iraq, as "presumably, Bush already knows well the attitudes of the officials of his own administration."
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, says Bush has a "new political headache: high-profile dissent from the center of his own party." In "ways unimaginable just a few months ago, the report from the bipartisan panel...is giving moderate Republicans political cover to condemn the handling of the war -- creating a dilemma for the president and war supporters such as Sen. John McCain."
Cheney Lying Low Following ISG Report
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|