Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 5:10pm
Clinton Would Give Citizenship to Illegals
Hillary Clinton was booed yesterday at a forum in Iowa after responding to a question about immigration. She was asked if she would "give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" in her first 100 days as President. Here is her startling response.
"I have been favoring a plan for citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate. I have spoken out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign and as president, comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."
The crowd booed mightily at Senator Clinton's response. That answer alone could doom her bid for the presidency. Giving citizenship to illegal aliens is among the worst things a president can do. A path to citizenship would only encourage more illegals to cross the border into the United States. It would also further cripple our education and health care systems.
What Hillary and the other Democrats fail to realize is how important this issue is to Americans. The American people do not want Amnesty for illegals. Unfortunately, the candidates are so concerned with upsetting Hispanic voters that they refuse to take a stand against the illegal immigrants.
Senator Clinton's lead in the polls is beginning to erode. Obama is now ahead in Iowa and Hillary's double-digit lead in New Hampshire is deteriorating. If the mainstream media takes this story and runs with it, her position as frontrunner will forever disappear.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq
The influx of U.S. troops brought a relative lull in violence -- but the failing state remains in political chaos and is headed for collapse.
By Juan Cole
Dec. 4, 2007 Appearing + on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia gave some needed perspective on the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq. Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, recently returned from a visit to Iraq. He said that it was inaccurate to attribute the recent reduction in violence entirely to Bush's troop escalation. Moreover, Webb said that any security improvements in Iraq would only help if accompanied by political progress. He criticized the administration for "the failure for the last five years to match the quality of our military performance with robust regional diplomacy."
Webb was correct to point out that the only truly good news to come from Iraq would be good news regarding the political landscape. And there, Iraq is still beset with problems. In recent days, parts of northern Iraq have been invaded by Turkey, an ally of the United States. In Baghdad, Sunni members of parliament staged a walkout to defend their leader, whose bodyguards were implicated in fashioning car bombs. Proposed legislation reducing sanctions against Sunni Arabs who once belonged to the Baath Party nearly produced a riot in parliament. Meanwhile, Britain and Australia, among Bush's few remaining allies with combat troops in Iraq, are planning to depart in 2008, raising questions about security in the key southern port city of Basra, the major route for the country's lucrative oil exports.
What the recent publicity about the "success" of the troop surge has ignored is this: The Bush administration has downplayed the collapsing political situation in Iraq by directing the public's attention to fluctuating numbers of civilians killed. While there have been some relative gains in security recently, even there the picture remains dubious. The Iraqi ministry of health, long known for cooking the books, says that a few hundred Iraqis were killed in political violence in November. However, independent observers such as Iraq Body Count cite a much higher number -- some 1,100 civilians killed in Iraq in November. They reported that bombings and assassinations accounted for 63 persons on Saturday, the first day of December, alone.
Indeed, the "good news" of a lull in violence is relative at best. In fact, Iraq's overall death rate makes it among the worst civil conflicts in the world. Even if one accepted the official Iraqi government statistics, the average number of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to political violence in the past three full months has been around 700 per month. That pace, if maintained, would work out to about 8,400 deaths a year. (I am citing the kind of war statistics produced by passive information gathering such as in newspapers. Using a more comprehensive public health study such as the one that appeared in the Lancet last year, which takes into account deaths from criminal violence and insecurity generally, would result in much higher numbers.) In all of Northern Ireland's troubles over 30 years, only about 3,000 persons are thought to have been killed. In Kashmir since 1989, some 40,000 to 90,000 persons have been killed in communal and guerrilla violence; if we take the higher number, that's roughly 419 killed per month. Perhaps only Somalia and Sudan witness killings on that scale, and no one would say that "good news" is coming out of either of those places.
The current "good news" campaign from the Bush administration regarding the troop surge is only the latest in a long history of whitewashing the war since the 2003 invasion. First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied that there was massive looting following the fall of Baghdad. Then he denied that there was a rising guerrilla war. Then, after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani maneuvered an unwilling Bush administration into holding relatively free elections, the victory of Shiite fundamentalists close to Iran was obscured by the "purple thumb" good news campaign. That is, the administration focused on the democratic process and relative success of the voting, diverting attention from the bad news that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq had taken over.
\n');
//-->
Later, it was good news when the Iraqi parliament produced a theocratic constitution with all the weaknesses of the U.S. Articles of Confederation, even though all three Sunni-majority provinces rejected it in the subsequent referendum. What was in the constitution was not important, only that it existed. The Bush administration has heralded any number of such "milestones" reached, but not whether they led to worthwhile results.
Obscured by these "milestones" is that the orgy of violence in Iraq has displaced 2 million persons abroad and another 2 million internally, and left tens of thousands dead. But now the "good news" is that the guerrillas appear not to have been able to keep up the pace of violence characteristic of 2006 and early 2007, even if the pace they maintain today is horrific.
Moreover, the relative reduction in violence is artificial and probably cannot endure. Blast walls enclose once posh Baghdad districts like Adhamiya, but although they keep out death squads they also keep out the customers that shopkeepers depend on. When a Baghdad pet market was bombed recently, it was revealed that the US military had banned vehicles in its vicinity for some time, but allowed cars to drive there again just a few days before the bombing. Vehicle bans are effective, but not practical in the medium or long term. When they end, what will prevent the bombs from returning?
The influx of U.S. troops brought a relative lull in violence -- but the failing state remains in political chaos and is headed for collapse.
By Juan Cole
Dec. 4, 2007 Appearing + on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia gave some needed perspective on the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq. Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, recently returned from a visit to Iraq. He said that it was inaccurate to attribute the recent reduction in violence entirely to Bush's troop escalation. Moreover, Webb said that any security improvements in Iraq would only help if accompanied by political progress. He criticized the administration for "the failure for the last five years to match the quality of our military performance with robust regional diplomacy."
Webb was correct to point out that the only truly good news to come from Iraq would be good news regarding the political landscape. And there, Iraq is still beset with problems. In recent days, parts of northern Iraq have been invaded by Turkey, an ally of the United States. In Baghdad, Sunni members of parliament staged a walkout to defend their leader, whose bodyguards were implicated in fashioning car bombs. Proposed legislation reducing sanctions against Sunni Arabs who once belonged to the Baath Party nearly produced a riot in parliament. Meanwhile, Britain and Australia, among Bush's few remaining allies with combat troops in Iraq, are planning to depart in 2008, raising questions about security in the key southern port city of Basra, the major route for the country's lucrative oil exports.
What the recent publicity about the "success" of the troop surge has ignored is this: The Bush administration has downplayed the collapsing political situation in Iraq by directing the public's attention to fluctuating numbers of civilians killed. While there have been some relative gains in security recently, even there the picture remains dubious. The Iraqi ministry of health, long known for cooking the books, says that a few hundred Iraqis were killed in political violence in November. However, independent observers such as Iraq Body Count cite a much higher number -- some 1,100 civilians killed in Iraq in November. They reported that bombings and assassinations accounted for 63 persons on Saturday, the first day of December, alone.
Indeed, the "good news" of a lull in violence is relative at best. In fact, Iraq's overall death rate makes it among the worst civil conflicts in the world. Even if one accepted the official Iraqi government statistics, the average number of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to political violence in the past three full months has been around 700 per month. That pace, if maintained, would work out to about 8,400 deaths a year. (I am citing the kind of war statistics produced by passive information gathering such as in newspapers. Using a more comprehensive public health study such as the one that appeared in the Lancet last year, which takes into account deaths from criminal violence and insecurity generally, would result in much higher numbers.) In all of Northern Ireland's troubles over 30 years, only about 3,000 persons are thought to have been killed. In Kashmir since 1989, some 40,000 to 90,000 persons have been killed in communal and guerrilla violence; if we take the higher number, that's roughly 419 killed per month. Perhaps only Somalia and Sudan witness killings on that scale, and no one would say that "good news" is coming out of either of those places.
The current "good news" campaign from the Bush administration regarding the troop surge is only the latest in a long history of whitewashing the war since the 2003 invasion. First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied that there was massive looting following the fall of Baghdad. Then he denied that there was a rising guerrilla war. Then, after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani maneuvered an unwilling Bush administration into holding relatively free elections, the victory of Shiite fundamentalists close to Iran was obscured by the "purple thumb" good news campaign. That is, the administration focused on the democratic process and relative success of the voting, diverting attention from the bad news that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq had taken over.
\n');
//-->
Later, it was good news when the Iraqi parliament produced a theocratic constitution with all the weaknesses of the U.S. Articles of Confederation, even though all three Sunni-majority provinces rejected it in the subsequent referendum. What was in the constitution was not important, only that it existed. The Bush administration has heralded any number of such "milestones" reached, but not whether they led to worthwhile results.
Obscured by these "milestones" is that the orgy of violence in Iraq has displaced 2 million persons abroad and another 2 million internally, and left tens of thousands dead. But now the "good news" is that the guerrillas appear not to have been able to keep up the pace of violence characteristic of 2006 and early 2007, even if the pace they maintain today is horrific.
Moreover, the relative reduction in violence is artificial and probably cannot endure. Blast walls enclose once posh Baghdad districts like Adhamiya, but although they keep out death squads they also keep out the customers that shopkeepers depend on. When a Baghdad pet market was bombed recently, it was revealed that the US military had banned vehicles in its vicinity for some time, but allowed cars to drive there again just a few days before the bombing. Vehicle bans are effective, but not practical in the medium or long term. When they end, what will prevent the bombs from returning?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
When is a breast just a breast?
Here's the latest news about Swedish women, brought to you by the Local: They want to go topless. Yes, that's right. After two bare-breasted young women were kicked off the premises of a swimming pool when they refused to cover up, a group of women in southern Sweden formed the "Bara Brost" network. (The name means what it sounds like: "Bare Breasts" -- or, as it's more commonly translated in the news, "Just Breasts.")
Perhaps I'm being a litigious American, but at first I assumed that "Just Breasts" was a legal reference. But the Swedish women haven't actually taken the issue to court (at least not yet). Instead, they seem to be encouraging other Swedish women to stir up trouble by jumping into public swimming pools with no tops on -- in two separate incidents, groups of topless women have stormed public pools, breasts bared, and Sweden's Equal Opportunities Ombudsman is supposed to decide later this month whether to take up the women's cause.
This is probably a boon to Sweden's tourism industry, but the women actually have a more serious goal: They want breasts to be treated the same way as men's chests. As Liv Ambjornsson, a spokeswoman for Just Breasts, said to a reporter for a Swedish magazine, "We want our breasts to be as 'normal' and desexualized as men's, so that we too can pull off our shirts at football matches."
I don't mean to speak for all women here, but soccer games do not rank high on my list of places I'd like to go topless. For some, a swimming pool in Sweden might be a less threatening setting, though, and since many countries that are less prudish than America see no problem with women swimming in the nude, perhaps the women have a chance. But as for the idea of desexualizing the breast? I think that battle is going to take more than 14 naked Swedish women in public swimming pools. At least they'll have plenty of male support.
Perhaps I'm being a litigious American, but at first I assumed that "Just Breasts" was a legal reference. But the Swedish women haven't actually taken the issue to court (at least not yet). Instead, they seem to be encouraging other Swedish women to stir up trouble by jumping into public swimming pools with no tops on -- in two separate incidents, groups of topless women have stormed public pools, breasts bared, and Sweden's Equal Opportunities Ombudsman is supposed to decide later this month whether to take up the women's cause.
This is probably a boon to Sweden's tourism industry, but the women actually have a more serious goal: They want breasts to be treated the same way as men's chests. As Liv Ambjornsson, a spokeswoman for Just Breasts, said to a reporter for a Swedish magazine, "We want our breasts to be as 'normal' and desexualized as men's, so that we too can pull off our shirts at football matches."
I don't mean to speak for all women here, but soccer games do not rank high on my list of places I'd like to go topless. For some, a swimming pool in Sweden might be a less threatening setting, though, and since many countries that are less prudish than America see no problem with women swimming in the nude, perhaps the women have a chance. But as for the idea of desexualizing the breast? I think that battle is going to take more than 14 naked Swedish women in public swimming pools. At least they'll have plenty of male support.
Friday, November 2, 2007
License to kill? As a senator, John Ashcroft backed a Missouri bill that might make killing an abortion provider justifiable homicide.
By Adele M. Stan
Jan. 18, 2001 The campaign for Sen. John Ashcroft's seat in the U.S. Senate probably began in earnest after the late Mel Carnahan, Missouri's Democratic governor and Ashcroft's would-be opponent, vetoed a controversial bill known as the Infant's Protection Act. Proponents touted the act as a ban on late-term, or so-called "partial-birth," abortions, and from his bully pulpit on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Ashcroft made hay off his rival's veto.
During an October 1999 speech in support of the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which he co-sponsored with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., Ashcroft said: "Tragically, the Missouri partial birth infanticide bill was vetoed despite its overwhelming passage by the bipartisan Missouri General Assembly." This had followed a previous statement Ashcroft issued in April 1999, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, calling on Carnahan to "sign this important bill." Later, during his failed campaign against the late Carnahan (whose widow, Jean, has taken his Senate seat after he was killed in a fatal air crash in October), Ashcroft launched a radio ad that attacked the governor, saying he had "vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortions."
But what Ashcroft, President-elect Bush's nominee for attorney general, didn't mention was that the Infant's Protection Act allows the use of force against abortion providers -- perhaps even deadly force -- to stop any illegal abortion. Moreover, the bill leaves unclear just what constitutes an illegal abortion.
Even the bill's author, Louis DeFeo of the Missouri Catholic Conference, initially agreed that the bill allowed deadly force against abortion providers, saying, "I think that's justifiable in protecting a person." (The bill effectively defines a fetus as a person.)
As Carnahan put it in his veto statement at the time: "Perhaps most outrageously of all, this bill will allow someone to legally commit acts of violence, including a lethal act against a physician, nurse or patient, in order to prevent a termination of a pregnancy by a procedure which the attacker reasonably believes would be a violation of this bill."
Moreover, Carnahan wrote, the bill was drawn in such a way as to "ban some of the safest and most commonplace first- and second-trimester abortion procedures."
Carnahan's veto was overridden by the Legislature in an effort led by a member of his own party. And Ashcroft immediately began lauding the veto override at Carnahan's expense. "It is an incredible accomplishment," Ashcroft told his fellow senators. "It represents only the seventh veto override in Missouri history, the third override this century, the first override since 1980." (Translation: Ashcroft suffered no overrides during his two terms as Missouri's chief executive.)
A day after the override, Planned Parenthood of Missouri went to a federal court and won an injunction against enforcement of the law, arguing that it criminalized most common abortion procedures. The injunction remains in effect as Planned Parenthood's legal challenge to the law continues.
"Of all of the different versions of these bills, [the Infant's Protection Act] was the most egregious assault on reproductive rights of any of them -- even going so far as giving a defense to those who might engage in violence," says Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). "It was an extraordinary bill. And Ashcroft supported it fully."
Now, as Ashcroft tries to assure his critics that his own partisan political views won't inappropriately influence the job of the nation's top law enforcer, the question emerges: Did Ashcroft, a staunch abortion opponent, condone the potentially extreme ramifications of the bill? Ashcroft, like other Cabinet nominees, is not taking questions from the media, and the Bush transition office did not respond to requests for a comment. Supporters of the bill claim it offers no protection for potential abortion-doctor killers. But opponents dispute that.
Next page "Pinning his arms to his side or knocking him to the floor"1, 2, 3
Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos
Jan. 18, 2001 The campaign for Sen. John Ashcroft's seat in the U.S. Senate probably began in earnest after the late Mel Carnahan, Missouri's Democratic governor and Ashcroft's would-be opponent, vetoed a controversial bill known as the Infant's Protection Act. Proponents touted the act as a ban on late-term, or so-called "partial-birth," abortions, and from his bully pulpit on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Ashcroft made hay off his rival's veto.
During an October 1999 speech in support of the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which he co-sponsored with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., Ashcroft said: "Tragically, the Missouri partial birth infanticide bill was vetoed despite its overwhelming passage by the bipartisan Missouri General Assembly." This had followed a previous statement Ashcroft issued in April 1999, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, calling on Carnahan to "sign this important bill." Later, during his failed campaign against the late Carnahan (whose widow, Jean, has taken his Senate seat after he was killed in a fatal air crash in October), Ashcroft launched a radio ad that attacked the governor, saying he had "vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortions."
But what Ashcroft, President-elect Bush's nominee for attorney general, didn't mention was that the Infant's Protection Act allows the use of force against abortion providers -- perhaps even deadly force -- to stop any illegal abortion. Moreover, the bill leaves unclear just what constitutes an illegal abortion.
Even the bill's author, Louis DeFeo of the Missouri Catholic Conference, initially agreed that the bill allowed deadly force against abortion providers, saying, "I think that's justifiable in protecting a person." (The bill effectively defines a fetus as a person.)
As Carnahan put it in his veto statement at the time: "Perhaps most outrageously of all, this bill will allow someone to legally commit acts of violence, including a lethal act against a physician, nurse or patient, in order to prevent a termination of a pregnancy by a procedure which the attacker reasonably believes would be a violation of this bill."
Moreover, Carnahan wrote, the bill was drawn in such a way as to "ban some of the safest and most commonplace first- and second-trimester abortion procedures."
Carnahan's veto was overridden by the Legislature in an effort led by a member of his own party. And Ashcroft immediately began lauding the veto override at Carnahan's expense. "It is an incredible accomplishment," Ashcroft told his fellow senators. "It represents only the seventh veto override in Missouri history, the third override this century, the first override since 1980." (Translation: Ashcroft suffered no overrides during his two terms as Missouri's chief executive.)
A day after the override, Planned Parenthood of Missouri went to a federal court and won an injunction against enforcement of the law, arguing that it criminalized most common abortion procedures. The injunction remains in effect as Planned Parenthood's legal challenge to the law continues.
"Of all of the different versions of these bills, [the Infant's Protection Act] was the most egregious assault on reproductive rights of any of them -- even going so far as giving a defense to those who might engage in violence," says Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). "It was an extraordinary bill. And Ashcroft supported it fully."
Now, as Ashcroft tries to assure his critics that his own partisan political views won't inappropriately influence the job of the nation's top law enforcer, the question emerges: Did Ashcroft, a staunch abortion opponent, condone the potentially extreme ramifications of the bill? Ashcroft, like other Cabinet nominees, is not taking questions from the media, and the Bush transition office did not respond to requests for a comment. Supporters of the bill claim it offers no protection for potential abortion-doctor killers. But opponents dispute that.
Next page "Pinning his arms to his side or knocking him to the floor"1, 2, 3
Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Orr...not
While you're not watching the Mukasey hearings, perhaps you'll enjoy reading about the person President Bush appointed yesterday as acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs -- chief of family planning programs, that is -- at the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Susan Orr will administer $283 million in annual grants (via Title X of the Public Health Services Act) for increasing access to contraception, comprehensive sex education, and counseling and preventive health screenings, especially for low-income families.
Or... not. Orr, who at the time held the post of "senior director for marriage and families" at the Family Research Council -- who are no fans of the humble condom -- has stated that contraception is "not a medical necessity." Other resume highlights: praising the global gag rule, opposing RU-486, appearing to be slightly less of a wackjob than her predecessor Eric Keroak. (Which of course -- hat tip to Michael Musto -- is like saying Waterworld wasn't as bad as Cutthroat Island.) So what's she gonna spend the $283 mill on? Promise rings? Drapes?
This appointment does not require Senate confirmation. On the up side, HHS may still tap someone else for the permanent job, as Orr -- let's remember -- is holding it only in an acting capacity. Yuh. Acting as if she's not among the last people on earth who should have it.
-- Lynn Harris
Or... not. Orr, who at the time held the post of "senior director for marriage and families" at the Family Research Council -- who are no fans of the humble condom -- has stated that contraception is "not a medical necessity." Other resume highlights: praising the global gag rule, opposing RU-486, appearing to be slightly less of a wackjob than her predecessor Eric Keroak. (Which of course -- hat tip to Michael Musto -- is like saying Waterworld wasn't as bad as Cutthroat Island.) So what's she gonna spend the $283 mill on? Promise rings? Drapes?
This appointment does not require Senate confirmation. On the up side, HHS may still tap someone else for the permanent job, as Orr -- let's remember -- is holding it only in an acting capacity. Yuh. Acting as if she's not among the last people on earth who should have it.
-- Lynn Harris
Monday, October 1, 2007
Catholic Charities' birth control debate
Today marked the final round of the face-off between Catholic Charities and, put simply, the reproductive rights of women in the state of New York. The loser, by total knockout: Catholic Charities.
Praise the Lord!
Catholic Charities petitioned to have the right to deny employees birth control coverage, citing religious objections to the use of contraceptives. The problem, for Catholic Charities, is that New York's Women's Health and Wellness Act prevents employers from discriminating against birth control in employees' health insurance prescription drug coverage. The act does provide a liberal exemption for organizations with "a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion," reports the Associated Press -- but Catholic Charities doesn't qualify for the exemption. Today, the Supreme Court decided against hearing the case and let stand a previous state ruling against the petition.
Catholic Charities is surely outraged. Shortly before the decision, the group offered this ironic gem: "If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well," the group argued. Oh, but look on the bright side: Perhaps covering birth control will make subsidizing abortions a lesser issue!
-- Tracy Clark-Flory
Praise the Lord!
Catholic Charities petitioned to have the right to deny employees birth control coverage, citing religious objections to the use of contraceptives. The problem, for Catholic Charities, is that New York's Women's Health and Wellness Act prevents employers from discriminating against birth control in employees' health insurance prescription drug coverage. The act does provide a liberal exemption for organizations with "a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion," reports the Associated Press -- but Catholic Charities doesn't qualify for the exemption. Today, the Supreme Court decided against hearing the case and let stand a previous state ruling against the petition.
Catholic Charities is surely outraged. Shortly before the decision, the group offered this ironic gem: "If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well," the group argued. Oh, but look on the bright side: Perhaps covering birth control will make subsidizing abortions a lesser issue!
-- Tracy Clark-Flory
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bush, Offering Troop Cuts, Says U.S. Can’t Abandon Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13cnd-prexy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — President Bush will tell the nation tonight that 5,700 combat troops can be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas because of progress in the war, but that the United States must not abandon Iraq while it is “fighting for its survival,” the White House said this afternoon.This ally has placed its trust in the United States,” Mr. Bush plans to say in his speech from the Oval Office. “And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future — and also threaten ours.”
But the increase in American troops in Iraq over the past half-year has improved security for the Iraqi population, the president will say. “Our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home,” Mr. Bush will say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.
Mr. Bush, as had been widely expected, is accepting the recommendations of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. A key part of their recommendations is bringing the 5,700 marines and soldiers home and not replacing them.
A senior White House official told reporters at a news briefing on Mr. Bush’s speech, scheduled for 9 p.m. Eastern time, that the administration will “make sure that General Petraeus has the troops that he needs to be successful and to continue the success that we’re seeing.”
The official said Mr. Bush would say that success, however hard-won, is driving his decisions on troop strength, and that he continues to disdain polls and temporary setbacks.
Democrats prepared their responses in advance, asserting that Mr. Bush is essentially calling for more of the same approach. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army ranger and his party’s point man on the presidential speech, plans to say in his rebuttal after the president’s speech that it is clear that Mr. Bush is failing to provide “either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.”
Mr. Bush says in his speech that he hopes he and Democrats can find common ground. “Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East,” the president plans to say.
But Mr. Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, will say politicians have “a solemn responsibility” to send Americans into battle only with “clear and achievable missions,” and that the president is providing neither, according to excerpts of his rebuttal provided by the Democrats. The senator says Republicans and Democrats alike should work to “profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq.”
As for troop levels, Mr. Bush will be cautious in spelling out just how many American troops will be in Iraq next summer, after months of withdrawals to bring the overall number of troops in Iraq to what it was before this year’s buildup, the White House official indicated.
The president’s reluctance to cite specific numbers appeared to reflect wariness by the Bush administration and Pentagon about being embarrassed again by trying to be too exact on how many troops are going to and coming from Iraq at any one time, often a dicey exercise in any event.
The troop increase announced early this year was originally pegged at 21,500 combat troops, but when support troops were added, the number of additional forces grew to well over 30,000, creating confusion that the White House and Pentagon would prefer not to deal with anew. At the moment, there are about 168,000 United States troops in Iraq.
“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success,’ ” Mr. Bush says in his speech. “The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.”
Mr. Bush will cite Iran’s unwanted involvement in Iraqi affairs and the continued violence fomented by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign-led, as key reasons the United States should persevere in Iraq, the White House official said. Some political analysts have also suggested that from the standpoint of practical politics, curbing Iran and declawing terrorists might be more palatable objectives with the American public than trying to quell sectarian strife in Iraq.
The president was expected to mention the killing today of Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, a Sunni Arab leader who had been cooperating with Americans in pacifying Anbar Province. Given Mr. Bush’s previous remarks on valor and sacrifice, he was likely to describe the sheik as a martyr fighting for the cause of freedom.
Mr. Bush will concede that the Iraqi political leaders have not moved as quickly as he wanted in reconciling the factions that sometimes threaten to tear Iraq apart. “The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must,” Mr. Bush says in his speech.
The senior administration official who briefed reporters in advance of the speech said that the president would be speaking to the Iraqi people as well as the American people, and that he hoped Iraqis would encourage their government to push for reconciliation.
Democrats, despite winning control of Congress last November, have been unable to force Mr. Bush to change course in Iraq. They do not have enough strength in either house to override a presidential veto, and they do not have enough in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. But the Democrats served notice that they do not intend to give up.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. said Mr. Bush was asking the American people for “an open-ended commitment of troops in Iraq and an open wallet from the American people to pay for it.”
“The country continues to wait for this president to truly support a new direction in Iraq and refocus our efforts on protecting the American people from terrorism,” Mr. Emanuel said.
As part of a pre-emptive strike, House Democrats sent out reminders of Mr. Bush’s earlier assertions on Iraq, including his May 1, 2003, declaration that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a Vietnam War combat veteran and head of the House Intelligence Committee, is to give the Democrats’ response in Spanish.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting for this article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — President Bush will tell the nation tonight that 5,700 combat troops can be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas because of progress in the war, but that the United States must not abandon Iraq while it is “fighting for its survival,” the White House said this afternoon.This ally has placed its trust in the United States,” Mr. Bush plans to say in his speech from the Oval Office. “And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future — and also threaten ours.”
But the increase in American troops in Iraq over the past half-year has improved security for the Iraqi population, the president will say. “Our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home,” Mr. Bush will say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.
Mr. Bush, as had been widely expected, is accepting the recommendations of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. A key part of their recommendations is bringing the 5,700 marines and soldiers home and not replacing them.
A senior White House official told reporters at a news briefing on Mr. Bush’s speech, scheduled for 9 p.m. Eastern time, that the administration will “make sure that General Petraeus has the troops that he needs to be successful and to continue the success that we’re seeing.”
The official said Mr. Bush would say that success, however hard-won, is driving his decisions on troop strength, and that he continues to disdain polls and temporary setbacks.
Democrats prepared their responses in advance, asserting that Mr. Bush is essentially calling for more of the same approach. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army ranger and his party’s point man on the presidential speech, plans to say in his rebuttal after the president’s speech that it is clear that Mr. Bush is failing to provide “either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.”
Mr. Bush says in his speech that he hopes he and Democrats can find common ground. “Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East,” the president plans to say.
But Mr. Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, will say politicians have “a solemn responsibility” to send Americans into battle only with “clear and achievable missions,” and that the president is providing neither, according to excerpts of his rebuttal provided by the Democrats. The senator says Republicans and Democrats alike should work to “profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq.”
As for troop levels, Mr. Bush will be cautious in spelling out just how many American troops will be in Iraq next summer, after months of withdrawals to bring the overall number of troops in Iraq to what it was before this year’s buildup, the White House official indicated.
The president’s reluctance to cite specific numbers appeared to reflect wariness by the Bush administration and Pentagon about being embarrassed again by trying to be too exact on how many troops are going to and coming from Iraq at any one time, often a dicey exercise in any event.
The troop increase announced early this year was originally pegged at 21,500 combat troops, but when support troops were added, the number of additional forces grew to well over 30,000, creating confusion that the White House and Pentagon would prefer not to deal with anew. At the moment, there are about 168,000 United States troops in Iraq.
“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success,’ ” Mr. Bush says in his speech. “The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.”
Mr. Bush will cite Iran’s unwanted involvement in Iraqi affairs and the continued violence fomented by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign-led, as key reasons the United States should persevere in Iraq, the White House official said. Some political analysts have also suggested that from the standpoint of practical politics, curbing Iran and declawing terrorists might be more palatable objectives with the American public than trying to quell sectarian strife in Iraq.
The president was expected to mention the killing today of Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, a Sunni Arab leader who had been cooperating with Americans in pacifying Anbar Province. Given Mr. Bush’s previous remarks on valor and sacrifice, he was likely to describe the sheik as a martyr fighting for the cause of freedom.
Mr. Bush will concede that the Iraqi political leaders have not moved as quickly as he wanted in reconciling the factions that sometimes threaten to tear Iraq apart. “The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must,” Mr. Bush says in his speech.
The senior administration official who briefed reporters in advance of the speech said that the president would be speaking to the Iraqi people as well as the American people, and that he hoped Iraqis would encourage their government to push for reconciliation.
Democrats, despite winning control of Congress last November, have been unable to force Mr. Bush to change course in Iraq. They do not have enough strength in either house to override a presidential veto, and they do not have enough in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. But the Democrats served notice that they do not intend to give up.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. said Mr. Bush was asking the American people for “an open-ended commitment of troops in Iraq and an open wallet from the American people to pay for it.”
“The country continues to wait for this president to truly support a new direction in Iraq and refocus our efforts on protecting the American people from terrorism,” Mr. Emanuel said.
As part of a pre-emptive strike, House Democrats sent out reminders of Mr. Bush’s earlier assertions on Iraq, including his May 1, 2003, declaration that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a Vietnam War combat veteran and head of the House Intelligence Committee, is to give the Democrats’ response in Spanish.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting for this article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)