In Speech, Bush to Ask Americans and Allies for Teamwork on Iraq

Washington Post ^ | 9-7-03 | Mike Allen

[Pubbie]

"Bush has resisted giving the United Nations greater control in Iraq, and his aides described no significant concessions in the speech. The senior official said Bush will say that "long-term success will require increased international cooperation, among other ingredients."

What are you people crying about???

This article says that Bush is not giving any major concessions to the EuroVermin.

[Pubbie]

Where does it say they are going begging???

Is anyone reading the WHOLE article???

[Lady In Blue]

That's because most of the complainers(who haven't even seen the speech)are not supporters of President Bush and never were! Speech is not until tomorrow and they're already complaining! It's sickening!

[dogbyte12]

This article says that Bush is not giving any major concessions to the EuroVermin.

He can say that all he wants, but what if the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys say "No"? Let's assume that we face the point next spring where we don't have enough troops to rotate in, and we have a choice between extending our troops who are already there, or making major concessions to the stinky ones?

The french may be cowardly and pathetic, but they aren't stupid. They have Bush where they want him. Expect to see French construction companies winning major reconstruction bids any day now.

[templar]

It's clear that the President is being badly advised

It's clear he is making some bad decisions. Whether or not it is from advice he is being given is not clear. He could be getting good advice and ignoring it or he could be getting bad advice and following it. In either case, he is the one making the decision about the advice he is being given.

[Orion78]

PING!

[Pubbie]

Oh please, There haven't been any killings of US soldiers in 5 days.

The number of deaths in Iraq is starting to drop off.

We don't need the damn French, and there is nothing in the article to suggest that Bush is going to go grovelling before them.

[Pubbie]

I don't think people are reading the article.

[Jorge]

"Analysts called the address an attempt by Bush to take command at a time when his justification for the war has proved factually flawed...."

This of course has not been proven at all.

In fact Bush's justification for the war was agreed to by virtually every intelligence agency worldwide, even those of countries opposed to the war, as well as Clinton, Gore and most of the hypocrite Dems now pretending the cause never existed.

[Batrachian]

Yes, I read the whole article. I'm not referring to the speech. I'm referring to stories that the U.S. is asking the U.N. for a new resolution authorizing troops from other countries, I.E. france, to go into Iraq. I characterize that as begging. You can call it whatever you like, but it's certainly not a sign of anything good, and it's bad policy and is humiliating to our nation, and there are other alternatives.

[dogbyte12]

Address this please. Wolfowitz said we would be down to 30,000 troops in the country by the fall. He was wildly mistaken. Our strategy was partially based on "his brilliant analysis". Should wolfie walk the plank?

[Jorge]

We don't need the damn French, and there is nothing in the article to suggest that Bush is going to go grovelling before them.

IMHO Bush is simply going to the UN to satisfy the non-stop criticism from the left...knowing that they will not agree on anything.
This is exactly what he's done before.

It's amazing how short people's memories are.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well said.

We don't need the UN directly. We need a more multinational force. The problem is that none of the nations we thought we could count on (Turkey, India, etc.) have said no-- unless we get UN SC approval. That puts us in a bind obviously. It means that we have to appease France and Germany to get the multinational force we need.

We are already full cooperating with the demands of France and Germany. We've already agreed to a quicker transition to Iraqi self-rule. It's such a total capitulation that King of all Pieces of Sh!t Dominique de De Villepin said France intends "absolutely" to cooperate with the United States to reach a consensus: "We're entering this new stage in a constructive and open spirit." The only reason they are happy is because we're giving them whatever they want in exchange for their consent. France wants more authority given to the Iraqi Governing Council immediately and would like to see the United Nations replace the United States as Iraq's interim administrator (a view shared by nation Mexico). In addition to the above demands, Syria and Germany also want a U.N.-led force-- so don't be surprised if that happens, too.

[Pubbie]

Be patient.

The troops will come back as more power is given to the Iraqi people - I know that you want EVERYTHING immediately, but that's not how the real world works.

[KantianBurke]

It also introduces doubt into the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. If we don't have the forces to carry out serious missions related to our national security then its a flawed policy and should be dropped in favor of what Bush is requesting from the UN now. Which is of course exceedingly dangerous to depend on others for our security and shouldn't be done. Bush should have called for enlistment in the armed forces instead of harping on about feel good focus poll "volunteer organizations" such as the Freedom Corps. He didn't, he stuck with pre-emption and now our low troop levels have us in a bind.

[Jorge]

Wolfowitz said we would be down to 30,000 troops in the country by the fall. He was wildly mistaken. Our strategy was partially based on "his brilliant analysis".

So what. The idea that the Iraq war and it's aftermath, and the entire war on terrorism is supposed to be some perfectly choreographed exercise or we are a failure reminds me of the media chanting "Vietnam" two weeks into the conflict.

What are we, 12 years old?

[Pubbie]

Ok, but as long as Bush doesn't give the UN more than minor concessions, I don't think people should go into panic mode, as some are doing right now.

[I'mAllRightJack]

To: PISANO I would love it if he told the REST of the WORLD that with their HELP OR NOT........we will rebuild IRAQ and succeed where the WEAK of heart and purpose fear to tread. Postive descriptions of the PROGRESS in IRAQ and a meaningful tribute to our TROOPS, who without their guts and blood, FREEDOM would not have any chance at all. Please let it be tough, uplifting and a slap in the face to all who fear our strength and our FREEDOM loving constitution.

We offered our good allies an olive branch to help them show they are with us in the fight to defeat terrorism. It seems as though France and Germany are leading a group of nations that are not willing to accept this offer to join us. They are against us and against the fight against terror.

Therefore we are planning to withdraw our support for many of these Countries by removing our troops from much of Europe and we are also stopping the aid we provide to some of them.

If they are not with us they are against us.

[GraniteStateConservative]

What's very worrisome is that having miscalculated on what's required for the reconstruction of Iraq and having failed to discover WMDs, which is bad enough, the administration then compounds the error by going begging to the french as a solution. Does anyone really think that the french would say that all is forgiven and they're ready to play ball now? This is crazy. It's clear that the President is being badly advised.

France is happy to agree with us when we agree with them. That is our position now. What France wants, France gets. Without France, we don't get Turkey and India and other nations we want. The other options are for the US to absorb the casualties and the financial burden mostly alone (and I'm not at all sure that independent voters are willing to support that) or to begin pulling out and leave the country in the hands of the Iraqis-- for better or for worse. The most responsible and politically palatable option is the one Bush is following-- eating humble pie and getting the support of the French. Vive la France?!

[dogbyte12]

So what. The idea that the Iraq war and it's aftermath, and the entire war on terrorism is supposed to be some perfectly choreographed exercise or we are a failure reminds me of the media chanting "Vietnam" two weeks into the conflict.

My response is this. Ya think the president might have done things differently if people with no military experience such as Wolfowitz, weren't whispering in his ear that the whole thing would be wrapped up in a couple months, and we would be able to pull 150,000 of the 180,000 troops out of the country by the fall?

Being a grown up means owning up to your mistakes. Wolfowitz made a huge mistake. His advice allowed us to rush into Baghdad, bypassing towns and villages filled with loyalists, while we drove a dagger into the head. It was supposed to kill the beast. It didn't. No, there really is no shot of the Baathists coming back. But, as I posted earlier, the Baathists were so bad, that there was always the question about what to do with them once the war was over. You simply can not go from raping and torturing a town's occupants to become the new dry cleaner. It just doesn't work that way. These evil doers are going to fight to the death. It will take alot of bodies on the ground to track them and put them down like the dirty dogs that they are.

It is absolutely fair game to question the advice the president was getting. Leaving soldiers alive can cause problems.