Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush And Blair Refuse To Move Over Iraq
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12-8-2006 | Toby Harnden

Posted on 12/07/2006 6:56:01 PM PST by blam

Bush and Blair refuse to move over Iraq

By Toby Harnden
Last Updated: 2:13am GMT 08/12/2006

A defiant and at times prickly President George W Bush stood alongside Tony Blair yesterday and rejected key elements of a major report on the war in Iraq, while vowing: "We will help a young democracy prevail."

President George W Bush stood alongside Tony Blair yesterday and rejected key elements of a major report on the war in Iraq

Mr Bush insisted on the need to be "flexible and realistic" and to change troop levels only on the advice of military commanders, who have made it clear that they do not want forces to be drawn down yet.

He repeatedly spoke of the importance of a Pentagon review yet to be completed and said the findings of Iraq Study Group, had not expected all its recommendations to be accepted. Instead, he "would pay close attention and would seriously consider every recommendation".

Both men spoke of the need for a "new way forward" in Iraq but remained adamant that their decision to topple Saddam Hussein and attempt to establish democracy would be vindicated by history.

"It's a noble mission, and it's the right mission," said Mr Blair. "And it's important for our world that it succeeds."

Mr Bush stressed his determination to achieve "victory" in Iraq while Mr Blair highlighted the necessity of the Middle East enjoying "freedom and democracy".

The two leaders were holding White House talks the day after the release of the devastatingly blunt report that described the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating", called for a major Middle East peace initiative and said that US combat troops should leave Iraq within 15 months.

Mr Blair announced he would travel to the Middle East "soon" to attempt to hasten a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, a central aspiration of the study group, led by James Baker, US secretary of state under Mr Bush's father. Mr Blair said that the people of the Middle East were now facing a choice between democracy and dictatorship.

"This is not a view that we hold – I hold – because of idealism alone, it is because I also believe that the only realistic path to security is by ensuring the spread of liberty," he said.

Tony Blair: ‘The only path to security is by ensuring the spread of liberty’

"The issue for me is not a question of being unwilling to sit down with people or not, but the basis upon which we discuss on Iraq has got to be clear."

Downing Street officials emphasised that Britain already had diplomatic relations with both countries and would not hesitate to talk to them about Iraq.

Mr Bush bristled at suggestions that he was burying his head in the sand and ignoring the damning assessment – which Mr Blair described as "not really in dispute" – of his Iraq policy delivered by Mr Baker and his colleagues.

He revised his description of the situation as merely "unsettling" when challenged by reporters.

"It's bad in Iraq. That help?" he shot back fiercely. "You want frankness? I thought we would succeed quicker than we did. And I am disappointed by the pace of success."

Although he described the report as "very important", he said that the mere fact of his having read it signified this.

"Some reports are issued and just gather dust, and the truth of the matter is a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody.

"To show you how important this one is, I read it and our guest read it. The prime minister read a report prepared by a commission. And this is important."

Speaking on the 65th anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack, Mr Bush said that any attempt to retreat from Iraq would haunt generations of Americans to come.

"In that war, our nation stood firm. And there were difficult moments during that war, yet the leaders of our two nations never lost faith in the capacity to prevail. We will stand firm again in this first war of the 21st century."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: blair; bush; iraq; iraqstudygroup; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: justa-hairyape
Agree however I do not think that Rumsfeld was forced to quit, he simply resigned because he does not want to be paraded in one investigation to another since the traitors now control Congress. He would not be able to function effectively as secretary of defense in time of war, and therefore he resigned and the President realized this now and he accepted his resignation.
41 posted on 12/07/2006 8:03:59 PM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

"Quick quiz: Who would you trust with your country - Blair and Bush, or the folks in the Iraq Study Group?"

Bush and Blair.

Got any hard questions for me?


42 posted on 12/07/2006 8:07:06 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blam

Now the MSM is after Bush for not changing geography. It's hard to move over a country...especially one surrounded by mountains and deserts.


43 posted on 12/07/2006 8:10:08 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

This is more dangerous than just enemies of THIS President.

After he is gone, those enemies of the United States will still be there, in power.



44 posted on 12/07/2006 8:10:49 PM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

That is the sad fact, you are correct.


45 posted on 12/07/2006 8:13:40 PM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

"Agree however I do not think that Rumsfeld was forced to quit, he simply resigned because he does not want to be paraded in one investigation to another since the traitors now control Congress. He would not be able to function effectively as secretary of defense in time of war, and therefore he resigned and the President realized this now and he accepted his resignation."

That is a pretty good theory. My theory on why Rumsfeld quit is because he was tired of answering stupid questions from the media. But I may have been wrong, he may have been tired of answering stupid questions from Congress.

I think we agree he was tired of answering stupid questions.


46 posted on 12/07/2006 8:14:14 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: blam; jan in Colorado; AmericanArchConservative

Speaking on the 65th anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack, Mr Bush said that any attempt to retreat from Iraq would haunt generations of Americans to come.

------


thanks for posting this, blam.


47 posted on 12/07/2006 8:17:02 PM PST by Fred Nerks (MEDIA + ENEMY = ENEMEDIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
When Rumsfeld made that decision he probably knew the Bakers Dozen freight train was coming round the bend and heading for that bridge which was 'out of service'. Perhaps someone needs to inform the left and the Chamberlains that Iraq and the Multi-National forces are now fighting Al Qeada in Iraq and we are legally killing them there. You know, the same guys who killed ~3,000 American citizens on 911.
48 posted on 12/07/2006 8:18:53 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
I'll take Bush and Blair as leaders over anyone from the other party. Baker's group is off base on many counts. Imagine believing that talking to enemies like Iran and Syria will help us in Iraq. This commission was smoking hashish.---Mark
49 posted on 12/07/2006 8:19:45 PM PST by Black Republican for Bush (Never trust a democrat with foreign policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: struggle

God bless that man and help him - he needs His help to handle this problem.

Who knew, before the 2000 election, that the republican candidate for president had the guts to handle an attack on America and face down all critics, who knew he had the ability to be resolved and steadfast even with the nipping at his heels constantly?

Not many men would have been as strong as he is when absolutely all are against him.


50 posted on 12/07/2006 8:20:53 PM PST by ClancyJ (Gloaters, Bush-haters, "Teach the GOP a lesson" ghouls please go to your new home with the Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
Rummy was the sacrificial lamb. The scapegoat. He did it to save the the US from the political foes, to save the Presidency, to save Iraq, to save the ME, to save the world.

Freedom will prevail. Godspeed Rummy.

51 posted on 12/07/2006 8:21:18 PM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
Bush will not let the American people down, or our troops. He spoke well today.
President Bush Meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.v.html

view webcast
52 posted on 12/07/2006 8:21:28 PM PST by RedState123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3

I was surprised that Blair stood that strongly with the president.

Another man with guts to lead.


53 posted on 12/07/2006 8:22:46 PM PST by ClancyJ (Gloaters, Bush-haters, "Teach the GOP a lesson" ghouls please go to your new home with the Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Probably Abraham Lincoln.


54 posted on 12/07/2006 8:24:28 PM PST by ClancyJ (Gloaters, Bush-haters, "Teach the GOP a lesson" ghouls please go to your new home with the Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

Amen.


55 posted on 12/07/2006 8:25:24 PM PST by mtntop3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Agree 100%.


56 posted on 12/07/2006 8:28:33 PM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom

So many stupid questions from so many stupid people.


57 posted on 12/07/2006 8:30:05 PM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

Rummy left because he would not deal with RATs anymore in congress or the Senate. He insisted to resign. That's the real story.


58 posted on 12/07/2006 8:31:10 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

Blair has always been steadfast. You shouldn't be suprised--Mark


59 posted on 12/07/2006 8:34:53 PM PST by Black Republican for Bush (Never trust a democrat with foreign policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BobS

No doubt.


60 posted on 12/07/2006 8:35:02 PM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson