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."
"Did you hear some of the stupid questions during the ISG report. One idiot reporter asked the ISG if President is obliged to follow all their recommendations! How stupid can these people be? How can their little brain allow them to think for one second that the President of the United States is obliged to follow recommendations from a group of clowns. The President is more powerful than 66% of Congress on domestic issues, and have almost total control of foreign policy and a reporter with an IQ of 5 is asking whether he is obliged to follow the recommendations of the ISG. Just unbelievable."
First of all, no. I did not catch the press conference.
Second, you are being much more kind that I would have been by grading the intelligence of the questioner with a 5. Or, maybe you forgot a few zeros, ex. .00005 IQ.
Unfortunately I am not surprised by the question after all the recent questions I have heard or read about that come from the White House Press Corp. I have heard so many stupid questions, and the presumptions that are built into the framework of the question that not much surprises me any more when it comes to "journalists" questions.
Amen. God bless President Bush and God bless our troops.
Ditto.
Not one of the suits got out of the Green Zone on this 'commission'. It's bureaucracy at it's worst- stand up or step OUT!!!!!!
Agree, I was very generous with the IQ level of reporters :)
"Let's realize that any meaningful talk would involve appeasement. Iran and Syria would ask for alot. That is a road to nowhere."
I agree, that is why I am generally against the idea of talking with Iran and Syria on this issue, or other issues.
I don't believe in appeasement for the sake of appeasement. If I thought there was a real answer that would come from talking with Iran and Syria, I would consider it, but I really do not see any real actions coming from that.
One more thing. Those that say we should talk to Iran and Syria are not advocating, from what I can tell, that we talk to them by giving an unvarnished opinion.
Agreed.
BUMP!
Was surprised because he has really been having a hard time over Iraq in England - thought he might have caved by now.
The unseriousness of the comission is indicated by the inclusion of Sandra Day O'Connor.
True - never seen anyone this harassed
Lincoln. Even after he won re-election he had many enemies in Washington.
May be no truth in it, but the theory has been advanced that Stanton was complicit in the assasination. If Johnson had been killed, and he was not only because the hit-man lost his nerve, with Seward badly wounded, Stanton could have made himself dictator. What he might have had in mind, we don't know. We do know he was enraged when Sherman cut a deal with Johnston.
With Sherman in favor of Lincoln's policy and with Grant bound to back Sherman's hand, nothing was going to happen.
He knows he is right.
My view is that it would be absurd to withdraw American combat troops. However, I would use more of them to provide a good example for the Iraqis and hold thge rest in reserve. Of courser the Iraqis are totally dependent on American supply. The only question is: How many supporters does Mookie have among the security forces? We may have missed our chance to take him out two and a half years ago.
Thanks for the historical info.
A defiant ??
It still amazes me, that the liberal bleeding heart media acts like that is a bad thing
>>Bush has been wholly consistent since day one. If anyone believes he's lost his nerve, it's a reflection of that person's mentality, not Bush's resolve.
So that's what happened to social security refprm then....
We cannot allow the mentality of the Spanish to dictate the future of civilization.
Never thought the President would lose his nerve, or abandon his determination. He was not going to cave to the America-haters of the world. He was not going to bow down to the UN, the EU, or the leftists here at home.
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.