http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/16220099.htm

Quote :

"Posted on Tue, Dec. 12, 2006 Bush gives no hint of new Iraq direction DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Bush, facing intense pressure to craft a new blueprint for the Iraq war, said Tuesday the U.S. is holding fast to its objectives and commitment. The White House said he knows the general direction he wants to move U.S. policy but won't announce it until next month. Bush gave no hints of a change in direction after a meeting with Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, one of several Iraqi powerbrokers he's recently hosted in the Oval Office. "Our objective is to help the Iraqi government deal with the extremists and the killers, and support the vast majority of Iraqis who are reasonable, who want peace," Bush said. "We want to help your government be effective," he said. "We want your government to live up to its words and ideals." Bush met for 25 minutes with al-Hashemi, who has been linked to a behind-the-scenes effort to form a new ruling bloc that could topple the fragile Iraqi government led by Nouri al-Maliki. The White House would not say whether Bush and al-Hashemi talked about the movement afoot to form a new ruling coalition that would exclude anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and radical Sunni Arabs. Bush has called al-Maliki the "right guy" for Iraq, but al-Maliki is dependent on al-Sadr for political support. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president had expected to make a speech before Christmas to announce his new strategy for Iraq but still had questions and was not yet ready to make all the decisions he needed to make. "The president generally knows what direction he wants to move in, but there are very practical things that need to be dealt with," Snow said. "This is not a sign of trouble. This is a sign of determination on the part of the president." Democrats didn't see it that way. "It has been six weeks since the American people demanded change in Iraq," said Harry Reid, who will become Senate majority leader. "In that time, Iraq has descended further toward all-out civil war and all the president has done is fire Donald Rumsfeld and conduct a listening tour." "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," said Reid, of Nevada. Bush began his day by having breakfast with his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, who plans to travel to the region to talk with military commanders shortly after he is sworn in next Monday. Gates also joined Bush in a secure video conference with Rumsfeld; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, and Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. Participating from Iraq was Gen. George Casey, the chief U.S. commander in Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush had decided to take more time partly to give Gates time to settle into his new job at the Pentagon and help develop the new policy. She said the president was still considering advice from administration officials and commanders in Iraq and was studying the report issued last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The report rejected calls for a quick withdrawal of troops but suggested that most U.S. combat forces might be withdrawn by early 2008 - and that the U.S. mission should be changed from combat to training and support of Iraqi units. It also called for an energetic effort to seek a diplomatic solution to Iraq's violence by engaging its neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Bush has opposed direct talks with Iran until it halts uranium enrichment, preferring to let the Iraqis have direct talks with Tehran. Most Americans who are familiar with the Iraq Study Group report support major recommendations by the bipartisan panel, according to a Pew Research Center poll, out Tuesday. But they also doubt Bush will follow the group's advice. As for Bush's delayed speech, Snow was asked whether there were still active internal debates under way. "People are going to have disagreements, and there may be some areas on which there are still going to be debates, but most have kind of been ironed out," the spokesman said. Al-Hashemi was the second Iraqi politician Bush has met with in two weeks who has expressed discontent over al-Maliki's failure to quell raging violence. Last week, Bush spoke in the Oval Office with Shiite powerbroker Abdul-Ariz al-Hakim, who is among the Iraqi politicians talking about forming a new governing alliance. "I can assure you there is a great and real chance to get out of this present dilemma," al-Hashemi said as he and Bush met briefly with reporters. "It is a hard time that the Iraqis face in time being, but there is a light in the corridor. There is a chance, but we need a good will and a strong determination." In Baghdad, the embattled prime minister said there was no alternative to his "national unity" government. Al-Maliki said moves to set up a new government should not be viewed as an attempt to topple his coalition, although he appeared to suggest that was the aim. "We are opposed to anyone who moves in that framework," al-Maliki said. "The government belongs to the Iraqi people, it is they who chose it and it belongs to the political groups that are partners in it," he said."

surprised this story hasnt been posted yet...sounds like W is staying the course

12/13/2006 1:10:45 AM

can't be voted out of office

nancy and the boys promised not to mention impeachment

i'm suprised he didn't slap her with his dick right then and there

12/13/2006 1:14:11 AM

ncsucharlie all jokes and personal insults aside. Lay it out right here what you think

since this is the place for politics.

1/17/2007 11:56:00 PM

no idea why this thread didnt get any replies

1/18/2007 12:29:04 AM

you could just repost the article. its still relevant.

1/18/2007 12:35:10 AM

I can't blame him. If he withdraws now, history will look on him as a loser who gave up. If he stays the course, he will merely be an idiot who didn't know what he was doing.

1/18/2007 12:57:43 AM

because historically the formerly current opinions of the President have completely dictated the historical perspective of that President...I mean no people ever disagreed with Truman and his A-Bombs or Dwight for joining WW2...they all fully supported their efforts because historically Truman and Eisenhower are looked at in a positive light!

1/18/2007 12:59:47 AM

Plenty of Presidents' reputations spoil with age, too.

1/18/2007 1:04:24 AM

^i completely agree, but i also think its extremely premature to predict a current president's eventual historical standing...i mean shit, hypothetically in 30 years if the middle east has a few more democracies, bush could be viewed as someone who initiated the whole process of liberating the middle east's worst govts

1/18/2007 1:06:00 AM

I don't think it's premature.

You think democracies are going to form in the next 30 years in a region that doesn't love democracy? Better look next millennium.

1/18/2007 8:19:20 AM

oh shut the fuck up.

Muslims hate democracy wah wah wah. Because Western civilization have had pure democracies for 5000 years.

1/18/2007 8:45:50 AM

^ so how long are we going to wait around?

also no one says Truman was an asshole for nuking japan? thats news to me.

1/18/2007 9:22:25 AM

if democracies start up in the middle east it's not going to be by force.

1/18/2007 9:23:26 AM

what people will think of bush in 20 years:

Quote :

"history will look on him as a loser"

1/18/2007 9:30:42 AM

^^ not outside force

1/18/2007 9:36:36 AM

yeah yeah. that's what i meant.

1/18/2007 9:42:05 AM

Quote :

"oh shut the fuck up. Muslims hate democracy wah wah wah. Because Western civilization have had pure democracies for 5000 years."

This isn't an argument about political systems.

1/18/2007 10:23:28 AM

apparently its about muslims hating democracy. or at least that is what you seem to think it was about.

I thought it was an old article about bush not changing strategies.

1/18/2007 12:33:16 PM