Every time this delusional, out-of-touch, mass-murdering, insensitive and insane madman opens his mouth -- or whatever diarrhea shits his administration puts out!
"Bush Shifts Terms for Measuring Progress in Iraq" by DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — With the Democratic-led Congress poised to measure progress in Iraq by focusing on the central government’s failure to perform, President Bush is proposing a new gauge, by focusing on new American alliances with the tribes and local groups that Washington once feared would tear the country apart.
That shift in emphasis was implicit in Mr. Bush’s decision to bypass Baghdad on his eight-hour trip to Iraq, stopping instead in Anbar Province, once the heart of an anti-American Sunni insurgency. By meeting with tribal leaders who just a year ago were considered the enemy, and who now are fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a president who has unveiled four or five strategies for winning over Iraqis — depending on how one counts — may now be on the cusp of yet another.
It was the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress, that first proposed the benchmarks for Iraq that are now producing failing grades, a provenance that raises questions about why the administration is declaring now that the government’s performance is not the best measure of change.
[ASSHOLE LIAR!!!!!!!!]
The White House insists that Mr. Bush’s fresh embrace of Sunni leaders simply augments his consistent support of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
[While Bush arms his sectarian enemies, and Bush's D.C. lobbying firm maneuvers to install the hated Allawi!!!]
But some of Mr. Bush’s critics regard the change as something far more significant, saying they believe it amounts to a grudging acknowledgment by the White House of something these critics themselves have long asserted — that Iraq will never become the kind of cohesive, unified state that could be a democratic beacon for the Middle East.
[Just as a "Clean Break " calls for!!!
Isn't that a big, fat whopping COINCIDENCE(?) that BENEFITS the NaZionist shitstink state?]
Peter W. Galbraith, a former American diplomat whose 2006 book, “The End of Iraq,” argued that Mr. Bush was trying to rebuild a nation that never really existed, because Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds had never adopted a common Iraqi identity:
“They have come around to the inevitable. He has finally recognized that fact, and is now trying to work with it."
[Yeah, coming around to the Zionist plan!
If the US was TRULY INTERESTED in keeping Iraq together, why doesn't it support the NATIONALIST Sadr?
Hanh?]
Still, like the other strategies Mr. Bush has embraced, this one is fraught with risks.
[And fraught with DEATH and DESTRUCTION, too, which is all this mass-murdering war criminal brings with him!]
There is no assurance that the willingness of Sunnis in Anbar to join in common cause with the United States against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia can be replicated elsewhere in Iraq. And as reporters who have been embedded with units working to enlist the support of the Sunni sheiks have written, in vivid accounts from the scene, there are many reasons to question how sustained the Sunnis’ loyalty will be.
The sheiks and their followers have been barred from the Iraqi military, and it is unclear whether Mr. Maliki’s government will let large numbers of Sunnis sign up in the future. That creates the risk that the Sunni groups, once better trained and better armed, will ultimately turn on the central government or its patron, the American military.
Then there is the worry that, even if Mr. Bush is successful in working in promoting “moderate” Sunnis in Anbar and “moderate” Shiites in the south, the result will be exactly the kind of partitioned state — with all its potential for full-scale civil war — that the White House has long insisted must be avoided.
[But what a CLEAN BREAK called for!]
Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who, as a member of the National Security Council staff at the White House until he left this summer, was one of the architects of the “New Way Forward,” the plan Mr. Bush unveiled in January:
“Those are real risks, and they explain in part why the strategy was not pursued before late in 2006. But the first principle we embraced in the new strategy is that Iraq is a mosaic, and that the risks of approaching it that way were deemed worth taking, given the alternative.”
The White House insists that by flying into the tribal areas, Mr. Bush is not undercutting Mr. Maliki or cutting him loose. Instead, White House officials say that ever since his January speech, Mr. Bush has been pursuing a dual strategy, pressing for “top down” change from Baghdad as well as “bottom up” change from the provinces.
[ALLAWI!]
The current focus on the provinces, they say, reflects the fact that the White House overestimated what could be achieved by Mr. Maliki and his government, and underestimated the degree to which the local tribes developed a deep hatred for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is led by foreigners. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden’s network is not clear.
One senior administration official: “It’s not that they love us Americans. It’s that Al Qaeda was so heavy-handed, taking out Sunnis just because they were smoking a cigarette. In the end, that may be the best break we’ve gotten in a while.”
[What, "Al-CIA-Duh" a bunch of Hollywood liberals?
Health nut "Al-CIA-Duhs?"]
As he flew from Iraq to Australia on Monday, Mr. Bush cast the Sunni leaders he had met in the deserts of Anbar in the most positive light possible.
Bush, according to a pool report, told reporters on Air Force One: “They were profuse in their praise for America. [They] had made the decision that they don’t want to live under Al Qaeda. They got sick of them.”
Mr. Bush, of course, has had similar public praise for just about every Iraqi leader he has met, even a few leaders now disparaged by White House officials as unreliable, powerless or two-faced.
[Yup, REPEATING and REPEATING the SAME OLD FUCKING LIES!!!
TIRED OF IT, and TIRED OF HIS LYING FUCKING ASS!!!!!!!!]
Mr. Bush himself has told associates that in the end, the Iraq experiment depends on whether Mr. Maliki and his aides are truly willing to share power, or whether they are determined to keep the Sunnis down.
[Oh, he is one to talk about sharing power, the failing little fucking dictatorial shitlet!!!
FAILURE, Georgie-Boy, just like your WHOLE FUCKING ACCURSED LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
For now, however, the White House is arguing that the ground-up relationships they are building in places like Anbar are more important than keeping a scorecard of legislation passed or stalled in Baghdad. Whether that argument is enough to keep a few wavering Republicans on board may determine whether Mr. Bush gets a bit more time to try his latest strategy.
[Even though THEY THOUGHT UP the IDEA!!!! SICK of their SHIT LIES!!!!!!
And here is someone I view as no better.
The editorial writers of the New York stinking Times!]
"Another Iraq Photo Op... Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home. As Americans and Iraqis continue to die — and Iraqi politicians refuse to reconcile — Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to recognize that what both countries need is a responsible exit strategy for the United States, not more photo ops and disingenuous claims of success.
With Congress launching a series of pivotal hearings this week, Mr. Bush’s eight-hour stopover in Iraq on Sunday won him major play in the news media, including photos of smiling American military forces with their commander in chief. But the facts of the visit undermined his claims that his troop escalation is working and deserves more time and more lives to bear fruit.
[Which the Times dutifully and fully gushed over with the LYING, PAGE-ONE, TOP-RIGHT HEADLINE:
""Troop Reduction Is Possible, Bush Says" by DAVID S. CLOUD and STEVEN LEE MYERS"
So what is up with the lying stinkhole Zionist-controlled Times' editorial staff?
Do they ever READ THEIR OWN PAPER?]
Mr. Bush’s only destination was an isolated, well-fortified air base in Anbar Province, not Baghdad where his so-called surge was supposed to bring stability....
Mr. Bush pumped up his headlines by suggesting continued gains in security could allow for a reduction in troops as his critics have been demanding and most Americans desperately want.
[WHO the FUCK CONTROLS THAT?
Oh MY GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Times is WORSE THAN BUSH!!!!!!
At least Bush STICKS WITH HIS LIES!]
But this is a cruel tease and a pathetic attempt to repackage old promises. Mr. Bush has been dangling that same as-soon-as-possible drawdown for years. The Pentagon had a plan to do just that in 2004. Today, the troop level stands at 160,000, up 30,000 from the start of this year.
[And the MOST FORCES in-country since the INVASION!!!]
Despite all Mr. Bush’s cheerleading, a new report by nonpartisan Congressional investigators tells a much grimmer and closer to reality tale.... And that was the buffed-up version. An earlier draft of the G.A.O. report had... the Pentagon protested that the grading was too harsh.
[More CRAP-LIE REPORTS!!!]
Mr. Bush clearly has no strategy to end this conflict, which has no end in sight. The American people deserve considered judgments not come-ons from their leaders."
[WhereTF you been, Times, and why you FANNING the FLAMES of WAR on Iran?]
"Bush expected to stick with plan; Team sees surge needing more time" by Matthew Lee and Anne Gearan/Associated Press September 5, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush's senior advisers on Iraq have recommended that he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials said yesterday.
The recommendations from the military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker come despite independent government findings yesterday that Baghdad has not met most of the political, military, and economic markers set by Congress.
Bush appears set on maintaining the central elements of the policy he announced in January, one senior administration official said.
Although the addition of 30,000 troops and the focus on increasing security in Baghdad would not be permanent, Bush is inclined to give it more time in hopes of extending military gains in Baghdad and the formerly restive Anbar Province, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to describe decisions coming as part of the White House report on Iraq due to Congress next week.
The plan they described is fraught with political risk. Republican leaders suggested yesterday that the GOP may be willing to support keeping troops in the region through spring.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would like to ensure a long-term US presence in the Middle East to fight Al Qaeda and deter aggression from Iran:
"And I hope that this reaction to Iraq and the highly politicized nature of dealing with Iraq this year doesn't end up in a situation where we just bring all the troops back home and thereby expose us, once again, to the kind of attacks we've had here in the homeland or on American facilities."
[These mass-murdering assholes are really something, let me tell ya!
AGGRESSION, huh? WHO INVADED WHO?
So, HOW FAR IS BUSHES ARM UP YOUR ASS, hand-puppet Mitch?]
With Monday's back-to-back review sessions in Iraq, Bush has now heard from all the military chiefs, diplomats, and other advisers he planned to consult before making a widely anticipated report to Congress. The United States would be hard-pressed to maintain the current level of 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, but Bush is not expected to order a cut.
Bush's troop increase will end by default in April or May, when one of the added brigades is slated to leave, unless Bush makes other changes to hold the number steady. GOP members might be willing to hold out until next spring.
[I smell a DRAFT!!!!]
John Boehner, Republican of Ohio and House GOP leader, showed no signs of wavering in his support for Bush:
"The GAO report really amounts to asking someone to kick an 80-yard field goal and criticizing them when they came up 20 or 25 yards short. It is critical that we continue working with the Iraqis to solidify the gains that have been made since the inception of the surge, and our troops are on track to do just that."
[Yeah, after asshole Bush spotted the ball, fucker!!!!
You cry yesterday, Boner?!!
The FALSE-FLAGGING, INSIDE-JOB "TERRORISTS"," 'eh, you fucking PHONY BAWLER!!!!!!]
Meanwhile, Iraqi Sunni and Shi'ite delegates made progress at secret peace talks in Finland, negotiators said yesterday, cautioning that their Northern Ireland-inspired agreement would have to be endorsed by top leaders in Baghdad to have any chance of succeeding.
[WTF?
See how the paper NEVER TELLS YOU ANYTHING until AFTER the FACT?!
Everything a SECRET!]
Organizers said the four-day meeting at an undisclosed location in Finland brought together high-level delegates from the feuding groups to study lessons learned from successful peacemaking efforts in South Africa and Northern Ireland. The talks ended Monday with all parties agreeing on a list of principles to start negotiations to end sectarian violence.
Sinn Fein deputy leader Martin McGuinness, one of the Northern Ireland politicians attending the talks:
"And at the end of our discussions, we had a tremendous breakthrough. All of the participants committed themselves to work towards a robust framework for a lasting settlement."
[But Sinn Fein is a TERRORIST GROUP with MI6 agents infiltrating them!]
In a reminder of the obstacles facing any agreement, however, the Iraqi participants were not identified for security reasons and insurgent groups were not represented. There also was no apparent groundbreaking agreement reached apart from pledges to work toward peace.
Padraig O'Malley, a University of Massachusetts-Boston professor who took the initiative for the talks, said the delegates carried "considerable clout" and were handpicked by Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and Shi'ite Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi:
"What matters is not that that agreement was reached, but what happens now with that piece of paper. What happens next depends on a multitude of variables. The most important is the seriousness with which the two vice presidents take the recommendations."
[What happens to the piece of paper?
George usually wipes shit on it!]
