![]() |
"News that's not known, or not known enough." |
We have unique stickers, books and surprises! |
| Home |
About us |
Contact us |
Dialogue |
Guidelines |
Index |
Mystery links |
Stickers & stuff |
|
"Absolutely, we're winning," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done." Bush insists US is "winning in Iraq" by Dan Froomkin,
Even if no progress is being made So we're winning. Bush expanded on this principle in a fascinating, one-hour Oval Office interview yesterday afternoon with a half-dozen conservative journalists. One of the attendees was Michael Barone of U.S. News, and usnews.com last night Web-published the transcript as well as the audio. The National Review, whose Byron York attended, published the transcript this morning. Even though the session was mostly on the record, Bush seemed looser than he usually does in interviews. The result was a slew of disjointed, sometimes not particularly intelligible, but sometimes deeply telling insights into his thinking about the war. It's a heckuva read. For example, Bush said he owes his conviction that leaving equals losing to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East. And regardless of his recent public attempts at semantic backtracking, Bush made it clear to this group of supporters that "stay the course" remains his strategy. Here's Bush, in his opening remarks: "Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John AbizaidAs for "stay the course"? Said Bush: "This stuff about 'stay the course' Part of the problem with Bush's equation is that it fails to take into account that the war in Iraq is more than just a war between the U.S. and the terrorists. If you see Iraq as purely U.S. vs. Al Qaeda , then it can indeed be hard to see a withdrawal as anything but a terrible defeat. Peter Bergen partly channels that view in a New York Times op-ed today. He writes: "A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after But Iraq is not U.S. vs. Al Qaeda . It's primarily a civil war now. The U.S. occupation is radicalizing Iraqis, most of whom say they want us out. And as that National Intelligence Estimate released last month states, the Iraq war has actually fueled, not slowed, the terror movement. So would withdrawal from Iraq leave behind a failed state in which Al Qaeda could thrive? Would the terrorists follow us home? Or would the opposite be true? Perhaps an American withdrawal is the only chance for Iraq to put itself back together. Perhaps the first step in winning the ideological war against terrorists would be abandoning such an easily demonized position, and instead modeling the principles of peace, freedom, and respect for Islamic people that we talk about so much. Is there a middle ground between the "leaving equals losing" and "leaving equals winning"? As it happens, Bergen proposes one in his op-ed today: "America should abandon its pretensions that it can make Iraq a functioning democracy and halt the civil war. Instead, we should focus on a minimalist definition of our interests in Iraq, which is to prevent a militant Sunni jihadist mini-state from emerging and allowing Al Qaeda to regroup. "While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq. "That can be accomplished by making the American presence less visible; withdrawing American troops to bases in central and western Iraq; and relying on contingents of Special Forces to hunt militants." Blitzer: "The president flatly said today the United States is winning ... From your point of view, does it look like the U.S. is winning right now?"Here's Michael Barone describing Bush as an interview subject. "I found him energetic, focused, articulate, and in command of his thoughts, and I think you will too if you listen to the audio."Byron York writes for the National Review online: "Everybody knows George W. Bush is determined to win the war in Iraq. What came through in a meeting with conservative journalists in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon, though, was the president's frustration in not being able to find more meaningful ways to measure progress in the war, and in not being able to make the case more effectively to the American people that progress is, in fact, being made. ..."At times during the conversation, the president seemed vexedMore on winning, from the Oval Office interview: "As I say, people want to know, can you win? They're with us if we can win. If we're there and can't win, we're gone. If we can't win, I'll pull us out. If I didn't think it was noble and just and we can win, we're gone. I can'tAnd later: "I'm interested in one thing: I'm interested in winning."I mentioned that some of the interview was pretty unintelligible. At one point, Bush was talking about how Israel's attempts to reach out to the Palestinians resulted in attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah: "This is a group of extremists who can't stand the thought of democracy," Bush said.There was some free-associating. On the upcoming election, for instance: "It's not over. We've got the issues on our side. Protecting this country is the number-one issue. And you talk toBush apparently sees al Qaeda and criminals "Here's the way I view the enemy there: al Qaeda is lethal as hellAt one point, CNBC's Larry Kudlow begs Bush for help: Q "I want to go on the air tonight, I want some good news. I need some good news, sir."One of the interviewers even suggested the administration start releasing body counts. Bush said he was trying to come up with a way to illustrate that we're winning: "I'm trying to figure out a matrix that says things are getting better. I think that one way to measure is less violence than before, I guess. We'll have to see what happens here after Ramadan. I believe these peopleThere were two brief "off the record" moments in the interview. U.S. News excised both from their transcript. But the National Review (at least initially) left one in. Bush was talking about North Korean sanctions when he went off the record for precisely two sentences. I'm not really sure why, to be honest. From the National Review transcript: "Most people view this as he's isolated, he's out there in the middle of nowhere, don't worry about him, let him starve his people to deathPeter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Trying to walk a careful line between optimism and pessimism less than two weeks before midterm elections, Bush lamented the 'unspeakable violence' raging in Iraq while trying to reassure American voters that he is adapting his approach to address it. He vowed to 'carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory' as long as it does not involve withdrawing troops prematurely."Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "Before taking questions from reporters, Mr. Bush offered an opening statement that amounted to a kind of scorecard for Iraq, in which he acknowledged disappointments as well as successes. Among successes, he listed the capture of Saddam Hussein, free elections, and economic progress for farms and small businesses. Among the developments he called 'not encouraging,' he listed 'the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.'"I see a relationship between the failure to find WMD and the loss of American lives Thomas E. Ricks writes in The Washington Post: "The text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Throughout the hour, the typically plain-spoken Bush offered descriptions of his plans for waging the war that were complicated and at times appeared contradictory.Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "President Bush may be making his last best case for the war in Iraq, but to growing ranks of skeptics it's the same old argument."Ron Hutcheson writes for McClatchy Newspapers: Bush's "semantic tap-dance highlights one of the president's toughest election-year challenges: how to show war-weary voters that he's confident and resolute, without giving the impression that he's unrealistic and inflexible. ...Howard Fineman writes for Newsweek: "Remember Al Gore's mysterious 'lockbox' Well, I have a new item to nominate for the Museum of Inert Campaign Rhetoric: 'Benchmarks.' The president says that they are the keys to victory in Iraq. But if I'm a struggling Republican candidateHere's John King on CNN talking to former presidential adviser David Gergen: King: "David, the president went into the East Room today. The White House said it would be a significant announcement about Iraq. Was there a significant announcement, a policy announcement, or was the significance in the fact that the president had to go into the East Room, less than two weeks before the election, and say what he said?"From a USA Today editorial: "The president's conviction is obvious. But whether it's supported by facts
|
3 : ABSURD (an insane scheme for making money) in·san·i·ty n. 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder 2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
|
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time. We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive. |
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. | Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |