New York Times
December 21, 2006
Pg. 18

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — President Bush warned Americans on Wednesday that the war in Iraq would require “difficult choices and additional sacrifices” in the coming year, but he firmly rejected the notion that the war could not be won and vowed that the United States would not be “run out of the Middle East” by extremists and radicals.
Mr. Bush, appearing somber and at times reflective during his traditional year-end news conference, conceded that 2006, which began on a note of optimism as nearly 12 million Iraqis voted in free elections, turned into “a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people.” He cited “unspeakable sectarian violence,” calling it “one aspect of this war that has not gone right.”
But after a month in which he has been under pressure to change course in Iraq — from Democrats who want a gradual withdrawal of troops and from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose report implied that he should reframe his goals away from democracy toward mere stability — the president showed no indication that he was inclined to change goals or pull out of Iraq.
“Victory in Iraq is achievable,” Mr. Bush said, addressing reporters in the ornate Indian Treaty Room across the street from the White House, in a historic office building once used by the Navy. He added, “Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.”
Mr. Bush also used the news conference to confirm his plans, disclosed Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post, to propose an increase in the permanent size of both the Army and the Marines. He called the global campaign against terrorism “the calling of our generation,” and he said the military needed to be beefed up to fight it.
“I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America,” Mr. Bush said.
But the president gave little hint of what he would do in Iraq. Though he has been considering proposals to send additional troops to Baghdad in the short term, Mr. Bush said he was still listening to military commanders — some of whom are said to be skeptical of a short-term increase — and had not yet made up his mind. He is expected to outline his Iraq strategy after the first of the year.
As Mr. Bush contemplates that new strategy, some advisers have been urging him to diminish public expectations by steering clear of talk about victory and of Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Some said his language on Wednesday was not helpful.
“Victory is not a good word to use,” said Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired general who has been advising the administration and has said he believes that there is still time for Mr. Bush to turn around the situation in Iraq. “It implies that there is a military outcome in the short term that ends violence, and that’s not going to happen.”
Instead, the president has altered his language in another way. In the interview with The Post, he dropped his previous assertion — made before the November elections — that “we are winning” in favor of the murkier idea that the United States was neither winning nor losing. On Wednesday, he tried to explain.
“The first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we’re going to win,” the president said, adding, “My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.”
With Republicans having lost control of Congress after an election that was widely viewed as a referendum on the war, and polls showing public support for the war at record lows, Mr. Bush is caught in the difficult spot of coming up with a policy that will satisfy the public and Democrats, while also producing substantive change.
But his comments on Wednesday left Democrats cold.
The incoming speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, complained that the president gave no indication “that he is willing to make the changes needed to reverse the disastrous situation in Iraq.”
A former adviser to the Democratic presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said the president owed an apology to Mr. Kerry, who proposed increasing the size of the military, only to be ridiculed by Republicans. “I think you could say that so far, in this re-evaluation process, he is only dressing up ‘Stay the course,’ ” said the adviser, Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations.
Some Republicans have said that until Mr. Bush gets the situation in Iraq under control, he will be unable to move forward with his domestic agenda on Capitol Hill. But the president expressed optimism on Wednesday that he could work with Democrats in 2007 — perhaps to the chagrin of some in his own party, who fear the president will cut them loose to join with the opposition on issues like Social Security, immigration and energy independence.
“You know, there’s a lot of attitude here that says, ‘Well, you lost the Congress, therefore you’re not going to get anything done,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “Quite the contrary. I have an interest to get things done, and the Democrats have an interest to get something done.”
Mr. Bush is not one for introspection, and he expressed little sense on Wednesday that he regretted his decisions in Iraq, other than to say, “The most painful aspect of my presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.”
Still, with just two years left in his administration, the president hinted that he was thinking about his legacy — even as he denied that it was foremost on his mind.
“Look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over,” Mr. Bush said. “I’m reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they’re still analyzing No. 1, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, make the tough choices necessary.”

Bush will be gone in 2008. The problem will be someone elses, Hilary's probably. Its lost. Get out now. The US standing in the world is going down faster than the Hindenberg. The Iranians have the game sown up. The Kurds have what they want in the north.

This is one of the two most embarrassing parts for me in regards to President Bush's time. I think he's done a good job with cards he's been dealt with his time in but I really wish he didn't claim victory and all of that on the ship. Very embarrassing. Although, I have been overly excited before and said or did things I shouldn't have so I can understand it even though it's still embarrassing.

Uhm why so embarassing?

The declaration of victory on the ship was about the victory against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
The postwar situation meant that the United States had to totally rebuild a whole country pretty much from scratch while a huge terrorist network, mostly inbound from abroad, was starting to carry out attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians, Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Arabs alike.
It took years to rebuild Iraq and it all happened at a very very high price especially considering the role of public opinion and media today - let us not forget that it took the US 10 years of military occupation to build a democratic system in Japan.
Even the "postwar war" is being won now: the dictator's nostalgics have quit the guerrilla, the pro-Iranian shiite militias have been weakened by the shiite Baghdad government, this way proving how false an assertion it was that overthrowing Saddam would result in delivering the country in the hands of Tehran's Ayatollahs.
Most importantly, Al Qaeda has not managed to cause a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, it has rather been swept away. Al Qaeda has been defeated not only on the military level but on the moral and social levels as well. The Sunni population itself has arisen against it. Al Qaeda has been disavowed by the same Arab people it used to declare it would fight for. Bin Laden has lost his battle to win the Iraqis hearts and minds. And - thanks to the overthrowing of Saddam - the Iraqis have been able to shout "Al Qaeda go home!" (remember the elections? the referendum? People going to vote at the risk of their own life?).
All this has happened thanks to the Bush-McCain-Petraeus strategy, strategy which Obama, the Democrats and the NYT have opposed. Let alone Europe they were too busy staring at their noses.

On a sidenote this is what the NYT itself has admitted in an editorial earlier this month:

"It has been five years since Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, offered his infamous assurance that Iraq would be able to finance its own reconstruction “relatively soon.” Now, finally, part of that prediction has come true. Iraq is awash in oil money. But it is still not spending it on reconstruction. Federal analysts reported Tuesday that the oil market has produced a bonanza for Iraq, which has the third-largest reserves in the world. The report, by the Government Accountability Office, said that from 2005 to the end of this year, Iraq is expected to have earned at least $156 billion in oil revenues and amassed a budget surplus that could go as high as $79 billion".

As Luis would say, 'nuff said.

True IG, you and I and some others know that, but certain parts of our society like to use that ammo against him.

[quote=Italian Guy;446332]Uhm why so embarassing?

The declaration of victory on the ship was about the victory against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

No, it wasn't, In the speech Bush declared "all Combat operations had ended". He was essentially declaring the war over. And even if he was just talking about Saddam, he was still wrong because most of Saddam fighters had started a guerrilla war.

The postwar situation meant that the United States had to totally rebuild a whole country pretty much from scratch while a huge terrorist network, mostly inbound from abroad, was starting to carry out attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians, Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Arabs alike.

A huge terrorist network? Al qaeda was estimated at 2001 to be only 20,000. My city block in NYC has more people. Most of the terrorist attacks were in fact due not a single terrorist group, but several political and ethnic groups fighting a civil war. If it was just al-Qaeda things would have never got has bad as they did.

It took years to rebuild Iraq and it all happened at a very very high price especially considering the role of public opinion and media today - let us not forget that it took the US 10 years of military occupation to build a democratic system in Japan.

Its taking years more like it, we have been in Baghdad for 5 years and we still cannot get the power and and the water running within the city. The reconstruction hasn't finished, its barely begun. What the USA didnt destroy in the attack, decades of neglect finished off the rest. The reconstruction will take at least a decade if not more.

Even the "postwar war" is being won now: the dictator's nostalgics have quit the guerrilla, the pro-Iranian shiite militias have been weakened by the shiite Baghdad government, this way proving how false an assertion it was that overthrowing Saddam would result in delivering the country in the hands of Tehran's Ayatollahs.

Oh Please IG, the government in Baghdad cant do anything other than to take vacation and tell the US to leave Iraq. Its the militias that are dictating to the government not the other way around. El Sadr can and has thumbed his nose at the Iraq government whenever it pleases him. If the government wanted al_Sadr gone they would have done so. The reason is because they cannot for both political, religous and military reasons. The Mehdi Militia are far better experienced than the Iraqi Army is..when they show up to the battle at all. All in all this is still nation-building, the very thing Bush promised he WOULDN'T do in 2000.

The government of Iraq is far closer to Iran than they are to the USA, why do you think they keep insisting that we leave immediately; they don't want us there.

Most importantly, Al Qaeda has not managed to cause a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, it has rather been swept away. Al Qaeda has been defeated not only on the military level but on the moral and social levels as well. The Sunni population itself has arisen against it. Al Qaeda has been disavowed by the same Arab people it used to declare it would fight for. Bin Laden has lost his battle to win the Iraqis hearts and minds. And - thanks to the overthrowing of Saddam - the Iraqis have been able to shout "Al Qaeda go home!" (remember the elections? the referendum? People going to vote at the risk of their own life?).

Al Qaeda didn't manage to cause a civil war? Could have fooled me. I seem to remember from 2003 to 2006 a whole string of bombings and revenge attacks. For example, Do you remember Youssif the boy who was doused in gasoline and set alight? It wasn't al qaeda who did that it was Sunni militias.

All this has happened thanks to the Bush-McCain-Petraeus strategy, strategy which Obama, the Democrats and the NYT have opposed. Let alone Europe they were too busy staring at their noses.

First of all Bush opposed the surge right up until 2006. He absolutely refused to send reinforcements for the first 4 years of the war. So to say it was 'his' strategy is abit disingenuous. Bush's arm was twisted (by McCain and others) until he agreed.

Second of all, do you know why we did the surge? It was to allow a pause in the violence so that the Iraqi government a chance to stand on its own. Those are Patraeus's own words. Well we did get the temporary lull in violence, but the Iraqi Government is just as incompetent and weak as before. So on a tactical level the "SURGE" was a success (for now) but on the STRATEGIC level it failed to obtain its overall objective. The situation is very much like Vietnam, lots of tactical victories on the ground, but no overall victory in winning the war.

On a sidenote this is what the NYT itself has admitted in an editorial earlier this month:

"It has been five years since Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, offered his infamous assurance that Iraq would be able to finance its own reconstruction “relatively soon.” Now, finally, part of that prediction has come true. Iraq is awash in oil money. But it is still not spending it on reconstruction. Federal analysts reported Tuesday that the oil market has produced a bonanza for Iraq, which has the third-largest reserves in the world. The report, by the Government Accountability Office, said that from 2005 to the end of this year, Iraq is expected to have earned at least $156 billion in oil revenues and amassed a budget surplus that could go as high as $79 billion".

You left out the major part of the article. Yes Iraq had the money to pay for its reconstruction, but they don't ACTUALLY USE IT. Why should they when America keeps paying for everything. Despite Iraq's ability to pay, its STILL the USA thats picking up the check. Do you know why? Because the vaunted Iraqi government is both too incompetent and too corrupt to use that money. So Wolfowitz grand predictions are just as phony now as they were then.

All in all things are better, but there still is no end in sight and the war still remains not worth the effort, espicially compared to the other misery in the world.