Selling war to public won't be easy for Bush

Sunday, November 27, 2005

By Dan Balz, The Washington Post

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05331/612712.stm

WASHINGTON -- As he leads a fierce campaign to rebut criticism of the Iraq war, President Bush faces twin challenges -- one rooted in history, the other in the political realities of the moment.

Mr. Bush's historical burden is that there is no recent precedent for a leader using persuasion to reverse a steady downward slide for a military venture of the sort he is facing. Only clear evidence of success in Iraq is likely to alleviate widespread unease about the central project of this presidency, according to experts in public opinion and political strategists.

That leads to the White House's most daunting political problem. Even if Iraq is someday viewed as a success -- and Mr. Bush's decision to try to make that country a democratic beacon in the Middle East seen as visionary -- it is an open question whether this proof can arrive during his presidency. Most military appraisals of Iraq foresee a long road of violence and instability ahead, as well as a substantial U.S. troop presence for the indefinite future.

"People are willing to pay a certain price ... but for many people it's too rich for their blood," said John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University and an authority on wars and public opinion. "So even if it turns out well, they're still going to see it as a mistake."

This collision between public desire for a near-term resolution in Iraq and Mr. Bush's insistence on a long-term commitment limits his options, analysts say. His most realistic goal might be to manage widespread frustration about the war from growing into a powerful anti-war movement.

"I don't think there's any way he could turn this into a big success," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Public Attitudes. "At some point he may decide that he's going to try to reduce the damage -- and it's clearly creating damage for him now."

Mr. Bush plans to use the time before the December elections in Iraq to talk about the U.S. stake and make the case that he has a strategy that it is working, beginning Wednesday with a speech in Annapolis, Md., that will focus on what the administration says is clear progress in training of the Iraqi security force. Other speeches will follow as White House officials try to use the final weeks of this year and early next year to shape public opinion.

Administration officials believe recent congressional debates showed that Democrats are divided, and they argue that the opposition party's solutions are far closer to those Mr. Bush is pursuing than to the call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, to begin an immediate withdrawal.

What isn't clear is whether an emphatic restatement of the administration's strategy will break through to a skeptical public, or whether the president needs to acknowledge in some dramatic way the public's disaffection to create a more receptive environment -- a decision that only he can make. If he isn't willing to do that, some analysts believe, public focus will be on the daily flow of bad news in Iraq more than on Mr. Bush's view of the ultimate goal.

"We keep reading stories about five Marines dying today and 55 Shiites being blown up in Baghdad," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for The People & and Press. "There is considerable frustration over that and that frustration is the source of political problem for Bush. He's got his name on this war."

Mr. Kohut suggested public opinion could change but only if there is a decline in U.S. casualties, the beginning of troop withdrawals and a clearer sense that Iraq has become more stable and democratic.

Mr. Mueller's analysis of public opinion shows public patience with the war in Iraq has been far more limited than it was in Vietnam. Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, he notes about half of all Americans had judged the war a mistake by early this year, at a time when there were about 1,500 combat deaths in Iraq. In Vietnam, there were 20,000 fatalities by the time of the 1968 Tet offensive, a psychological turning point in the war, when a similar percentage of Americans called that conflict a mistake.

"This lower tolerance for casualties is largely due to the fact that the American public places far less value on the stakes in Iraq than it did on those in Korea and Vietnam," he writes.

Most worrisome to the administration, given overall disapproval of the war, is the fact that a slight majority of Americans now say they believe Mr. Bush deliberately misled the country in making the case for war in 2002 and 2003 and only 40 percent say the president is honest and trustworthy, findings that have registered with seismic significance inside the administration. As Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion trends at the American Enterprise Institute, put it: "Is the personal bond broken? That's what they must be worried about."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett acknowledged the concern. "I do think that it demonstrates that if you spend enough money and repeat the charge enough the old political axiom in Washington can come true, that charges left unanswered can stick," he said. "That's why we felt it important to marshal a vigorous defense by calling out our critics and the transparency of their charges."

Mr. Bush launched the counterattack on Veterans Day and Vice President Dick Cheney has weighed in with harsh criticism of Mr. Bush's detractors. Administration officials see it as a necessary prelude to making the case for the president's policies.

One White House official, who was willing to talk candidly about internal strategy only without be unidentified by name, acknowledged "those numbers are troubling" in recent polls but expressed confidence they will recover because the public fundamentally regards Mr. Bush as "a person of honesty and integrity."

What happens on the ground in Iraq will play the largest role in determining whether the public eventually sees Mr. Bush's decision to go to war as one worth the cost in lives and dollars. But progress toward a constitutional government in Iraq over the past year has done little to reverse the steady decline in public opinion about the war, in large part because of continuing reports of casualties and violence. Administration officials have signaled that troop levels will begin to decline next year, but not precipitously and not according to any precise timeline. Announcing firm withdrawal dates would only give Iraqi insurgents an incentive to wait out the U.S. presence, administration officials believe.

Mr. Mueller said he doubts additional rhetoric from Mr. Bush will help his cause at home. "If someone is strongly opposed [to the war], they're not likely to reverse," he said. "Nor are disaffected Democrats, who have taken the lead on it."

Mr. Kull said the best the administration may be able to hope for is a draw in the battle for public opinion. If a series of positive changes occur, from a reduction in violence to a stable government to more international involvement, "Then he may come out with a possible modest success out of it," he said. "But it's important to remember there are a lot of forces out there that are very determined to make sure this doesn't look like a success. ... So it's unlikely it will look like a clear success."

Mr. Bartlett said White House officials have a different view. "When you're in a tough spot -- and we're in a tough spot because of the nature of the enemy and the debate at home -- the snapshots will reflect [negative] public opinion," he said. "But we don't think they're permanent."

Issue One: Rep. John Murtha and Iraq
Sunday, November 27, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05331/612620.stm

Brave Murtha

I applaud the courage, patriotism and insight of U.S. Rep. John Murtha. He has elevated the Iraq war debate to a necessary level ("Murtha Wants Troops Pulled Out Now," Nov. 18) and has been, and will be, the object of Republican smear tactics for his bravery.

He loves our servicemen and servicewomen and is truly on their side. He, unlike Bush/Cheney/Hastert et al., knows what our young men and women are experiencing.

I ran against the congressman in the 1990 Democratic primary. I am very glad he won.

KEN BURKLEY
Greensburg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the truth

God bless John Murtha for telling the emperor he isn't wearing any clothes. What will it take for this president and this Congress to admit this war is a mistake, based on false premises? Let it end now.

Mr. Murtha said it all when he said there are no Democrats or Republicans in Arlington Cemetery. There are just Americans.

JUDY PALASKI
Homer City

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacrificial soldiers

The major problem with U.S. Rep. John Martha's fervent plea for American troops to pull out of Iraq is that it doesn't provide a "decent interval" between the U.S. bugout and the descent of that hapless country into chaos, theocratic repression and civil war.

In 1969 President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger knew the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but they hoped, in Mr. Kissinger's words, for a "decent interval" between the American withdrawal and the triumph of the Communists.

Like Nixon, the Bush administration must sacrificially leave American troops in Iraq for several years to obscure the tragic mistake it made in getting America involved in another distant quagmire.

DAVID SOUTHERN
Canonsburg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shameful attacks

I was appalled but not surprised by the reaction to John Murtha's recommendation that we bring our brave troops home within six months. It is a shame that, rather than confronting issues head on and having honest debates, the Republicans and the White House resort to personal attacks and "patriotic" shows.

Next year, we need to elect leaders who are committed to solving the problems facing this country. We need leaders who have the guts that Rep. Murtha showed to take a stand for what he believes in, even with the onslaught of personal attacks that he knew would come.

The Republican reaction makes me wonder if the Messiah were to come down to Earth, would they denounce him as a "bleeding heart liberal" if he tried to spread a message of peace and love?

MICHAEL PASTERNAK
McCandless

My Point: David M. Shribman / What the wind is whisperingIn the debate about Iraq, a note of weariness about America's role in the world

Sunday, November 27, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05331/612623.stm

There's a seasonal change going on in the country, and I'm not talking about the way the early snows are lingering in the uplands woods and ridges. It's happening throughout the country, it's affecting how America looks at itself and at the world and, before long, it will almost certainly affect how America behaves in the world.

There have been whispers of change in the wind, the natural force that Robert Frost, in a poem called "Clear and Colder," called the "season-climate mixer." One of them was the way the nation marked the 2,000th death in Iraq this autumn; no such ceremonies of sadness marked the passage of that boundary during the Vietnam or Korean wars.

One of them was the way Congress is beginning to show signs of impatience with the open-ended nature of the commitment to Iraq; there is more national impatience now than there was at a similar period of the Vietnam conflict. And one of them was the startling demand by Rep. John P. Murtha Jr. of Johnstown -- a decorated Marine (a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts) who fought in Vietnam (and who is a retired Marine reserve colonel) -- that United States start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

It turns out that these are not random occurrences in a season of contention, but something more than that. Americans are growing more skeptical of involvement abroad. (Historically that's more of a Republican impulse than a Democratic one, by the way.) And though it's hard to resist the temptation to say that the Iraq war is the reason, it's best to remember that Americans, who were late to join both world wars, have never relished the world stage. We have always found plenty to fight about at home.

Indeed, poll data shows that 42 percent of Americans believe that the United States should "mind its own business" internationally -- statistically pretty much identical to the 41 percent who said the very same thing in 1976.

Lest you think that comparing American views a year after Saigon fell and nearly three years into a controversial war is manipulating the number, please note that the percentage of Americans who felt that way in 1995 -- when nothing much was going on internationally and the United States was sitting proud and pretty atop a one-superpower world -- was 41 percent.

This and other data in a hefty report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Council on Foreign Relations paint a picture of a nation weary of the world's worries -- a feature of contemporary American culture that will surely shape next year's midterm congressional elections and the presidential elections that follow two years later. President Bush may have run as a wartime president two years ago, but the terms of engagement in 2008 will almost certainly be different and, if the war is still going on, even more acrimonious.

Polls rarely tell us anything interesting, and even more rarely do they tell us something significant, but this time the surveys tell us something that is both interesting and significant. They say that most opinion leaders believe the United States will not establish a stable democracy in Iraq -- but that a majority of the public thinks the American mission in Iraq will prevail.

No such polling was undertaken during the Vietnam years, but it was clear that in the early days of the conflict in Southeast Asia prominent Americans believed deeply in the United States effort. Faulty memories and folklore have warped the way many Americans understand and remember the Vietnam period, but it is important to remember that the debate in those years wasn't over whether the war was worthwhile or moral; almost everybody agreed that it was.

Instead the dissent came from those, including prominent members of the establishment press, who believed the United States was failing in a noble cause. David Halberstam, the young New York Times reporter who so angered President Kennedy, didn't believe the American role in Vietnam was immoral. He believed the way the American role was being played out in Vietnam was incompetent.

This is a different situation entirely -- one of many, as I have argued repeatedly, that shatter the (frequent and facile) comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq.

What is not different, though, is that an American war in a land far away -- against an opponent hardly anyone at West Point or Annapolis or Colorado Springs was trained to fight -- is dividing Americans. The pre-Thanksgiving plea for peace from a man of war like Mr. Murtha only heightened the level of contention.

An Ohio congresswoman raised questions about Mr. Murtha's courage, setting off a furor that, like the time Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri called Henry Foote of Mississippi a coward during the Senate debate over the Compromise of 1850, nearly brought grown men to blows. The word "pathetic" was hurled around the chamber. Liberals who regarded Mr. Murtha as a recondite apologist for military interests embraced their new ally as an eminent sage.

Within hours, conservatives were deriding Mr. Murtha as a Keystone version of Howard Dean. It took President Bush himself, speaking in Beijing, to cool the dispute. He pronounced Mr. Murtha "a fine man, a good man," though clearly, in the president's view, a misguided man.

The uproar on Capitol Hill did what Washington contretemps so seldom do in an age of AstroTurf grass-roots: reflect the public back home. Americans have strong feelings about this war and their role in the world and those strong feelings have led to frustration.

Even the people who say they absolutely, positively know what to do aren't absolutely, positively sure of the implications of those views. They may have their doubts, but do not doubt for a minute that this is a moment of transition for America in the world. Americans may not be withdrawing from Iraq, but slowly they are stepping back from center stage on the globe.


David M. Shribman is executive editor of the Post-Gazette (dshribman@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1890).

Letters to the editor: 11/27/05
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05331/612702.stm

Staying the course is folly in this Vietnam-like situation

Letter writer Ken Ruzich ("The Anti-War Crowd Is Emboldening Our Enemies," Nov. 20) must be so pathetically brainwashed by the conservative right-wing media that he writes that the Democrats will "lead us to another Vietnam." Excuse me? George W. Bush has already done that!

The Republicans' Iraq Group cabal rushed this nation headlong into the tragic Vietnam-like quagmire of Iraq. Attack dog Dick Cheney's patriotic machismo platitudes ring ironically hollow, addressing the situation's politics rather than its problems. "Stay the course" no longer cuts it with a public increasingly fed up with the deceitful ineptitude and corruption of the Bush administration.

In the mid-1960s an academic critic of America's Vietnam policy said, "We humans are very prone, when we make a major mistake, to begin lying to ourselves. We go on indefinitely -- until we pay the wrenching cost of the mistake, or until we muster the courage and the will to stop lying to ourselves. I am here to suggest that it is long past time to stop lying to ourselves about Vietnam." William Appleman Williams' words are profoundly meaningful today applied to Iraq.

Only when more courageous voices from both parties, following U.S. Rep. John Murtha's lead, are heard standing up for what is right will we be able to effect the necessary policy changes that will extricate us from this disaster. The wrenching costs now being paid by our heroic young troops must stop.


DON FINCH
Harrison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face the truth

President Bush and his apologists (such as letter writer Ken Ruzich) seem to lack the courage to face the truth. How can they claim that those who simply want investigations of how we got into this war "are now trying to rewrite history"?

There is no rewriting necessary in saying that President Bush took us to war on the basis of flawed information. We know there were no weapons of mass destruction, and last Sunday's paper also had an article that indicated one of the main sources of prewar information used by the Bush administration, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, was not considered credible even by those who did the interrogation ("Germans Say U.S. Used Bad Iraq Data," Nov. 20)!

Mr. Bush is accusing his critics of rushing to judgment (of him) with inaccurate information. Apparently that would be OK only if done by the Bush administration. However, what the critics are asking for is only an investigation of how the decisions were made that got us into war. Someone with nothing to hide and who wants to get the history right would welcome this.


ROBERT J. REILAND
O'Hara

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why we're angry

The Nov. 20 letter "The Anti-War Crowd Is Emboldening Our Enemies" shows just how clueless some people are when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Just because you are outraged about what is going on in Iraq does not make you "anti-war" or "anti-American." I am not "anti-war," but I am against this war because the American people were lied to about why we are in Iraq. We were told that it was because of weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, al-Qaida, oppression, torture and Democracy.

Where is Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attack? Our president said he would be brought to justice. Why are we not stopping China and North Korea from building nuclear weapons? Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? After all, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers. Didn't our president stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier in his pilot costume and indicate "mission accomplished"? Now this president tells us that we must "stay the course" until the mission is accomplished. The Bush administration and its supporters attacked John Kerry over his Vietnam record. Now, they are attacking John Murtha, another Vietnam veteran.

Dick Cheney recently referred to politicians who have lost their "backbone." Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney used the power of others to keep themselves out of Vietnam; now that is losing your backbone. It's things like these, and that the intelligence may have been manipulated to start this war, that are angering more and more Americans.

If you are so supportive of this president and his modern-day Vietnam, then why aren't you in Iraq wearing fatigues?


JOHN SCHNEPP
Reserve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sad times

The war in Iraq was foolish in its conception and is foolish in its reality. Its supporters' claims that opposition to it demoralizes the troops may well be true, but it is not unpatriotic. The tragic fact that young Americans are risking and losing their lives is not a justification for being there. The war on terrorism is everywhere, not in Iraq.

Why are we draining our military, our economy and our good name in the world with this wasteful, arrogant, misguided venture?

It is doubly tragic that the war is so draining to our already overstressed economy and that the right now feels justified (and finds it oddly convenient) to cut vital programs that perfectly satisfy its ideological agenda.

These are sad times indeed.

RICK LANDESBERG
Squirrel Hill

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush hypocrisy

The current reports of President Bush and Vice President Cheney vigorously denying the charges that the administration misled the country to justify to Iraq war brings to mind the also unproven allegations by the Swift boat group that attacked John Kerry's military record in Vietnam during the last election.

For Mr. Bush and his supporters to cry foul over their dilemma shows a certain amount of hypocrisy. They appear to be good at dishing it out but can't take it. The old saying "what goes around, comes around" clearly applies, and George W. Bush better get used to it as the 2006 midterm election approaches. Bring it on. I can hardly wait.


MIKE HUDAK
Pleasant Hills

Letters to the editor: 11/24/05
Thursday, November 24, 2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05328/611715.stm

Anything but withdrawal now is continued slaughter

Most Americans are now convinced that President Bush, bolstered by the unconscionable complicity of the Democratic Party leadership and heralded by an obedient corporate media, led us into a military and political disaster in Iraq. In light of that, the Post-Gazette's Nov. 20 editorial "Murtha's Mettle" continues to provide succor to Mr. Bush by describing Rep. Murtha's proposal "better as a heartfelt expression of frustration than as sound practical advice." Really?

What Mr. Bush proposes and what is implicitly endorsed by your editorial amounts to an indefinite period of continuous slaughter until some undefined future moment when conditions will allow America to withdraw with honor. Are any children of the PG's editorial board going to be sacrificed until that time arrives? Will Chelsea Clinton be in fatigues during this period? Might Mr. Bush's twin daughters enlist to help save Western civilization?

If the leadership of the Republican Party wants to characterize withdrawal in six months as "surrender" then so be it. Most other Americans are likely to classify it as a return to common sense and decency. We need to immediately end this insanity, initiate impeachment proceedings against this war criminal and begin the process of reordering our values and priorities to make America a beacon of freedom and equality and not one of torture and conquest.


ALBERT PETRARCA
Highland Park
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murtha's courage

We should thank U.S. Rep. John Murtha for having the courage and integrity to stand up and say what is honest and right and truly moral ("Murtha Wants Troops Pulled Out Now," Nov. 18). Instead, Americans are shamed anew by the mudslinging Cheney-Bush team -- elected "leaders" who could not care less about regular American people or our soldiers and are always at the ready to attack honest, moral people who do not agree with their selfish, power-driven whims.

It is at this point quite evident that Rep. Murtha is correct: We are the cause and the target of the horrific attacks in Iraq. We need to follow Rep. Murtha's plan to remove America's troops to outlying areas, where they can intercede only as necessary. The effect this will have on "Iraqis assuming responsibility" is evident to anyone with the slightest sense of human psychology. Yet our "leaders" fail to see it.

Furthermore, the personal attack on Rep. Murtha, a man of fine character, for speaking out is just another indication -- in a litany of them -- of the cowardice of the amoral "aristocrats" who have taken our White House and our country by the throat. No one deserves these juvenile Swift-boat attacks on their character, least of all Rep. Murtha, an American who has served his country far beyond those who hide behind the wall and sling their mud.


DAR THOMAS
Whitehall

Editorial: Insider's view / Murtha may also be speaking for the military

Thursday, November 24, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05328/611712.stm

One point not to forget in the exchange of volleys between veteran U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha and President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials on the need to withdraw American forces from Iraq is the congressman's extraordinarily close relationship over the years with senior U.S. military personnel.

The most recent statements in the debate were made Monday by the Johnstown Democrat at a press conference in his district and by Mr. Cheney, who called criticism of the war corrupt and shameless revisionism in a speech in Washington. On Tuesday, the administration seemed to send a different signal when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States may not need to maintain its current troop levels in Iraq "very much longer."

Senior and other members of the armed forces are in public very assiduous in their respect of the American president in his role of commander in chief, no matter who that president may be or what their private opinions of his policies may be. That is not to say that American military leaders are being insincere when they express public support of those policies. It is also not to say that they would be wrong to stake out an independent position in their statements. Particularly in congressional testimony they owe Congress and the country an honest assessment of the nation's military situation.

It is also worth noting, however, that the Bush administration has sometimes punished senior U.S. military officers who have expressed positions at variance with its policies. The best case in point was U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik K. Shinseki, who was retired early and had his farewell ceremony snubbed by senior administration defense officials for having testified that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be needed to occupy Iraq after it was conquered.

There is thus considerable incentive for senior uniformed officials to make their views known indirectly, for example, through Congress, when their opinions vary from those of administration officials, starting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

In that context, it is very likely that the advocacy of withdrawal by Mr. Murtha, the congressman who is perhaps closest of all to senior military officers, reflects the considered views of some or many of those in the service's top ranks. Rather than taking themselves out of the game by opposing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, they may be telling the American public through Mr. Murtha, whom they trust, that it is time for U.S. forces to go home, to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

If it is unseemly for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, with their own undistinguished or absent war records, to hammer at Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran with a distinguished record and the trust of American soldiers and veterans, it is especially wrong for them to undercut him when he is likely delivering to them and the public the frank opinion of the war of senior American officers.

Letters to the editor: 11/23/05
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05327/611016.stm

The smearing of John Murtha is beyond reprehensible

No one in the country should be put down or shouted down because he or she expresses views and opinions different from the mainstream or majority.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha has even more right to speak his mind about military issues than most people in the public eye of late ("Murtha Wants Troops Pulled Out Now," Nov. 18). His record of service to this country and the government and his staunch history of support of the military is as impeccable a record as we are going to get in politics in this day and age.

I am aware that the present administration in Washington is trying to do whatever it takes to draw the American people back to supporting a war we should have never gotten into in the first place. I am even aware that politics can sometimes get very dirty. But no one has the right to question another citizen's right to express an opinion about anything we may be involved in as a country.

It is especially wrong to dirty a man's reputation with accusations that he is unpatriotic, lacks courage and is giving comfort to the enemy because the things he says don't agree with the administration.

The Bush administration is cutting its own throat by engaging in the kind of smear campaign that is being waged against Mr. Murtha. I fully support the congressman, whether I agree or disagree with his stance (and by the way I fully agree with him) and am henceforth committed to doing whatever I can as a voting citizen of this state and country to remove or reduce the power of political leaders who would participate in or condone such dastardly behaviors as have been exhibited in the past week in Washington.


CLAUDIA KREGG-BYERS
Highland Park
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Murtha critics

It angers me to see all of the criticism that U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown has taken over his view that we should withdraw from Iraq ("Murtha Wants Troops Pulled Out Now," Nov. 18). First, it is his right as an American to voice opinions regardless of his political position. Second, as a combat veteran and a retired Marine leader, he has knowledge of the subject and has earned the right to talk about war and the United States.

As I recall from my days in the Air Force, a force multiplier for the United States was our ability to think for ourselves and not be subjugated to ground controllers during combat. If people and our leaders do not like Rep. Murtha's views because they are not the party line, then they should move to an autocratic or dictatorial country where everyone is "in step."

We should never have leaders who universally and blindly charge into the pointy end of every conflict. I am not advocating that all his views are correct, but free thinking and different views are what set our country apart from most. God bless John Murtha, God bless the president, and God bless the United States of America.


THURMAN GARDNER
Mt. Lebanon

Forum: George W. Bush, Bogus conservative

No wonder this president's support is crumbling, says Jeffrey Hart. He has betrayed the conservative movement by governing contrary to reality

Sunday, November 20, 2005

George W. Bush is not a conservative, but a right-wing ideologue who steers by abstractions in both foreign and domestic policy. Inevitably a perilous gap opens between his abstractions and concrete realities.

As a conservative, I am seething with outrage at his performance.......

Jeffrey Hart is professor of English emeritus at Dartmouth College and a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. He is the author of "The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times," forthcoming from ISI Books.

Mr. Bush's abstract ideology could be shown by starting anywhere among his major policies -- Iraq, Social Security, stem-cell research, tax policy, you name it. Inevitably, he is in deep trouble today on several fronts, 55 percent now judging him to be a failed president. That does not mean that 45 percent consider him satisfactory. They would split various ways. His approval rating among black Americans, at 2 percent, lower probably than Jefferson Davis. And Republican candidates are justifiably worried about the off-year elections in 2006.

A conservative steers by prudence, uses history as evidence for the behavior of nations and individuals. A conservative is aware of the complexity and resistance of cultures, and of course considers abstractions and utopian schemes to be dangerous. A conservative matches means to ends as a practical necessity.

But George W. Bush doesn't have a conservative bone in his body. He stole the word "conservative."

The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was the original rationale for our invasion of Iraq. After there proved to be no WMD, that was forgotten, and the public rationale became democratizing Iraq and making it a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, with the accompanying assumption, dubious at best, that democracies are inherently peaceful. Was democratization the rationale from the beginning, with WMD, let us put it gently, opportunistic?

Needless to say, Congress never would have authorized the use of force to democratize Iraq. Indeed, Paul Wolfowitz, in a May 2003 interview with Sam Tanenhaus in Vanity Fair, said that the emphasis on WMD had been a "bureaucratic decision." Was Mr. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense, saying that if you wanted to invade Iraq, the best way to sell the idea was to claim danger from WMD, "mushroom clouds"?

And we know that the Bush administration had come to office with the intention of attacking Iraq. In "The Right Man," David Frum, an ardent Bush admirer, describes his interview for a speechwriter post with chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, who told him that President Bush would topple Saddam. This was soon after Mr. Bush's inauguration in 2001, 11 months before 9/11.

The claim of WMD very likely was a mask for the real rationale for the invasion. In a very important but widely overlooked speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 26, 2003, Mr. Bush makes it clear that he has a Wilsonian view of human behavior:

"Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth [italics added]. ... Freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than slogans of hatred and tactics of terror."

But that happy thought is flatly untrue. Do human beings really desire the same good things everywhere on earth? Don't human beings desire power, conquest, empire, do not adherents of rival religions and secular dogmas slaughter one another? Did the 9/11 suicide bombers desire, in their hearts or otherwise, the same good things as the people who went to work that morning in the World Trade Center? Mr. Bush was talking idealistic nonsense, deadly nonsense, while believing it to be reality.

Now, to Woodrow Wilson's goal of "making the world safe for democracy," President Bush, and his theoreticians, added two improvements. In his syndicated column of Feb. 23, 2004, National Review Editor Rich Lowry offered this analysis:

"The reinvigorated Wilsonian foreign policy championed by Mr. Bush -- and motivated less by Woodrow Wilson's secular values (international law, etc.) and more by religious beliefs (the God-given rights of all people) -- is a reflection of President Bush's Christian base."

But, now, wait a minute. Since when has Woodrow Wilson been a conservative hero? He has always been a liberal icon. And Mr. Bush's theory that "the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth," derives from John Locke's optimistic assumption that human interests converge (they often do not, even "in their hearts"), and from Rousseau's belief in the natural goodness of human beings. With history in mind, if you believe that human beings are naturally good, then you will believe anything. Locke, Rousseau -- these are not conservative guides.

Mr. Bush added another element to old Woodrow, who hoped optimistically that persuasion and example would suffice to spread democracy. Mr. Bush added Blitzkrieg. Overthrow Saddam's repression by force, and democracy would emerge spontaneously. As Professor Andrew Bacevich, a military expert and foreign policy strategist at Boston University, put it in 2002, Mr. Bush effected a "fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober conservative Republicans [Eisenhower, Reagan] but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshall von Moltke."

So confident were the Bushites of rapid military success in Iraq and the emergence of democracy in that they recklessly sold the war on the basis of Iraq's WMD, even though, for example, expert assessments were available to them that the infamous aluminum rods were not suitable for the centrifuges used in nuclear processing. This month, Senate Democrats finally forced an investigation of the Bush administration's use of intelligence to justify the war. It had been delayed for a year.


In early 2004, William F. Buckley Jr. said in a syndicated column that if the war in Iraq went well the issue of WMD would not matter. Maybe, if the war had gone well the fabrications would have been forgotten for a time. But historians eventually would dig out the truth.

But based on the Wilsonian assumption that "the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth," the Bush administration expected that once the Iraqi army had been routed with shock and awe, and Saddam toppled, we would be welcomed as liberators and democracy would emerge. The CIA even had thousands of little American flags manufactured for Iraqis to wave as our troops marched in; but this was cancelled as too nationalistic. And, expecting a celebration, we of course had too few troops to establish order if trouble arose. What trouble?

William Buckley has seen that President Bush's Wilsonian ideology is not conservative.

Interviewed in the Oct. 24 New Yorker, he was asked how he felt about conservatism's current course and replied, "I'm not happy about it. It's probably true that there" -- in the support of the war in Iraq -- "you have a rediscovery of idealism. But if one acknowledged the second [spread-democracy-in-the-world] inaugural address as marching orders, that would keep us busy with something to do for all eternity. It's not in my judgment conservatism. Because conservatism is, to a considerable extent, the acknowledgement of realities. And this is surreal."

Correct. But to me Buckley sounds a bit muffled. As a conservative, I am much angrier than he seems to be.

In Iraq, we have over 2,000 killed and 25,000 wounded, often disastrously wounded, and have spent $200 billion, with no end in sight. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Some 10,000 insurgents have fought a modern army of 140,000 to a draw. It has been some time since I have heard the term "superpower."

To be sure, Iraqis have voted twice. But what can emerge from any vote but an electoral diagram of the Iraq we already know: a large Shiite majority, a rebellious Sunni minority and a Kurdish minority that wants as little as possible to do with the Arab majority: Iraqis obviously do not all desire the same good things in their hearts.


George W. Bush is not a conservative, but a right-wing ideologue whose abstractions are contrary to reality. He lied us into this war, betting that Iraq would be easy and that the lies would be forgotten. Now a majority of Americans consider him a failed president.

Nor is he a conservative domestically. A Gallup Poll recently showed that 65 percent of Americans oppose repeal of Roe v. Wade, only 29 favoring its overthrow; against President Bush, 2 to 1 support stem-cell research, as both common sense and morality support the research; Mr. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security and turn the social safety net over to the stock market dropped like a stone; and 89 percent opposed the intervention of President Bush and the Bush Congress in the Schiavo case.

Tom DeLay, the most powerful Republican in the House, and now, among many others, under indictment, provided this diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, whose cerebral cortex had been destroyed and so was entirely oblivious: "Terri Schiavo is not dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life support." Wheeeee! Did Tom DeLay have a hand in Iraq planning?

Mr. Bush used 9/11 to win re-election in 2004. Three more years.

But there is hope, first in the 2006 congressional elections. The American people really aren't crazy. We have just gone through a crazy period. As Adam Smith said, there is "a lot of ruin in a nation."

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were successful presidents. All were re-elected by landslides. All were conservative in the context of their times. All, somewhere, are glaring angrily at the messes that President Bush's folly has made.

Editorial: Blessed are the poor / For it is on their backs that budgets are balanced

Monday, November 21, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05325/609931.stm

President Bush's brand of compassionate conservatism, as implemented by the Republican Congress, was put on display last week when lawmakers voted to cut programs for the nation's most vulnerable citizens while reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

Memo to Iraq and other developing democracies: That's how we cut the deficit around here.

In two votes Friday, one in the House and one in the Senate, the presidents' congressional foot soldiers showed that their view of responsible budgeting begins with the needy and stops short of the rich. On a 217-215 vote, the House of Representatives cut $50 billion from the federal deficit by 2010 by reducing spending on Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. The Senate, by a margin of 64-33, passed $60 billion in tax breaks over the next five years, which will outstrip the savings achieved by the program cuts.

That math, of course, doesn't compute. Yet the White House warned the Senate that it might veto the tax-cut package -- not because it had come to its senses and realized it can't balance a budget by spending without limit in Iraq while also cutting federal taxes. The Bush administration was upset that the bill contained a provision that would mean a $4.3 billion tax increase to a key constituent, oil companies.

Although the president has said the war on terror will require Americans to sacrifice, collecting more revenue from the oil industry, which recently reported stupendous profits, is evidently not what he had in mind.

Better to wring those dollars out of Pell grants that help the working poor send their children to college; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps people with little money keep the furnace running; Medicaid, which is becoming the health insurer of last resort, while Mr. Bush and Congress do nothing about the growing problem of un-insurance; and food stamps, which help bridge the cash gap for people trying to move from dependence to work.

That was the solution approved by the House last week, with Democrats unanimously opposed. In passing the bill, Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican, crowed that "This unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation and far beyond our means to sustain it."

Those words more readily apply to the administration's unchecked spending in Iraq. But Republicans don't punch those numbers into their deficit calculators.

First Person: That sinking feeling

A Vietnam War veteran looks at Iraq today, and wonders

Saturday, November 19, 2005
By Bill Korber, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05323/609007.stm

"We must not read either law or history backwards" -- Helen M. Cam, English historian and educator (1885-1968)

After reading the latest dispatches from Iraq in the Sunday newspaper, I suddenly was overcome with deja vu. It took me back to Cu Chi, Vietnam, back to the 25th division at the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail near Cambodia. My reading had melded with my Vietnam experience.

Are the lessons of Vietnam coming back to haunt us with the insurgency in Iraq?....

PollingReport.com
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approve Disapprove Unsure
Percent


Cook/RT Strategies 11/17-20/05 41 52 7
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 11/11-15/05 39 59 2
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 11/11-13/05 37 60 3
.

Newsweek 11/10-11/05 36 58 6

The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"

Wait for Stable Government 35 %

Bring Home In Next Year 63%

Unsure 3%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-13, 2005. Adults nationwide.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm .

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" N=1,006, MoE ± 3


Approve 35%

Disapprove 63%

Unsure 2%

WH now supports pullout discussion

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=43632

If the networks give him more air time, I am going to lose it.
What can he possibly say that has not already been said ? Lies and more lies,
same old lies.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm .

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Newsweek poll Disapproval is 65%

---------------------

Bush asked to explain Iraq
GOP senators want more forthcoming explanation of goals, timetable to leave
Monday, November 28, 2005

By Alan C. Miller, Los Angeles Times
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05332/613586.stm

-----------------------

Letters to the editor, 11/28/05
Monday, November 28, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05332/613452.stm

Talk about bias

Awwww. Poor little Ruth Ann Dailey, the Bush administration's most devout local apologist and fawner-in-chief, is at it again. This time, she's whining because the "liberal media" (does she, perhaps, mean Fox News? I don't think so!) favorably covered Rep. John Murtha's comments on Iraq ("The Media's Bias Shows," Nov. 21).

She cites Rep. Murtha saying "the war in Iraq is not going as advertised" and ask: "What advertising is he talking about? The war in Iraq has been presented as a complete and costly failure in virtually every news broadcast I've seen or newspaper article I've read in the past year." But surely Ms. Dailey is not so stupid or amnesic as to have missed the Bush administration's own advertising!

Remember the confident predictions that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers? Remember "major combat operations" being over? It is the administration's own "sales pitch" that was demonstrably false, and is now rightly called into question. If the administration had been honest, it would not find itself in its current predicament.

Perhaps if Ms. Dailey and other self-styled "conservatives" had taken a more critical look at this administration from the beginning instead of mindlessly fawning over Mr. Bush, they wouldn't be so frustrated. True, the media gave this administration a pass for some five years, but I don't recall any "conservatives" doing any better.

DIANA SLIVINSKA
Ingram
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their war

It is an embarrassment to watch our current president squirm. Watching and listening to him pull out adolescent excuses so he can somehow avoid the reality of responsibility for the invasion of Iraq is far from dignified behavior.

Trying to blame the Democrats in Congress, or the old reliable "blaming of Bill Clinton," for going to war is not the mark of a strong leader. It is the mark of a coward. Of someone who avoids responsibility. For it was not Bill Clinton or the Democrats who beat the drum for war day in and day out before the invasion.

It was President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and that whole gang that is in charge now that took us there. This country trusted them, and they betrayed that trust. Someone needs to inform Mr. Bush where the buck stops.

THOMAS KERNICK
Penn Hills

As Calls for an Iraq Pullout Rise, 2 Political Calendars Loom Large

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: November 28, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28strategy.html
[log in]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - In public, President Bush has firmly dismissed the mounting calls to set a deadline to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, declaring eight days ago that there was only one test for when the time is right. "When our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom," he told American forces at Osan Air Base in South Korea, "our troops will come home with the honor they have earned."

But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here - as much as by those military assessments. The final decision, they said, could well hinge on whether the new Iraqi government, scheduled to be elected in less than three weeks, issues its own call for an American withdrawal. Last week, for the first time, Iraq's political factions, represented by about 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal.

As Mr. Bush ends his Thanksgiving holiday in Texas on Monday, both his own aides and American commanders say, he will begin confronting these sometimes conflicting military and political issues, including the midterm Congressional elections in this country, part of a delicate balancing action about how and when to begin extracting American troops from Iraq.

Mr. Bush is scheduled to give a speech in Annapolis, Md., on Wednesday assessing progress both in Iraq and in what he calls the broader war on terrorism, and several officials said he was expected to contend that the Iraqi forces have made great progress. But as it has been for the past two and a half years, it is unclear exactly what measuring sticks he is using, and whether they present the full picture.

White House aides insist that Mr. Bush is as determined as he sounds not to withdraw troops prematurely. They say he will begin examining the timing of a draw-down after he sees the outcome of the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.

But it is also clear that Mr. Bush is under new pressure to begin showing that troop reductions are under way before the midterm Congressional elections next year.

Suddenly a White House that was seemingly impervious to open questioning of its strategy feels the need to respond to criticisms - and to do so quickly. This weekend, The Washington Post published an op-ed article in which Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, called for a three-step process in Iraq to create a political settlement, deliver basic services and accelerate the training of troops. The White House responded immediately with a long press release, in a series called "Setting the Record Straight," suggesting that Mr. Biden had endorsed Mr. Bush's strategy - which is certainly not how Mr. Biden saw it.

Current and former White House officials acknowledge that they were surprised at how quickly calls for deadlines for the draw-down of troops, which mounted as Mr. Bush was away in Asia, had changed the tenor of the debate. They pointed out that the statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after Mr. Bush's return from Asia that Iraqi forces would be able to defend the country "fairly soon" appeared to presage a new tone.

"We've moved from 'if' to 'how fast,' " said one former aide with close ties to the National Security Council. He said officials in the Bush White House were already actively reviewing possible plans under which 40,000 to 50,000 troops or more could be recalled next year if "a plausible case could be made" that a significant number of Iraqi battalions could hold their own.

That effort may be aided by the fact that troop numbers in Iraq have climbed back to 160,000 in advance of the December vote. Senior Pentagon civilians and military officials are already discussing a move soon after the election to return to 138,000 troops, the status quo over much of the past year. But after that point, the American military expects to face two competing sets of pressures.

On one hand, senior officers are painfully aware that sustaining the current high level of troop deployments in Iraq risks undermining morale of those now in uniform - and already has poisoned the efforts of Army recruiters seeking to woo young Americans into military service.

At the same time, senior officers hear the bruising debate over Iraq policy back in Washington and have taken to counseling "strategic patience," arguing that 2006 will be a critical year in which a new government in Baghdad and local security forces should be able to take more of a lead in stabilizing their nation.

Officers fear that a hasty retreat driven by American domestic politics - and not conditions on the ground in Iraq - could invite greater violence or even civil war and that the American military would carry the blame for losing Iraq.

Senior Pentagon civilians and officers say the military is following standard practice and has drafted a number of plans with a range of options for Iraq.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, warned that a hasty withdrawal before Iraqi security forces are given a chance during 2006 to "achieve enough critical mass" and stand more on their own "will end in snatching defeat from the jaws of uncertainty." The top American commander in the Middle East has, since at least July, outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq toward 100,000 by next spring, Pentagon and military officials said.

The commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, has not discussed that plan in public - and also has carefully avoided comment on the vitriolic debate that erupted between the White House and Congress. While the focus of the options that the Pentagon is drafting has been on dropping below 100,000 troops by the end of next year, contingency plans also deal with a possible demand by the new Iraqi government for a speedier American withdrawal and, at the other extreme, for requests to sustain troop levels, or even for another temporary increase, should Iraq risk falling into increased violence and anarchy.

Senior commanders see no short-term change in American military capacity on the ground in Iraq with the anticipated return to 138,000 troops after the election. Fresh assessments on altering the troop numbers - and the mix of capacities, from infantry to training units to civil affairs - are anticipated not long after the vote.

"Recommendations will be made here based on conditions on the ground," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq. "Those conditions are the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, the capability of the government to support those forces in the field, the state of the insurgency, and a whole range of conditions."

General Vines also acknowledged the political realities influencing troop reductions, saying, "The ultimate decision, of course, will be made as a policy level decision in Washington and other capitals."

The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, on Sunday advocated setting a deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, saying such a firm statement would force political compromise within the emerging leadership in Baghdad.

An open-ended American commitment "takes pressure off them to make the compromises that are necessary to make those changes in the Constitution," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "That's what we need to do. Put some pressure on them to make the political decisions that are so essential to becoming a nation."

On the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, argued against setting a timetable, but did urge President Bush to speak more often and directly to the American people about the mission.

"It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months," Senator Warner said. "It is a critical period."

OP-ed Where to go from here/

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...T&f=228&t=43779

War eclipses all other issues

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=42937

Today, Bush gave another speech to a captive, screened audience (on immigration). [CNN Lou Dobbs pointed this out]

Will Bush talk to a screened audience on Wednesday?

What is the point if he doesn't talk to all Americans?

Lieberman 'Encouraged' by Iraq Visit

Updated 5:19 PM ET November 28, 2005
By ANDREW MIGA

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8e5o4ko4&src=ap

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman, fresh from a two-day visit to Iraq over the Thanksgiving holiday, said Monday he was hopeful U.S. forces could begin a "significant" withdrawal by the end of next year or in 2007.

"The country is now in reach of going from Saddam Hussein to self-government and, I'd add, self-protection," the Connecticut Democrat said in a conference call with reporters. "That would be a remarkable transformation ... I saw real progress there."

Lieberman, one of the most hawkish Democrats in the Senate, said the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces and the ability of a new Iraqi government to rule after the Dec. 15 elections are critical factors in determining when U.S. troops could come home. But if all goes well, he forsees a pullout beginning a year from now.

"If Iraqi forces continue to gain the confidence the American military sees there now ... We will be able to draw down our forces," he said.

Lieberman has visited Iraq four times in 17 months. He said there are signs life is returning to normal, including a profusion of cell phones and satellite TV dishes on rooftops.

"About two-thirds of the country is in really pretty good shape," he said, noting most attacks are in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region. "Overall, I came back encouraged."

Lieberman said he hopes President Bush's speech Tuesday night will give a clearer picture to the American public of the progress being made in the war.

"It's time for some details," said Lieberman. "He's gotta describe some of the progress that I saw there. It's gotta be realistic."

U.S. military officials told him they hope that by next year, two-thirds of Iraq's military will be able to carry the fight to insurgents with limited logistical support from U.S. forces. Lieberman said U.S. commanders had learned from their early mistakes and were successfully pursuing a "clear-hold-build" strategy against rebel forces.

He cautioned, however, that "prematurely" pulling out U.S. forces would jeopardize the progress made thus far.

The senator said he ate three Thanksgiving meals at different bases visiting with troops, including about 50 soldiers from Connecticut.

"They look good, they're proud of what they're doing and of course they're anxious to get home, but they know they have a job to do," said Lieberman.

Lieberman wanted to personally report back to the families of the troops, but he said most of them had already sent back e-mails or telephoned home news of the meeting to friends and family in Connecticut.

The recent partisan battle in Congress over Iraq, including Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha's call for an immediate troop pullout, has not significantly hurt troop morale, Lieberman added.

"As one general said, they're devoted to each other and the cause," Lieberman said.

The senator said some U.S. commanders expressed concern that some soldiers who were on their second or third deployments were suffering from stress.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bush is giving a preview.... same old, same old....

Bush: Iraq Withdrawal Would Be a Mistake

Updated 2:28 PM ET November 29, 2005
By ROBERT BURNS

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8e6anoo0&src=ap

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that "it would be a terrible mistake" to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq and that politics should not play any part in a decision about withdrawal.

"We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy," Bush said in El Paso, Texas. "I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground."

The argument against withdrawal was echoed in Washington by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who said quitting the war would allow insurgents to prevail and put the United States "at still greater risk."

"Quitting is not an exit strategy," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference.

On the other hand, Rumsfeld made clear that the time has arrived to wean the Iraqis of their dependence on American support for security _ whether it's guarding Iraq's borders or protecting its power plants.

"They have to do it for themselves," Rumsfeld said. "There isn't an Iraqi that comes into this country and visits with me that doesn't say that. They know that. They know that they're the ones that are going to have to grab that country. And it's time."

Bush and Rumsfeld spoke in advance of a speech by the president on Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md. The remarks are expected to outline the administration's strategy for giving Iraqi forces increasing responsibility for the security of their country.

The war in Iraq and the mounting number of American casualties have contributed to a steep drop in Bush's popularity. His approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency.

Talking with reporters in El Paso, Texas, Bush said he would make decisions about troop levels based on the advice of military commanders.

"If they tell me the Iraqis are ready to take more and more responsibility and that we'll be able to bring some Americans home, I will do that," the president said. "It's their recommendation."

"Secondly, we want to win," Bush said. "The whole objective is to achieve victory against the terrorists."

"I'm interested in winning. I want to defeat the terrorists. And I want our troops to come home," the president said. "But I don't want them to come how without having achieved victory. We've got a strategy for victory."

"People don't want me making decisions based on politics," the president said. "They want me making decisions based on the recommendations of our generals on the ground. And that's exactly who I'll be listening to."

"Now I know there's a lot of voices in Washington," Bush added. "We've heard some people say pull them out right now. That's a huge mistake. It'd be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops. And it sends a bad message to our enemy. And it sends a bad message to the Iraqis."

Rumsfeld said the president would outline in detail his plans for helping the Iraqis take control of their own country.

"The strategy is working, and we should stick to it," Rumsfeld said.

The U.S. strategy has been built on an expectation that training a competent Iraqi security force and facilitating the election of a democratic government would stabilize the country and allow a gradual U.S. military exit, possibly starting in 2006.

Rumsfeld ticked off several indicators of progress on the military front, including:

_ U.S. forces have turned over control of about 29 military bases to the Iraqis.

_ Baghdad's once-violent Haifa Street is now more peaceful and under the control of an Iraqi army battalion.

_ The Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none in July 2004.

_ The number of Iraq army battalions "in the fight" has grown to 95, compared to five in August 2004.

On Monday, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number was 100, plus 30 battalions of Iraqi Special Police. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Todd Vician said the 100 total includes five Iraqi special forces battalions.

Rumsfeld did not mention the recent call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to begin immediately to withdraw U.S. troops, but he posed the question of whether the United States would be better off leaving Iraq quickly.

"I believe the answer is clear," he said. "Quitting is not an exit strategy. It would be a formula for putting the American people at still greater risk and an invitation for more terrorist violence."

Rumsfeld said the more the insurgents in Iraq "make it sound as though we are going to quit or lose," the more encouraged they will become and the more successful they will be in raising money and recruiting insurgents.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bush Unveils New Iraq Strategy Document

Updated 8:40 AM ET November 30, 2005
By DEB RIECHMANN
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8e6qnj8b&src=ap

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush confronted doubts about his war policy Wednesday, asserting more Iraqi security forces are taking the lead in battle but saying it's still uncertain when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.

"No war has ever been won on a timetable," according to a new White House strategy document.

Facing criticism and impatience about the conflict, Bush went on the offensive with the release of a 35-page plan titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

The plan says increasing numbers of Iraqi troops have been equipped and trained, a democratic government is being forged, Iraq's economy is being rebuilt and U.S. military and civilian presence will change as conditions improve.

"We expect, but cannot guarantee that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience," the report said. "While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize."

Along with the report, Bush is making a personal appeal to shore up wavering support for the war in remarks at 9:50 a.m. ET on Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy. It's the first in a series of speeches Bush is delivering between now and the Dec. 15 election in Iraq to outline political, security and economic strategies for Iraq.

In the first one, Bush will focus on the training of Iraqi security forces, explaining setbacks U.S. forces have encountered and improvements that have been made, as well as detailing areas now under Iraqi control, a senior White House official said, insisting on anonymity because the president's address has not been released.

Bush's emphasis on the readiness of Iraqi security forces comes at a time when continued violence in Iraq and the death of more than 2,000 U.S. troops have contributed to a sharp drop in Bush's popularity.

His wife, Laura, said Wednesday that she "absolutely" would like to see an acceptable resolution there.

"We want our troops to be able to come home as soon as they possibly can," said Mrs. Bush during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" to give a Christmas tour of the White House.

"It's really remarkable how far they've come," she said, "but I really feel very, very encouraged that we're going to see a very great ending when we see a really free Iraq right in the heart of the Middle East."

Sixty-two percent of Americans, in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in November, said they disapproved of Bush's Iraq policy. Thirty-seven percent approved of his policy _ down from 43 percent in May. The president's overall job approval rating is at 37 percent, the lowest level of his presidency.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Tuesday that the president should have proposed a plan months ago that includes a flexible timetable, tied to clear benchmarks, for concluding the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

"The American people deserve a clear plan for concluding our military mission," said Feingold, who is weighing a bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. "And the Iraqi people need to know without any doubt that we do not intend to stay in that country indefinitely."

The White House report says victory in Iraq will take time.

"It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam (Hussein) was finally removed from power," the report said.

Bush said Tuesday that he would decide on troop withdrawals based on the capacity of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy and recommendations from commanders on the ground.

There are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has not committed to any specific drawdown of U.S. forces next year beyond the announced plan to pull back 28,000 troops that were added this fall for extra security during the election.

In the report, the Bush administration says it is working along a political track to help the Iraqis isolate enemies from those who want to participate in the democratic political process. The "enemy" is a combination of Iraqis who reject democratic reforms, Saddam loyalists and terrorists and others inspired by al-Qaeda.

To maintain security, the report says the U.S. has helped train more than 212,000 Iraqi forces _ up from 96,000 in September 2004. There are now more than 120 army and police battalions in the fight _ up from five in August 2004. Of these battalions, more than 80 are fighting side-by-side with coalition forces and more than 40 others are taking the lead in the fight.

The document says, however, that multiple challenges remain. Any support that countries, such as Syria or Iran, are giving to terrorists or insurgents must be neutralized. The Iraqi government must make sure its ministries can sustain a national army. And Iraqi security forces must not be infiltrated by those not aligned with the new Iraqi government.

There is concern that some Iraqi forces are operating as militias that are loyal to Shiites and target Sunnis, who now are a political minority after having ruled the country under Saddam Hussein. Heated battles between Iraqi security forces _ made up mostly of Shiites _ and insurgents _ comprising mostly Sunnis _ could widen the cultural divide in the nation and provoke civil war.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who visited Iraq last month, said he thinks Iraqi security forces have made progress toward readiness. But he adds: "If you've got competent units but they're basically militias in national uniforms, and you're uncertain of whose orders they're taking, that's not the security force you want."

___

On the Net:

White House _ http://www.whitehouse.gov

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sen. Clinton Defends Iraq War Vote

Updated 8:56 AM ET November 30, 2005
By DEVLIN BARRETT
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu...8e6quuod&src=ap

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her vote to authorize war in Iraq amid growing unease among liberal Democrats who could determine the potential 2008 presidential candidate's future.

"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.

At the same time, she said the United States must "finish what it started" in Iraq.

Clinton and other hawkish Democrats have come under criticism from liberal anti-war activists, many of whom will hold sway over presidential primary contests. The former first lady, who is up for re-election in 2006, would likely be an early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she decide to seek it.

The 1,600-word letter was sent, mainly through e-mail, on Tuesday _ a day before President Bush was to deliver a speech on his Iraqi policies. The president's approval ratings plummeted in recent months as the U.S. death toll and anti-war sentiments grew.

The debate has also put Clinton in a tight spot: generally viewed as pro-military, the former first lady is the most-watched member of a party that is increasingly turning against the war.

In her letter to voters, the senator cited prewar assurances from the White House that the United States would use the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.

"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq," she said. Clinton stopped short of saying her vote was a mistake, the political path chosen by two other potential Democratic candidates _ former vice presidential candidate John Edwards and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

"Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their 'last throes," this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq," she wrote.

Clinton's allies billed the letter as her most comprehensive statement on the war to date.

"It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she wrote.

Clinton, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said earlier this month it would be a "big mistake" for U.S. troops to pull out immediately. She stuck with that line Tuesday. "America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis," she wrote.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Kerry: 'Let Iraqis Stand Up for Iraq'

Updated 9:04 AM ET November 30, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu..._051119&src=abc

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., believes U.S. troops do not necessarily need to be pulled out of Iraq right away, as a senior Democrat suggested this week, but they need more leadership from the Bush administration.

"What we need is a little more commander in chief, and a little less campaigner in chief," Kerry said in an exclusive interview on "Good Morning America Weekend Edition."

The question of whether or not troops should be withdrawn from Iraq moved to the front burner Thursday when Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for all the troops to be withdrawn immediately -- a call that drew charges of recklessness from the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney called Murtha's press conference "reprehensible."

Members of the House of Representatives debated late into Friday night and voted down a resolution to pull the troops out of Iraq by 403-3. Although most Democrats did not support Murtha's call, Kerry, who lost the 2004 presidential election to Bush, said Murtha did not deserve to be called names like "coward" by allies of the administration.

"It's just the attack politics: The people are sick and tired of it," Kerry said. "You don't call John Murtha a coward. ... I mean, Dick Cheney had five deferments in a row in Vietnam, when John Murtha went to serve."

Murtha, Kerry said, has simply added to the debate. Kerry said the Bush administration needs to outline a clear plan about what benchmarks must be reached in order to bring the troops home.

"You can differ on the policies, and we should talk about the policy," Kerry said. "The administration has continuously misled Americans about our presence. We need to have the debate and figure out how we bring our troops home in a responsible way. John Murtha is really just adding to the debate in a very personal way. This man's statements have to be taken seriously even if you don't agree with his policy."

Kerry said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, sent a plan to the Pentagon that outlined a timetable for withdrawal. The president of Iraq also said he had a plan to bring home 50,000 troops by Christmas. Kerry said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also had originally said some troops would be brought home.

Kerry added that the Bush administration was wrong to suggest that calling for a plan to bring the troops home will endanger the troops.

"Let me tell you what is endangering our troops: Sending our troops to war without adequate armor endangers our troops," Kerry said, "not guarding the ammo dumps, so that our troops are now being hurt because of ammo that wasn't properly secured when we took Baghdad. What endangers our troops is sending them to war without adequate numbers of troops to do the job."

Kerry said he has a plan to bring 20,000 troops home by Christmas. He said that if the election and referendum in Iraq are successful, troops should be brought home because the election would act as a benchmark of the troops' success.

"They deserve leadership that is equal to their sacrifice," he said. "The president doesn't have a real plan."

Although he may have sounded as if he were campaigning, Kerry said he's leaving the door open when it comes to running for president in 2008.

He said the more immediate question is how the troops will be protected. It's time, he said, to hand over some responsibility.

"Let Iraqis stand up for Iraq," Kerry said.

Bush: Iraqi Forces in State of Readiness

Updated 3:10 AM ET November 30, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu...8e6lt3o5&src=ap

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is trying to convince skeptical Americans that Iraqi forces are increasingly able to protect their nation but the president is not ready to set dates for withdrawing U.S. troops.

In a speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bush was detailing the training of Iraqi security forces and talking about the territories Iraqis control nearly three years after the U.S.-led invasion. The White House also was issuing a 35-page plan titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

"The Iraqis are becoming more and more capable of doing that which they want to do, which is secure their own country against terrorists and Saddamists," Bush said Tuesday.

His speech in Annapolis, Md., was the first in a series of addresses he'll make between now and the Dec. 15 election in Iraq to outline political, security and economic strategies for Iraq. Bush will talk about setbacks experienced in the training of Iraqi security forces and improvements that have been made, as well as areas now being controlled by Iraqis, a senior White House official said, insisting on anonymity because the president's address has not been released.

The official said Bush would not talk about troop withdrawals.

"Precipitous withdrawal of our troops would send the wrong signal to our own troops, send the wrong signal to the enemy and send the wrong signal to people around the world who watch the commitment of the United States," Bush said Tuesday. "We're going to stand squarely with the people of Iraq and help them develop a free society."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Tuesday that the president should have proposed a plan months ago that includes a flexible timetable, tied to clear benchmarks, for concluding the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

"The American people deserve a clear plan for concluding our military mission," said Feingold, who is weighing a bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. "And the Iraqi people need to know without any doubt that we do not intend to stay in that country indefinitely."

Bush said he would decide on troop withdrawals based on the capacity of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy and recommendations from commanders on the ground.

"If they tell me we need more troops, we'll provide more troops," Bush said. "If they tell me we've got sufficient level of troops, that will be the level of troops. If they tell me that the Iraqis are ready to take more and more responsibility and that we'll be able to bring some Americans home, I will do that."

There are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has not committed to any specific drawdown of U.S. forces next year beyond the announced plan to pull back 28,000 troops that were added this fall for extra security during the election.

In an AP-Ipsos poll this month, 62 percent of Americans said they disapproved of Bush's Iraq policy. Thirty-seven percent approved, down from 43 percent in May. The president's overall job approval rating is at 37 percent, its lowest level.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that while "quitting is not an exit strategy," the time has arrived to wean the Iraqis of their dependence on American support for security _ whether it's guarding Iraq's borders or protecting its power plants.

Rumsfeld gave a preview of the administration's argument that Iraqi security forces are improving. He said about 29 military bases have been turned over to Iraqi control; the Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none 16 months ago; the number of Iraqi army battalions "in the fight" is now 95, compared with five 15 months ago; and there are now over 212,000 trained and equipped security forces, compared with 96,000 last year.

Rumsfeld noted changes in several areas once known for strife. Baghdad's infamously dangerous airport road is seeing a sharp decline in attacks. The city's once-violent Haifa Street is largely peaceful under the control of an Iraqi army battalion. And the Shiite areas of Najaf, Karbala and Sadr City, the scene of a number of battles last year, are now largely peaceful, Rumsfeld said.

There is concern, however, that some Iraqi forces are operating as militias that are loyal to Shiites and target Sunnis, who now are a political minority after having ruled the country under Saddam Hussein. Heated battles between mostly Shiite Iraqi security and mostly Sunni insurgents could widen the cultural divide in the nation and provoke civil war.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who visited Iraq last month, said he thinks Iraqi security forces have made progress. But he added that "if you've got competent units ... they're basically militias in national uniforms, and you're uncertain of whose orders they're taking, that's not the security force you want."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., on Tuesday sent a letter to constituents in which she wrote, "It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bush's speech is at 10:45 AM today on C-span and probably CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

They are giving Bush a musical introduction.

His speech is at 9:45 not 10:45. Sorry.

Bush is going to a campaign fundraiser later for the Black republican candiate for governor.

He just tied the terrorists in Iraq with 9-11; they share the same ideology.

"We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything except complete victory."

The new plan is the "unclassified" version of the plan that we have been pursuing.

Why did it take 3 years to release the plan???

"When the enemy is defeated in Iraq, Americans will be safer here at home."

Bush is recycling the same ole phrases.

Another forum

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=43881

Iraqi forces are better than they were...

That is a vague relative statement. We want quantitative results.

We will, we will....

Sounds like a future plan. What a waste of 3 years.

We will not retreat based on an artifical timetable set by politician in Washington.

Now he quotes Lieberman.

"cut and run"

"vindicate terrorist beheadings"

"American will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief".

Time to do a "no confidence" vote like the Canadians did yesterday.

We are achieving victory. The American people will come around.

Now he brought up Fascism and Communism; we defeated those hateful ideologies and we will defeat this ideology.

Does anyone believe this crap anymore?

Now he's reading a private letter on a dead soldiers' laptop.

The only way to honor these soldiers is to complete their mission.

"Our freedom and our way of life is in your hands."

CNN: This is the road to progress. More work is needed to train Iraqis. We have a plan for victory. McCain says we need more help in Iraq but military is afraid of Rumsfeld. Will Bush fulfill his promise to get more troops there if asked?

A news story read today on C-span says that the Pentagon is re-recruiting retired military with a $19-20,000 signing bonus. The recruiting campaigns are way down.

Bush Urges Patience With Iraq Training

Updated 10:16 AM ET November 30, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...130_400&src=abc

President Bush says it will take time and patience to train enough Iraqi forces to provide security for their country.

Bush is making a personal appeal to shore up wavering support for the war in remarks at the U.S. Naval Academy. It's the first in a series of speeches Bush is delivering between now and the Dec. 15 election in Iraq to outline political, security and economic strategies for Iraq.

In a White House strategy document, Bush confronted doubts about his war policy, asserting more Iraqi security forces are taking the lead in battle but saying it's still uncertain when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.

"No war has ever been won on a timetable," according to a new White House strategy document.

Facing criticism and impatience about the conflict, Bush went on the offensive with the release of a 35-page plan titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

Hillary Advocates 'Third Way' on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

Updated 10:19 AM ET November 30, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu..._051122&src=abc

Joining the furious debate over withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., rejected calls for an immediate pullout while suggesting Iraq may not be stabilized until the new government is told that the U.S. troop commitment is not open-ended.

Speaking to reporters in Rye Brook, N.Y., on Monday, Clinton recommended that pressure be put on Iraq's new government after the Dec. 15 election.

"Then we have to tell this new government we are not going to be there forever, we are going to be withdrawing our young men and women and we expect you to start moving towards stability," Clinton said.

The former first lady said an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a "big mistake."

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

She suggested, however, that Iraq may not be stabilized until the United States signals its intention to leave.

Clinton said the Bush administration's approach amounted to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

"What you hear from the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense is, 'We'll stay as long as it takes until the job is done,'" Clinton said. "They've never defined the job."


Echoes of Bill Clinton's 'Third Way'?
Clinton's little-noticed comments -- made at a news conference about the flu vaccine -- are the latest sign that the debate over Iraq has shifted in the wake of a call by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha, a combat veteran with close ties to the military, said last week that the United States had accomplished all that it can in Iraq militarily and that it is time to redeploy troops to the periphery.

Clinton's efforts to fashion a "third way" on Iraq were reminiscent of the political approach her husband made famous when he announced his presidential campaign in 1991. "The change we must make isn't liberal or conservative," Bill Clinton said then. "It's both, and it's different."

"My approach is different," the former first lady and current senator said Monday. "My approach is we tell them we expect you to meet these certain benchmarks and that means getting troops and police officers trained, equipped and ready to defend their people."

"I don't think realistically we know how prepared they are until we get a government on Dec. 15," she added.

After meeting with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan in September, Clinton held firm to her support for the Iraq war, telling The Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain."

At the time, Clinton demurred when asked about withdrawing troops. "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

Clinton continues to oppose setting a specific target date for withdrawal -- a point of contention with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a potential rival for the 2008 nomination, who has called for a flexible "target date" of Dec. 31, 2006, for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq.

But like 39 of her Senate colleagues, she now supports requiring the president to establish a "schedule" so that, in her words, "we can begin to look at how quickly the Iraqi government assumes responsibility for its own security so that we, in turn, can withdraw our troops."

Clinton said Monday that the United States can help stabilize Iraq by agreeing to "hold" and "expand" certain parts of the country. But she indicated that such a move should be done in the context of the new Iraqi government knowing that "we're not going to be there forever."

She also said she does not think the U.S. has the "right combination" of troops on the ground in terms of military specialties.

Clinton, who is running for re-election in 2006, is widely considered to be the front-runner for her party's 2008 presidential nomination, based on her association with the Clinton brand, her fundraising prowess and her institutional support.

Her perceived front-runner status is also built on a perception among some Democratic strategists that her reservoir of goodwill in the Democratic base makes her uniquely capable of appealing to centrists in the general election by running as what former Al Gore spokesman Chris Lehane has dubbed "the American version of Iron Lady Thatcher."

Criticized by Activist Cindy Sheehan

Prior to Clinton's recalibration on Iraq, MoveOn.org's Tom Matzzie disapproved of what the senator had to say. He saw the senator as "supportive of the war without a disagreement with the administration over what direction to go in."

Matzzie, the Washington director of the Web-oriented liberal advocacy group that opposes the Iraq war, was heartened by Clinton's recent comments. He told ABC News that he sees them as a sign that she now recognizes the importance of having "a view on foreign policy that is different from that of the Republicans."


"It will send a signal to progressives that she understands their concerns," he said.

Clinton came to loggerheads with the anti-war movement following her September interview with the Voice. In an open letter written in October, Sheehan complained that Clinton "sounds exactly" like President Bush, Rush Limbaugh and other Republicans.

The anti-war crusader called Clinton a "political animal" who believes she has to be a "war hawk" to "keep up with the big boys."

The Republican National Committee's Tracey Schmitt reacted to Clinton's recent comments by telling ABC News: "In typical Clintonesque fashion, the senator is trying to have it both ways on a critical issue. There is no room for political calculations when making decisions in the central front of the War on Terror."

National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Nick concedes Clinton has "sounded more hawkish" than one might expect while serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he told ABC News she was "waffling a little bit" under pressure from "the liberal blogs and groups like MoveOn.org."

Nick said he found it "extremely condescending to say to the Iraqi people right now: 'You need to hurry up and get your act together because we're not going to be there forever.'"

"They know that. They get that," Nick said. "These are the people who are risking their lives and volunteering to take part in the Iraqi army and risking their lives to take part in an election."

Clinton's staff denies that she said anything new about Iraq in Rye Brook. Her more candid supporters who are not on her staff acknowledge that her thinking on Iraq appears to be evolving.

They argue,