U.S. Denies Nixed Summit Is Snub

Conflicting Explanations Surround Cancellation Of Bush's High-Stakes Meeting With Iraqi Prime Minister

(CBS/AP)  President Bush's high-profile meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday was canceled in a stunning turn of events after disclosure of U.S. doubts about the Iraqi leader's capabilities and a political boycott in Baghdad protesting his attendance.

Instead of two days of talks, Bush and al-Maliki will have breakfast and a single meeting followed by a news conference on Thursday morning, the White House said.

The meeting will focus on the reposition of U.S. troops inside Iraq, engaging Iran and Syria, and dealing with militias, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

Bush and al-Maliki are also expected to agree on the transfer of more authority to Iraqi security forces, said U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

“There will be an agreement on transfer of capabilities, Iraqi capabilities at the faster rate to the Iraqis and to the prime minister, yes,” he told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric.

The abrupt cancellation was an almost unheard-of development in the high-level diplomatic circles of a U.S. president, a king and a prime minister. There was confusion — and conflicting explanations —about what happened.

Bush had been scheduled to meet in a three-way session with al-Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II on Wednesday night. He and had rearranged his schedule to be in Amman for both days for talks aimed at reducing the spiral of violence in Iraq.

The last-minute cancellation was not announced until Bush had already come to Raghadan Palace and posed for photographs alone with the king.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that the delay was a snub by al-Maliki directed at Bush or was related to the leak of a memo written by White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley questioning the prime minister's capacity for controlling violence in Iraq.

"Absolutely not," Bartlett said, adding that king and the prime minister had met before Mr. Bush arrived from a NATO summit in Latvia. "That negated the purpose to meet tonight together in a trilateral setting."

A senior administration official, who spoke with Khalilzad, basically echoed Bartlett's account.

The Jordanians and the Iraqis jointly decided it was not the best use of time because they both would be seeing the president separately, said the official.

Members of the Jordanian and Iraqi delegations contacted Khalilzad, who called Air Force One and spoke with Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, giving them a heads-up, the official said.

However, Redha Jawad Taqi, a senior aide of top Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim who also was in Amman, said the Iraqis balked at the three-way meeting after learning the king wanted to broaden the talks to include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Two senior officials traveling with al-Maliki, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the prime minister had been reluctant to travel to Jordan in the first place and decided, once in Amman, that he did not want "a third party" involved in talks about subjects specific to the U.S.-Iraqi relationship.

With al-Maliki already gone from the palace, Bush had an abbreviated meeting and dinner with the king before heading early to his hotel.

The cancellation came after the disclosure of a classified White House memo, written Nov. 8 by Hadley. In one particularly harsh section, Hadley asserted: "The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

Administration officials did not dispute the leaked account, saying that on balance the document was supportive of the Iraqi leader and generally portrayed him as well-meaning.

The president "has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki," said White House press secretary Tony Snow, who added that al-Maliki "has been very aggressive in recent weeks in taking on some of the key challenges."

The memo recommended steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader's position, including possibly sending more troops to defend Baghdad and providing monetary support for moderate political candidates for Iraq's parliament.

The Iraqi prime minister also faced political pressure at home about the summit. Thirty Iraqi lawmakers and five cabinet ministers loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said they were boycotting Parliament and the government to protest al-Maliki's presence at the summit.

[jw218389]

Oops, 62 years ago! Even worse!

[jw218389]

RE: I dont recall seeing a jeep in WWII having armor, do you?

Duh! They didn't have MedEvacs, "Bulletproof" vests, microprocessor controlled UAV's, Field Medical Hospitals, or even real antibiotics.

Why in earth does citing a war that ENDED 52 years ago make Bush's idiotic decisions correct?

The difference is we TRIED in WWII to give our troops the best - Bush and Congress have NEVER financially support this mission.

TJ you sound like one of those GOP Chickenhawks that have never been in the military but are SO QUICK to sacrifice our soldiers over some GOP fundraising venture (Iraq).

They also didn't give the idle rich the largest tax cuts ever during WWII either...

[tj1504]

"Had Rumsfeld actually followed Gen. Shinseki's counsel, US troops never would have asked Rumsfeld why they had no mission-ready armor for their vehicles."

I dont recall seeing a jeep in WWII having armor, do you?
*hit a hummvee is the replacment for the jeep...

Armor had to be developed...
there was only one design for a armored hummvee before 95 and it was only for a limited missions (READ EOD/ENGR task)

[tj1504]

frankly6 you have no clue,

[frankly6]

The ultimate vindication goes to Rep. John Murtha, who one year ago risked his Senate standing and credibility to announce it was time to bring the troops home.

Rep. Murtha's widely-publicized plan met a firestorm of criticism from Bush and followers, only to be adopted liberally by the Baker-Hamilton study group.

Equally vindicated must be Gen. Eric Shinseki, who advised congress before Iraq that something on the order of hundreds of thousands of US ground troops would be required for successful invasion and occupation of Iraq, post-Saddam. For his trouble, Rumsfeld immediately forced Shinseki into retirement.

Gen. Shinseki is the military innovator who spearheaded the upgrade of both US military equipment and strategic/tactical thinking. The general recast the military as a forward-deployed, force-multiplied strategic presence, with heavy use of advanced materials, power plant and information systems technology.

Rumsfeld is credited unfairly with these accomplishments simply for having endorsed them.
Had Rumsfeld actually followed Gen. Shinseki's counsel, US troops never would have asked Rumsfeld why they had no mission-ready armor for their vehicles.

And had the US used Gen. Shinseki's force estimate, the Iraq debacle might never have occurred because congress might have realized what it was about to enter.

[frankly6]

Would I eat green eggs and ham in this war? You might ask would I eat green eggs and ham in WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish whether you would eat green eggs and ham in either of them. But the question is misdirected. I cannot command others to do this and thus cannot be commanded to do so myself. So the better question would be: would I volunteer go to war in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? No! I'm to busy spamming these boards with mindless drible. I'm not equivocating, only saying that I am really wacked out on drugs. And I have nightmares of battle (from my past life in a doctor Suess book). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? I've got my bumper sticker! But I do strongly believe that a country, ummm, sorry, lost my train of thought there. Oh yeah! There is no failure in Iraq, unless we leave before the job is done. Then we would lose, which I think may be the opposite of win. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a really bad idea, that's why I greatly laugh at those who have made the attempt and fall flat on there arrogant *sses--the Bush administration. They have been resolutely wrongheaded in there aproach, something I've seen far too often in my lifetime. They will succeed, because they don't have a clue and couldn't buy one. Also the traitors at home: those who expect acountability. Yes the traitors..or was I thinking bad eggs? Green eggs? Yes, that's it!! I am hungry, gotta go. Are we still in Iraq? Why?..I'm waiting.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[j-whitman]

Good night

[j-whitman]

Bellal,, I think that's part of the problem, we don't understand thier views, the old lockjawed thinking that because we are America we can never be wrong,.. Isreal should never have been declared a state, yet we encourage & support them beyond all other nations.. All European nations opposed it to begin with... We need to learn other lessons as Viet Nam, & the Cold War... We were wrong then also.. We fail to listen.. We fail to see or explore what other countries see.. As in Iraq, they had freedom, just not how we see it. Try reading what Ahmadinejad says.. He makes alot more sense than Bush.

[bellal-2009]

Goodnight Jwhitman, have a good evening.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[alphaa10-2009]

Rep. Murtha risked his HOUSE standing, but I am sure as a representative, he had no Senate standing to worry about.

[bellal-2009]

Jwhitman, I don't understand why Iraq can't find a path to peace. But I've never been able to understand why Israel and Palestine can't find peace either.

[alphaa10-2009]

jwhitman said, "I don't think we can fix it, NY Times now reports Iraq Study Group is recomending pullback of our troops..."

---
The ultimate vindication goes to Rep. John Murtha, who one year ago risked his Senate standing and credibility to announce it was time to bring the troops home.

Rep. Murtha's widely-publicized plan met a firestorm of criticism from Bush and followers, only to be adopted liberally by the Baker-Hamilton study group.

Equally vindicated must be Gen. Eric Shinseki, who advised congress before Iraq that something on the order of hundreds of thousands of US ground troops would be required for successful invasion and occupation of Iraq, post-Saddam. For his trouble, Rumsfeld immediately forced Shinseki into retirement.

Gen. Shinseki is the military innovator who spearheaded the upgrade of both US military equipment and strategic/tactical thinking. The general recast the military as a forward-deployed, force-multiplied strategic presence, with heavy use of advanced materials, power plant and information systems technology.

Rumsfeld is credited unfairly with these accomplishments simply for having endorsed them.
Had Rumsfeld actually followed Gen. Shinseki's counsel, US troops never would have asked Rumsfeld why they had no mission-ready armor for their vehicles.

And had the US used Gen. Shinseki's force estimate, the Iraq debacle might never have occurred because congress might have realized what it was about to enter.

[j-whitman]

Bellal,, Praying ain't going to work, especially when our extreme religious leaders want anything but peace.

[bellal-2009]

I can't say Jwhitman, I know how strongly you feel about it. Pray for peace, I guess.

[j-whitman]

Bellal,, Yes, though it seems as some will never get the picture of the total lunacy of starting a war of aggression with peace time troop numbers & tax cuts, and again with no plan for success, as if success could ever have been achieved in the 1st place.. Now let's start seeing accountability instead of pointing fingers.

[bellal-2009]

Hello to you Jwhitman, I'm trying to read all the posts on this story because I think they're pretty good.

[j-whitman]

Bellal,, how's it going?

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.