U.S. Denies Nixed Summit Is Snub

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

(CBS/AP) 
Bartlett said that Wednesday night's three-way meeting had always been planned as "more of a social meeting" and that Bush and Maliki on Thursday would have a "robust" meeting on their own.

The president was expected to ask the embattled Iraqi prime minister how best to train Iraqi forces faster so they can shoulder more responsibility for halting the sectarian violence and, specifically, mending a gaping Sunni-Shiite divide. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Bush is under unrelenting pressure from Democrats and many Republicans to start bringing them home.

Some analysts suggested that the memo might actually help more than damage al-Maliki, showing distance between him and Bush.

Jon Alterman, former special assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said the memo's doubts about al-Maliki "seemed calculated to steel his spine."

"This memo reads to me more like a memo to Prime Minister al-Maliki than to President Bush," said Alterman, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It has his entire to-do list as well as a list of what he'll get if he agrees."

In Washington, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called on President Bush to appoint a high-ranking special envoy to work with the Iraqi government on disbanding militias, including all Iraq's factions in the nation's political process and equitably distributing resources such as oil revenue.

"Steps have to be taken now," he said.

Bush's meeting with al-Maliki is part of a new flurry of diplomacy the administration has undertaken across the Middle East. Hadley's memo suggests that Secretary of State Rice should hold a meeting for Iraq and its neighbors in the region early next month and also that the U.S. could step up efforts to get Saudi Arabia to help. It was written just weeks before Secretary of State Dick Cheney was dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

Senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the document is still classified even though published, said many of the concerns raised by Hadley have been or are being rectified in the month that has passed since his trip to Baghdad.

[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.