The Skinny: Did Iraq PM Diss Bush?

White House Insists Cancellation Of Meeting By Nuri al-Maliki Was Not A Snub Of President

(CBS)  The Skinny is Hillary Profita's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.

---

The nation's major newspapers dwelled at length on what everyone is suggesting was a snub by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki – who abruptly cancelled a meeting with President Bush yesterday – and the White House denies was a snub. "The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed," writes the New York Times. " 'Absolutely not,' said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president."

The cancellation follows yesterday's leak in the The New York Times of a classified memo from NSA Adviser Stephen Hadley that expressed doubts about Maliki's leadership. White House officials "insisted the document had nothing to do with it."

The cancellation also occurred following turmoil in the Iraqi government yesterday, when a bloc of lawmakers loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr boycotted their duties "to protest Maliki's decision to meet with Bush," writes the Washington Post.

Everyone mentions Bartlett's quote response to the suggestions of a snub, that: "No one should read too much into this." The Los Angeles Times, however, does read into it, writing that "the surprising change of plans suggested more was at work than a scheduling matter among friends," as Bush rarely alters his plans.

"Senior Bush aides offered at least four explanations for the cancellation," writes the LAT, "finally dispatching a more junior official to tell reporters late Wednesday that Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II had decided mutually that a three-way conversation was not necessary."

Bush and Maliki met this morning privately and in a joint news conference and "said they agreed to speed the training of Iraqi security forces, and they pledged to continue cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq to stem violence."

Leaks Galore

The other Iraq-related issue taking up space on the front pages involved the jauntily named Iraq Study Group. "People familiar with" the deliberations of the ISG have leaked the panel's recommendations – that the US should call for a gradual withdrawal of the bulk of American combat forces in Iraq, but should not set a timetable for such a withdrawal.

According to the New York Times "the implicit message" of the report "was that the process should begin sometime next year." It does not specify whether the withdrawn troops would return to the U.S. or remain in Iraq's nearby bases.

"Some people knowledgeable about the group's deliberations" told the Washington Post that the possibility of reducing the size of the U.S.'s presence by half might be feasible in a year or two. The panel's approach "would place less emphasis on combat operations and more on logistics, intelligence and training and advising Iraqi units," writes the Post. That means, one "person familiar with the group's thinking noted," that the panel envisions a "substantial" military force remaining in Iraq.

The report is apparently quite politically convenient, according to "one person involved in the commission's debates," who told the Times: “I think everyone felt good about where we ended up. It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’”

Bring Back Brownie

Oh, FEMA, when will you ever learn? When a judge refers to your practices as "Kafkaesque," you've got to know he's not going to rule in your favor. Two front pages include the news that a federal judge did both yesterday.

His ruling said that FEMA's letters to tens of thousands of Katrina aid recipients explaining "why they suddenly had to reapply or were no longer eligible for emergency assistance," were vague and confusing and the agency had to resume payments until evacuees can appeal or FEMA can better explain its actions, writes USA Today. The Washington Post quoted from the judge's decision: "Free these evacuees from the 'Kafkaesque' application process they have had to endure."

A FEMA spokesman quoted by the Post "would not say how many people are affected by [the] decision, how much has been paid to them or how much is owed. He cited 'ongoing litigation' and a possible appeal." I'm guessing the Kafkaesque thing is going to be a little difficult to get past in the appeal.

You're Less (Or More) Charitable Than You Think

As Republicans are licking their wounds following this year's midterm elections, the Chronicle of Philanthropy (via Arts & Letters Daily) highlights a book that reveals some information that may provide some solace. It will also make lots of bloggers have an online conniption fit.

In his book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Arthur C. Brooks has found that "religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others," writes the Chronicle.

Brooks "has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade" and "he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda." Those factors will likely be ignored whence the blogosphere commences its haranguing. Although Brooks isn't exactly avoiding a walk down that road by criticizing Ralph Nader in the book, writing for the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page, and conducting "a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party," says the Chronicle.

While the book's "charity map" of the U.S. "closely resembles the now-famous electoral map showing blue and red states," it may not necessarily be a red-state/blue-state issue: "Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion," writes the Chronicle. "Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals." But that probably won't stop it from turning into a red-state/blue-state issue among the Web's opinionators. Let the bloviating begin.

[cilvie]

I think Bush would pull out if he thought he won. I think he doesn't want to be the one in the history books that went in without reason and left a country in ruins.
The original plan was, lets get the WMD's. The only problem with that was that there weren't any. They wanted so badly to find WMD's thats they only thing they prepared themselves for. No plan B. In all reality, we can't just leave them in ruins but we do have to tell them what to do in order for him to win. I'm going to guess you've all had a boss like that at one time.
The only thing is, with Colin Powell (http://www.phillyburbs.com/BHM/powell.shtml) and Donald Rumsfeld, who, I can only guess got so high and "respected" because of some kind of charisma, publicly admits "...you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.", all of this was just inevidable. These guys are litterally yes men. The only difference between the two is that SecState comes back for the commissions to tell about how he felt injustices were done. Any one in the military deserving to wear a uniform would not just sit there and take an order they disagree with enough to be willing to go in front of a formal committee and say so.

More quotes from SecDef Rumsfeld can be found at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/donald_rumsfeld.html. There is no more evidence that Rumsfeld only got the job on charm than his job record.

[themooniac]

ncolsens: well you have higher than a Bachlor of Arts degree - Well la-di-da, woe for the rest of us.........

[mh4cbs1]

Spineless Democrats won't end the horror of this War. They are beholden to the same corporate War Profiteers that own the GOP.

Maybe the Iraqis can rise up and vote US out. If democracy is anything other than a sham in Iraq, US will be voted out NOW. They don't want us there, and BUSH will NEVER leave without the control of oil and permanent bases.

JAIL BUSH JAIL CHENEY

War Criminals are in the White House. WAKE UP!

[besscannon-2009]

"Compassionate Conservatism", is that another way of saying "Don't Give a ***"? The People haven't mattered for the last six years, and we act too "patsy" to stand up for our rights given us by those old guys that constructed and signed our Constitution. A lot gets said, but nothing done. The hispanics had the grit to come out in force for their cause, where are all the so-called gutsy Americans to make their cause heard?
Might and power seems to be all the Washington 'machine' understands, and might possibly respond to. Other than that, Republican or Democrat, Washington D.C. bereaucrats will continue their status quo of enriching themselves and their 'buds' The money and the power will do everything possible to keep the multitude suspressed so as not to cause problems. Until we REALLY fight back, it will stay the same.

[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.

What do you expect from a president that only has a Bachelor of Arts degree?, was it finger painting or underwater basket weaving? Hell maybe I should be president my education goes further than that

[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.

[rharrin1]

The gop has a lot of big mouths yet another leak from this administration they will blame this on clinton again.
Comon Bill stop leaking all this news.

[themooniac]

I've reported the BUSHROCKS post twice today and CBS has removed those two posts he had his post up here three times before lunch earlier today. Now he has reposted again and I've reported it again. What a weirdo ("my past life as a Jacobite" pleeease)hence my earlier commentary...

[kwlambi]

all the hype this week on Iraq? wheres the results? ya all go over to Jordan for what? There is nothing clear at all, from the media, the admin or anywhere else about that bloody war zone. Shame on all of u pundits...

[jvman4u]

bushrocks1... you need to read where you post this same paragraph, I've seen this on nearly every article I'vread for days now... what's your reason to post NON-topic into every blog??? you need to find a better place for your MANTRA.... As for the Illegals problem and AMNASTY, it's wrong, wrong that our school, hospitals are crammed with children and adults that can't and won't learn english, and our Social security system is all but drained with benefits going out to illrgals, when our own born in the USA citizens that work here and pay taxes, can't get education, healthcare, and are denied or shorchanged on their social services should they fall sick, lose a job ect... take care of the NATIVE CITIZEN-before any and all others. Lastly Guest Workers? isn't that what we already have? they cross the borders and take the jobs, the wages fall, so now the american citizens can't compete with the job/pay undercut... even out children can't get those same first and early job experiences that we had back in the 50's,60's,70's... now our children have to speak spanish, Creole and adozen other languages, just to work at McDonalde ot Burger King...

[themooniac]

Bushrocks sucks

[themooniac]

"diss" Bush? Waht are we in high school? Is this an MTV webpage or CBS.com I'm on........geez

[nynative1340]

Bush ain't rockin' no mo'. More like limpin'. Limpin' his way out the door, with his tail tucked 'tween his legs. Can a duck do that?

Bush has changed colors so many times lately, he's lookin' more like a varigated zebra than a duck. Oh, maybe he's a Mallard duck?

[nynative1340]

keep waiting, bushrocks1. Better yet, get a life and get some new material...

[meboard]

mrthornman-nynative1340, I love it! Thanks!

[agnim]

"Did Iraq PM Diss Bush"

LOL

Who hasn't been dissing the lame and almost dead duck these days? LOL

The Iraqi prime minister is losing backing at home because of his meeting with the American butcher of Iraqis.
Add to that, the administration let it be known that the prime minister is incompetent (even more so than bush?). LOL

So why wouldn't the prime minister not seek to restore some semblance of 'honor' by snubbing the butcher of Iraqis?

[nynative1340]

Would I send my MOTHER to this war? You might ask would I send HER to World War II? Well, SHE was old enough to go. Or Vietnam? SHE still wasn't too old for that conflict. Maybe you would EXtinguish those conflicts; or maybe you would send your MOTHER to fight in them. But, regardless. I can't command my MOTHER to war. SHE has to make that choice; and SHE would probably send ME. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Well, unlike many of the cowards who post on this board, I fought in Vietnam, along side my MOM. Would I volunteer to fight in another war? Only in place of my MOTHER. Respond if drafted? Only to take my MOTHER's place. I do know, cause I've been there, done that, unlike many of the name calling cowards, both left and right, who post on this board. I'm not advocating war. Just denouncing those cowards who would send another to fight in a war that they would not.

So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Both proud and sad. Proud that they, like I and my MOM, fulfill an obligation to their country, while the cowards sit idly at home and complain. Sad that the cowards who send us to war have never withstood the rigors and dangers of war.

I do strongly believe that a country run by such cowards is doomed to repeat its warring mistakes of the past. The fact that we continue to elect these cowards is part of the failure in Iraq.

Continued below...

[nynative1340]

Continued from above...

Objective? How can anyone be objective when we are subjected to lies from the top; lies that are multiplied by the confused media. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is proof that the liars don't have a clue about the culture and religious factions in an area of the world where we are facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly dispise those lying cowards who have made the attempt to change a world they do not understand--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have seen in my lifetime: Remember LBJ? And Nixon? And Reagan? Iran-Contra? Ollie North? When it's all over, Bush could get his own TV show: "IRAQ WAR HORRORS" Bush won't succeed; the reason is simple--he didn't do his homework. This is BUSH's war; those cowards on the home-front who call any dissenters "traitors" are part of the reason for the failure; they simply don't understand what a democracy in a republic is all about. They would like to continue the one-party rule no matter how much it looks like a dictatorship. Anyone who doesn't "go along" with the one-party dictatorship is called a traitor by the cowards.

Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting. Keep waiting, bushrocks1. It took your idol six years to manifest this war; it ain't gonna' end in six weeks, or six months. Oh, and since you sound like one of those cowards who would send someone else to fight your war, send your MOTHER. Maybe she could help end it sooner.