WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2006
Adviser: Bush Not Swayed By Iraq Panel
Bush Won't Bring Troops Back From Iraq Because Of Group's Findings, Security Adviser Says
-
Play CBS Video Video Rumsfeld Memo Raises Concerns Washington ponders whether the surprising entries and curious timing of a newly disclosed memo from Donald Rumsfeld will lead to adjustments in the President's Iraq playbook. Joie Chen reports.
-
Video Sen. Reed On Iraq Policy Sharyl Attkisson speaks with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, regarding the situation in Iraq and the nomination of Robert Gates as Rumsfeld's replacement.
-
Video Stephen Hadley Face The Nation 12.03.06, part 1: National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley talked about the leaked memos and how long the president will take to consider his options in Iraq.
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay Donald Rumsfeld Defense Secretary and Iraq war architect steps down after six stormy years at the Pentagon.
Stephen Hadley also said Sunday that while Mr. Bush recognizes that something different needs to be done, he won't use the recommendations due this week from the Iraq Study Group as political cover for bringing troops home.
In fact, sources tell CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante that the president will wait until the end of the year before announcing what he's decided about how to change course in Iraq.
The White House was preparing for an important week: Mr. Bush planned to meet Monday with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the largest bloc in Iraq's parliament, and the recommendations from the bipartisan commission are to be released Wednesday.
"We have not failed in Iraq," Hadley said as he made the talk show rounds. "We will fail in Iraq if we pull out our troops before we're in a position to help the Iraqis succeed."
He added: "The president understands that we need to have a way forward in Iraq that is more successful."
But, with the leak of another insider's secret memo, the second in a week, the administration found itself on the defensive.
The latest, first reported in Sunday's New York Times, showed that Donald H. Rumsfeld called for a "major adjustment" in U.S. tactics on Nov. 6 — the day before an election that cost Republicans the Congress and Rumsfeld his job as defense secretary.
It's remarkable," Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute told CBS Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "The chief Iraq strategist says the strategy is not working. It's pretty blunt, especially when you put together the language that Rumsfeld begins with saying things clearly aren't going well and fast enough and some of the proposals he has below are radical in nature and would amount to a complete change, everything from accelerated withdrawal to only defending Baghdad, to embarking on FDR-style jobs creation programs in Iraq.
"The list of new options is so extensive and so fundamental that it points out Rumsfeld really thinks we are starting to lose," O'Hanlon said.
Hadley played down the memo as a laundry list of ideas rather than a call for a new course of action.
He said that Mr. Bush — just before a pivotal election — was not portraying a different sense of the war to the public than his own defense secretary was giving him in private.
"The president made clear he wanted to open the aperture, really have a re-look and look at a variety of ideas," Hadley told CBS's Face The Nation anchor Bob Schieffer. "And Secretary Rumsfeld, basically, was giving a list for consideration."
"The president has said things are not going well enough in Iraq, not going fast enough in Iraq – that is what is in the Rumsfeld memo," Hadley said. "And he has indicated that he is open to and wants to look at a full range of options for changing what we do and how we do it."
Democrats did not buy that.
"The Rumsfeld memo makes it quite clear that one of the greatest concerns is the political fallout from changing course here in the United States," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The bottom line is there is no one, including the former secretary, who thought the policy the president continues to pursue makes any sense."
Mr. Bush has nominated Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee is on Tuesday.
As pressure builds for a new strategy, the report from the Iraq Study Group increasingly is viewed as perhaps clearing the way for a U.S. exit strategy in Iraq. Hadley, though, said the review will be just one factor the White House considers.
After a meeting last week in Jordan, Mr. Bush expressed confidence that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government can lead the country toward peace with support from the United States.
Yet Hadley found himself defending his own memo that called that very point into question.
Written on Nov. 8 but disclosed just before Mr. Bush's meeting with the Iraqi leader, the memo described al-Maliki as "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."
Hadley said Sunday about the memo: "I made an assessment, raised a number of questions, hard questions that should have been raised. But if you look at that memo and if you look at what the president said in the press conference after the meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, it is clear that this government shares our objective for Iraq and has the will and desire to take responsibility."
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 CommentsIt only took me thirty days to realize I made those remarks talk about everybody trying to save face. ha ha ha
For the last six years the democrats have been told to sit down and shut up by the republican majority.
They weren't allowed to introduce any legislation, you are free to feel that way but I don't know how.
Re: "It sounds as if you are trying to protect bush maybe not I don't know."
Hardly. I look forward to his lengthy incarceration. However, Bush is a mere puppet of Corporate interests who does what he is told to do by his paymasters, not unlike the vast majority of our Congressional representatives.
They are just as much part of the problem, in my opinion.
Re: "Was war declared with korea vietnam?????"
No, they weren't. How did those turn out, by the way? Didn't both of those conflicts result in costly and disgraceful defeats for the U.S.?
There is a very good reason why "war powers" authority is placed in the hands of the Legislative branch. They theorhetically best represent the interests of the people, and no one man should ever be trusted with so much power. This can lead to disaster, as we have seen, again and again.
Was war declared with korea vietnam?????
It sounds as if you are trying to protect bush maybe not I don't know. The republicans were the majority and they didn't have much time either. What it comes down to is bush lied and that is why the vote went the way it did.
There has been no formal declaration of war by our Congress, making this "war" illegitimate as well as illegal.
I personally was able to determine that the case far invading Iraq to be pure horsesh!t, prior to the invasion, using only publically available information, as were millions and millions of people around the globe, who stated as much publically and loudly. If we were able to make this determination, surely our Congress members had at least as much opportunity and resources to do the same.
If our legislators failed to educate themselves on this very important issue, prior to waging a disgraceful and disaterous war of aggression, then they are clearly not qualified to lead, and should step down, in my opinion.
Have you had your head in the sand all this time?
Yes the congress voted to go to iraq but only after bush and company lied to them. Before they voted yes on national news bush was told that iraq had no wmd and not involved with terrorist bush replied find it and that is a fact I saw it on the news. That is a boss saying tell me what I want to hear. About 2 weeks later a miracle happened I found it I found it.
I understood your point, I just wanted to make one of my own.
Re: "One of the most important authority%u2019s is the Presidents%u2019 decision to send young women and men to war"
This is not correct. Our Congress has this responsibility, as clearly stated in our Constitution. They do NOT have the authority to abdicate this responsibility to the President, or to the Resident, as the case may be.
In this way, our Congress men and women shamefully failed the people of the U.S., including a shocking number of Democrats. Those responsible for this grave error should step down, in my opinion.
Good evening.
They mean before he was FIRED, he may have resigned after he was FIRED, but he WAS fired.
The only reason this BUSH idiot is open to ANY ideas or sugegstions is because his party LOST the elections, and now after years of slamming the dems every which way he is prancing around on eggshells.
Had the repubic-CONS won, we would still be hopelessly stuck in this Bush created QUAGMIRE
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 Comments