BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 17, 2006
Blair Makes Surprise Iraq Visit
British Prime Minister In Baghdad; 3 More American Soldiers Killed
-
Play CBS Video Video More U.S. Troops To Iraq As Donald Rumsfeld officially exits the Pentagon, CBS News has learned one of his successor's first acts will be to approve a request to send more U.S. troops to Iraq. David Martin reports.
-
Video Iraqis Have Hope For Future Iraqis believed Saddam Hussein to be an evil dictator. But many also think their lives were safer under his regime compared with the present bouts of violence. Randall Pinkston reports.
-
Video Anniversary Of Saddam Capture It's been three years since Saddam Hussein was found and arrested by American troops in a spider hole in Iraq. Byron Pitts reports.
-
-
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a press conference outside the British Residence in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006. Blair arrived in Cairo Saturday for talks on Middle East peace process, as part of his multi-country tour of the region. (AP Photo /Eddie Keogh)
-
Rear Admiral Brian Brannman presents a folded U.S. flag to late Navy medical corpsman Christopher A. Anderson's mother, Debra Anderson, as his brother Kyle Anderson and father, Rick Anderson, sit by her side during a funeral service for Anderson at Grace Evangelical Free Church in Longmont, Colo., Saturday, Dec. 16, 2006. Anderson, 24, died Dec. 4 in Anbar Province, Iraq. (AP Photo/Joshua Buck)
-
Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Peter Pace watch troops march during an Armed Forces Full Honor Review for Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, Friday, Dec. 15, 2006. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
-
An Iraqi policeman searches a driver in central Baghdad, Iraq, on Friday, Dec. 15, 2006. The Iraqi government has imposed a ban on all vehicle traffic on Fridays, fearing yet more attacks on worshippers. (AP)
-
Iraqi soccer fans cheer their team before the start of the Asian Games Soccer Men's gold medal final against Qatar in Doha, Qatar, on Friday, Dec. 15, 2006. Iraq lost the match, 1-0. (AP)
-
-
Interactive Iraq: A Turning Point? New Congress, change at the Pentagon, study group report; what does the future hold?
-
Photo Essay Iraq In Pictures A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive Attacks Map Details on the insurgency and terrorism that has continued to take lives since the fall of Saddam.
Blair held talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a visit designed to show support for fragile attempts to halt continuing bloodshed in the country.
Blair, who is traveling the Middle East to push for Israeli-Palestinian peace, was whisked into the heavily fortified Green Zone from the airport on a military helicopter. He had flown to Baghdad by a Royal Air Force transport plane from Cairo. It was his sixth visit to the country since the U.S.-led 2003 invasion.
During a joint news conference with al-Maliki, the British prime minister stressed the importance of "all countries in the region" supporting the fledgling Iraqi government, and insisted Iraq had made progress since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
"Our task — ours, the Americans, the whole of the coalition, the international community and the Iraqis themselves — is to make sure that the forces of terrorism don't defeat the will of the people to have a democracy," Blair said at a news conference with al-Maliki.
Blair rejected a suggestion that the sectarian bloodshed being experienced across the country was created by the U.S. and British decision to invade, saying the challenge in Iraq was part of a wide struggle against those opposed to democracy.
"There is innocent blood being spilt, but it's not being spilt by the Iraqi government democratically elected or by those supporting them. It's being spilt by the very forces that worldwide are trying to prevent moderation, prevent modernization, prevent people expressing their will through democracy rather than through violence," he said.
Late on Sunday afternoon, Blair flew to Basra to visit some of the troops stationed there.
In a cavernous hangar and before a backdrop of a Lynx helicopter, Blair told some of the 7,000 British troops serving in southern Iraq that they were fighting on behalf of "people of tolerance and moderation" around the world.
"This is real conflict, real battle, and it is a different kind of enemy — not fighting a state, but fighting a set of ideas and ideologies, a group of extremists who share the same perspectives," Blair said. "What we need to try to do is build an alliance of moderate people against the extreme."
During what has become an annual holiday-season visit to the region, Blair told troops that extremism was causing havoc in neighborhoods from Basra to London — a reference to the July 2005 transit bombings in the British capital.
"The crazy thing about today's world is it actually comes back to our own streets," he said. "All over the world the same struggle is going on, and if we don't stand up and fight for the people of tolerance and moderation who want to live together, whatever their fate, then the people of hatred and sectarianism will triumph."
Battling extremism has been the theme of Blair's trip to the region, which began in Turkey, moved to Egypt, and is to continue in Israel, the Palestinian Territories, and the United Arab Emirates.
"Our country and other countries like it are having to rediscover what it means to fight for what you believe in," Blair told the soldiers.
Britain has the largest commitment of troops in Iraq of any country after the United States. More than 120 British personnel have died in the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that ousted Saddam Hussein.
British officials said several thousand troops are expected to be withdrawn from Iraq next year.
Blair gave no new details, however, of when troops might leave Iraq.
Meanwhile, in other developments:
The soldiers were conducting a patrol to clear a route so that another unit could move through the area on Saturday, the military said in a statement. A bomb exploded near one of their vehicles, the statement said.
The toll raised to 57 the number of Americans killed in Iraq in December. At least 2,945 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
A Red Crescent official said the gunmen left women behind at the office in Andalus square. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of safety concerns.
The Red Crescent, which is part of the international Red Cross movement, has around 1,000 staff and some 200,000 volunteers in Iraq. It works closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which visits detainees and tries to provide food, water and medicine to Iraqis.
Mazin Abdellaha, the secretary-general of the Iraq Red Crescent, appealed to the kidnappers to release the captives.
"They represent a humanitarian agency that works for the general good, and this agency helps all people regardless of their sect or ethnicity," Abdellaha said.
At least half a dozen mass kidnappings have been carried out in the Iraqi capital this year, possibly by armed groups linked to the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.
But key players on both ends of the Sunni-Shiite divide skipped Saturday's meeting, raising doubt that the conference will succeed in healing the country's wounds.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 100 Comments
- Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican who voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002 and has supported it ever since, now says the current U.S. war effort is "absurd" and "may even be criminal."
In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Smith called for changes in U.S. policy that could include rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq. He said he never would have voted for the conflict if he had known the intelligence that President Bush gave the American people was inaccurate.
What a stupid republican Senator (like many others). These are the senators with blue ties around the neck with no brain above and no heart below. They get duped by a story full of lies about the Sad-Dam and his program of WMD. Very tempting to go it alone behind courageous but moron Walking-Liar Bush.
Mislead by Zionists Wolfowitz, Perle et al (Where are they now?). The whole administration has been duped. They were told, the Bi-ble stipulates to go into Iraq to fight the new prince of Darkness (hint, hint, SadDam)
No pity for those mules and donkeys of the republican party. They should all be held to account. As per Gord Smith they are criminals - Reply to this comment
- We can only hope that the Blair Poodle's flight is a one-way.
- Reply to this comment
- Why is the media always intent on calling a high government official's visit to Iraq a "surprise visit"? Are not they always surprise visits, are the officials expected to inform the world (terrorists) what flight they are arriving on?
- Reply to this comment
- fascistUSA,
Indeed. - Reply to this comment
- Dear CBS editors,
This is now the THIRD article assigned to this thread, while comments relating to the first two articles remain. As I have already indicated, the first 6 pages of comments here relate to the first article only.
Please clean up this mess, and restore the original 'Red Crescent' article, so that it can be referenced by others. - Reply to this comment
- How can anyone stop a Civil War? Bush opened the "Gates of Hell" now "GREED" will win. Which ever side Iran will back should win. Bush's mission changes weekly but his actions stay the course stays the same. If the War stops they can't steal anymore,he won't allow that to happen! What's sad is Bush using the most powerful Military and can't compete with a 3rd world country! Way to go Duyba,let's use your words for all your administration's failures. Great Job!
- Reply to this comment
- SharnCedar
My point is that the fluctuation in the polls reflects the fact that opposition to the war is not based on principle.... rather events on the ground... if it based on principle... opposition at the start would have been overwhelming & would remain so today...
Again... do most people who oppose the war in Iraq do so on principle... because they question the very rationale for us there in the first place, the use of pre-war intelligence and the suggested link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda that the administration tried so hard to establish? I think not...
Again the polls would suggest that as long as US troops are not dying and things seem to be going well... public opinion on the war is more favourable... the key question is this: are Americans actually opposed to the war in Iraq or opposed to the fact that we don't seem to be winning?
No wonder Bush is being so stubborn... all he needs is to reduce the US body count and throw in a few blue riband events and he is likely to see his Iraq poll numbers peak again... he is playing politics with the unprincipled.... - Reply to this comment
- There is a problem with using polls as a measure of public opinion, and even a worse problem with using them to direct policy. The problem is that people pay more or less attention to a matter, and they have more or less stake in a matter. For most issues or concerns, most people really don't pay attention. This is even true of the Iraq war. So if you poll all people, rather than informed or interested people, you mostly get the result of whatever the most recent media campaign is saying to folks.
Like if I was to ask you what you thought about a star, say Brad Pitt, you would immediately think of the recent media created information surrounding him. Your opinion would not reflect Brad Pitt himslef, or the reality of his life, or even an accurate insider tidbit or two, but exactly what you get from the media reflected back.
Most people know less about foreign policy or war or say Islam than you and I know about Brad Pitt.
So the polls are used by the leadership to justify the policies they do, and its kind of a sham. We need to hold the leadership responsible, not the American people. - Reply to this comment
- rsoxfan1123
I always look forward to your posts and take your point... However I beg to differ with you on this occasion.... If you track the polls over time you will seek a direct correlation between approval for the war and events on the ground... the spike generally does not last long because much of the news out of Iraq tends to be bad... but there has always been an increase in approval in response of a perceive "success milestone" (elections, constitutional referendum, capture of Saddam etc)
As for the IQ of the average American... I think Americans are actually astute... the sad thing is that unlike the Brits who smelled a rat from day one and protested in large numbers on the streets of London (one million in a 2003 pre-war protest) the American public allowed itself to be seduced by the fear-mongering that masqueraded as foreign polcy and cowed into submission by the idea that to oppose the President is "unpatriotic"
Many in this country (including our elected leaders... Democrat as well as Republican) suspended reason, common-sense and good judgement and the nation is now paying the price for it...
On this war I strongly believe that most American's are waiting for the next big news story before deciding whether they are for it or against it... - Reply to this comment
- Studies by military experts have shown that in order to pacify a developing civil war, one soldier for every 20 citizens is required. The population of Baghdad is almost six million. Therefore it would take 300,000 troops to stabilize it. That would require doubling the U.S. troops in Iraq and all of them would have to be assigned to Baghdad. The administrations plan to send 20,000 to 30,000 is just a band aid. It would take an additional 150,000! Don't send more U.S. troops to their deaths. The war is already lost. Allan Klumpp, Weston, Massachusetts. Klumpp@alum.mit.edu
- Reply to this comment
- heetseeker-where you are making your mistake is in your estimation of WHY American support is fading. It is not due to specific events (although polls may fluctuate slightly in response to these, it is true) but rather the increasing body count and the rising cost of the war. It is also related to the general IQ of the average American. They did not foresee the amount of money and lives that would be drained into this black hole. As the ridiculousness of this travesty becomes apparent, people are beginning to catch on and are deciding not to send their sons and daughters to be slaughtered needlessly in a foreign country. It took America six years, thousands of lives and a half a trillion dollars to figure it out, but better late than never.
- Reply to this comment
- Feelfree1:
It's called a glitch in The Matrix. Dejavu.
The Fascist American Corporate Propoganda War Machine will begin again shortly. Did you remember to buy popcorn & snacks?
Now, just sit back and pretend you never saw it.
AND whatever you do... don't tell Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus.
They'll just start a REVOLUTION. - Reply to this comment
- "As the Wind Blows"
Current opinion polls suggest that upwards of 60% of Americans do not support the war in Iraq. Although that figure has progressively increased over the last two years. It has also fluctuated - increasing & decreasing in response to events in Iraq.
This is important because it calls into question whether public opposition to this war is based on principle (we should not be there because the war was prosecuted on confected evidence and imagined threats)... or whether it is opposition based on the view that we do not appear to be winning the war...
Despite the questionable nature of this war the American public overwhelmingly supported it in 2003. This support sky-rocketed following the toppling of Saddam & remained at or above 60% support during 2003 & much of 2004.
Even when support dropped, it would peak again in response to various meaningless blue riband events (the capture of Saddam Hussein, handover to the puppet regime of Ayad Allawi, democratic elections & the constitutional referendum etc)
Only since 2005 & 2006 has opposition really hardened. The drip-drip of casualties (nearly 3,000 to date), sectarian violence & cost, being key drivers of public opinion.
Maybe Bush is not as dumb as people think. Maybe he studies the polls too & realises that a significant element of American public opinion is fickle, unprincipled & subject to the prevailing wind.
Wait for the next blue riband event Iraq & then watch the polls... - Reply to this comment
- Feelfree1:
It's called a glitch in The Matrix. Dejavu.
The Fascist American Corporate Propoganda War Machine will begin again shortly. Did you remember to buy popcorn & snacks?
Now, just sit back and pretend you never saw it.
AND whatever you do... don't tell Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus.
They'll just start a REVOLUTION. - Reply to this comment
- Just curious, Can the President and Vice President be impeached and tried together as coconspirators? If not, please forget impeachment. As difficult as it seems at first, worse than Bush is actually possible and it's Cheney.
- Reply to this comment
- BUSH is the man.He has done what nobody could ever do.UNITED STATES,the world's greatest super power with the greatest Military and Military equipments and the best sophisticated weapons could never loose a war against an enemy who doesn't have NAVY,ARMY,AIR FORCE and MARINE.Bush,you have made it happen.You the MAN.
- Reply to this comment
- Can we impeach him for failure to get it up? Well, probably not since we couldn't impeach the other for failure to get it down.
- Reply to this comment
- From:
www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=61866
"according to a survey of 2,000 people by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, more than 90 per cent of Iraqis believe the country is worse off now than before the war in 2003" - Reply to this comment
- marcpcbs at 12:10 PM,
Very good analysis! Nice summary! - Reply to this comment
- Dear CBS editors:
The first 6 pages of comments on this web page correspond to a completely different article.
Yesterday, this page was assigned to a CBS News story entitled, "Iraqi Red Crescent: U.S. Is Biggest Threat". The first 6 pages of comments relate to that original article.
Today, the "U.S. Is Biggest Threat" article has disappeared, and this pro-war nonsense article has materialized in its place, complete with the continuing comment thread from the disappeared article.
I sincerely hope that this is an editing mistake or a software glitch, rather than an overt effort to replace an important hard news story, with this pro-war propaganda fluff piece.
What is going on here? - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
