Bush: Iraq Plan Must Wait Until New Year

Top Advisers Meet At President's Ranch, But Say They Need More Time

(CBS/AP)  President Bush worked nearly three hours at his Texas ranch Thursday to design a new U.S. policy in Iraq, then emerged to say he and his advisers need more time to craft the plan he will announce in the new year.

Burdened by low approval ratings on his handling of the war, the president is under mounting pressure to come up with a new blueprint for U.S. involvement in Iraq, where the execution of Saddam Hussein perhaps as early as this weekend could incite further violence.

"We've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan," Mr. Bush said, appearing before reporters outside an office building near his Texas ranch. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates flanked Mr. Bush as he made his statement.

"The key to success in Iraq is to have a government that's willing to deal with the elements that are trying to prevent this young democracy from succeeding," the president said.

The session was billed as a chance for Mr. Bush to further discuss all the options — including one that would send another 20,000 troops into Baghdad, which would almost certainly mean more American casualties, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

Playing down expectations, the White House called the meeting a "non-decisional" gathering.

As Mr. Bush spoke, the administration was preparing for the execution of Saddam Hussein as early as this weekend, based on information that U.S. officials in Baghdad were receiving from the Iraqi government, a senior administration official said.

Mr. Bush has been saddled with low approval ratings on the war and is under increasing pressure to come up with a new war plan in Iraq, where the Saddam's execution could incite further violence. The president took no questions from reporters and offered no details about the strategy he is set to announce to the nation sometime next month.

The president is considering the so-called surge option: increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units in hopes of quelling violence to provide a window of opportunity for political reconciliation and rebuilding.

One of the options is to send another 20,000 troops into Baghdad, which would almost certainly mean more American casualties.

A Pentagon official says commanders in Iraq told Gates they could support a surge in troops, if it was part of a larger plan to turn responsibility over to Iraqi forces and to put unemployed Iraqis back to work with reconstruction projects, Martin reports. But the same official said a smaller buildup — of about 8,000 U.S. troops — is the most Iraqi prime minister Malaki could handle politically.

"I think the debate is really coming down to: Surge large. Surge small. Surge short. Surge longer," said Tom Donnelly, a defense and security expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "I think the smart money would say that the range of options is fairly narrow and driven by the situation on the ground in Iraq.

"Some military experts viewed the president's unexpected remarks last week that he backs future expansion of the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen strain on ground forces as a hint that he plans to send in more troops.

"As I think about this plan, I always have our troops in mind," Mr. Bush said in a brief statement in which he thanked the troops for their service.

He pledged to continue consulting with members of Congress and the Iraqis and stressed the importance of having a government in Iraq that can deal with the militias and the rising violence.

Mr. Bush said one of his resolutions for the new year is that the troops will be safe and that the United States would come closer to its goal in 2007 of having an Iraq that can sustain independence and govern itself.

"We want to help them succeed," he said, adding that "I fully understand that it's important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission.

"It's important for the American people to understand that success in Iraq is vital for our own security. If we were not to succeed in Iraq, the enemy — the extremists, the radicals — would have safe haven from which to launch further attacks. They would be emboldened. They would be in a position to threaten the United States of America."

But the president's decision to invade Iraq came under criticism from an unlikely source: late president Gerald Ford.

Martin reports that in an interview conducted two years ago by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, but released only after Ford's death, he said, "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war."

A senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president had already publicly talked about the meeting said the gathering lasted nearly three hours and was followed by a lunch. Another National Security Council session was likely before Mr. Bush announces his plan in the first few weeks of January, the official said.

He said that Gates and Pace, who just returned from Iraq, elaborated on the briefing they gave the president at Camp David, Md., before Christmas and talked more about what they saw and heard on the ground. The bulk of the meeting focused on security, but the president and his advisers also talked about economic and political issues in Iraq.

The official said that following memorial events for former President Gerald R. Ford and the start of the new Congress on Jan. 4, Mr. Bush and his advisers would be conducting further consultations with lawmakers.

"I would be surprised if people walked out of the room still completely confused as to the direction he wants to go in," John Podesta, former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff and president of the liberal Center for American Progress, said Wednesday. "If they do, that's yet another bad sign that we're completely adrift."

Initially, White House advisers said Mr. Bush would announce a plan before the Dec. 25 Christmas holiday. Then, they said it was more likely after the first of the year. Now, they say only that Mr. Bush will deliver his speech sometime between New Year's and his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.

"They've got to be looking at his poll ratings that have sunk to record low levels and say, 'We've got to get out there and change the political discourse on this question' and try to re-establish the president's authority," Podesta said, adding that each day Mr. Bush delays announcing his decision, the public becomes more skeptical that he has a plausible plan.

In another action that might foreshadow an increase in troops, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division will deploy to Kuwait to serve as the reserve force early next year.

The unit — which would include as many as 3,300 soldiers — is expected to be deployed into Iraq early next year. The move could be part of a short-term surge of troops to the battlefront to quell the continuing violence.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, Podesta and other policy makers urged lawmakers to fund troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he suggested that an up-or-down vote in Congress be required if lawmakers are asked to fund more than 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. There are about 140,000. In addition, the letter calls for putting limits on the mobilization of National Guard and Reserve forces.

[randalds]

I see you are back on the coke and booze again.

Try AA...liar
Posted by missAmerica4 at 11:14 AM : Dec 31, 2006


Sorry, but those are your heros Bush's vices and here's hoping he rediscovers the pleasure of his addictions since he of course never had any medical treatment for them. He's what's known as a dry drunk. An alcoholic who has stopped drinking for a while, but hasn't had the guts to face his demons, so he'll be back to the booze and coke soon himself. Hey in his case he'll probably make more sense drunk and high.

[missamerica4]

RandalDS


LOL...What a filthy mouthed raving lunatic.

I see you are back on the coke and booze again.

Try AA...liar

[randalds]

Stop fu*cking around! If you really care then put your feet where your mouth is and protest! Carry a sign! Bit*ch! Complain! Make yourself heard! If not then you're just a mouthy as*shole that likes to complain like the right wingers say you are!

On March 17th there will be protests across the country (and around the world) and (if that idiot in the White House orders in more troops) some of them may well be violent! We can hope so! Protest and protest violently or peacefully, which ever turns you on but godda*mn it DO SOMETHING!

Go to www.internationalanswer.org and find out how to make your voice heard. Otherwise shut the fu*ck up and let Bush run your life for you!

Be a coward or be a hero, but *** it make your position known! Speak up!

[randalds]

If you voted for Bush in the last election then you are either very rich, very stupid or fooled by him one more time and deathly sick about your mistake. Come into the sunlight. Unlike republicans we forgive you for the error of your ways in being hooked by this as*shole. We'll let you back into the process. We'll give you your voice back and a real channel for your anger.

Fu*ck Bush...and we'll help you do it. You know it's the right choice.

[randalds]

Why in the fu*ck do you think the government lets me get away with as much as I do? lol!

[randalds]

I held an above TS clearance myself missamerica (surprised? You shouldn't be) but that's mostly BS anyway. 99.9% of highly classified material is dull boring garbage that affects no one. It's the other .01% that keeps the government off your back for knowing it. That's always what they're sorry they told you or let you in on. That's what makes them leave younthe fu*ck alone when you want them to.

The vast majority of "Intel" is speculation, thoughts, ideas and projections. None (or very little) of it is known enough to approve a war upon. A war requires overwhelming evidence, but this president built something out of nearly nothing. Out of whispers and rumors and maybes. He took a tiny bit of could-be's and built it into a case for war strictly because he wanted a war, not because he had the Intel for it. As a former knowledgeable person I resent his blaming it on people who told him the case was weak at best. He screwed up, not us.

[missamerica4]

jeffk

It will be interesting.

[missamerica4]

j-whitman:

"" you say both yourself & your husband where in intelligence ""

I said no such thing.
I said my husband held top secret clearance while in the Military and that it was helpful in his line of work after he retired.

I also did not say Bush was right on WMD.

[jeffk1623]

Of course moving them is not the same as destroying them. He could always get them back...and they are still somewhere...waiting to be used.

missAmerica4

Yes the possiblity of getting them back was always there. But we were watching for that also, and it never occured.

"First he said he did, then he said he didn't. If he didn't.... why not open up for the inspections? He did not. He ordered his scientist to lie to inspectors."

Why would he tell the truth he was playing a political chess game....he had no incentive to tell the truth....

You and I will forever be on opposite sides on this issue...I wish the best to you and hope you can live with yourself years down the road when all this becomes declassified and all Bush supporters will have to face the fact that you were lied to and used.

[j-whitman]

Miss America,,, You still think SOB Bush was right on WMD's & you say both yourself & your husband where in intelligence ???? LOL - That should definatly show you how wrong Bush's intelligence was & still is... YOUR INTELLIGENCE ISN'T ANY BETER THAN BUSH'S - NON EXISTANT

[justonetruth]

An interesting (I think) point of discussion:
If both the Russians and French were convinced of Saddam's weapons capabilities, why did neither of them join us in the invasion of Iraq?

[justonetruth]

I'm afraid I must agree. It seem obvious that the President and his advisers intended to invade Iraq and had decided so immediately after 9/11.

[randalds]

The UN was not "demanding" that Saddam account for his old WMD's. The inspectors were satisfied that he had already destroyed them and the only demand they had was that he continue to allow inspections to make sure he didn't start making more. Before Bush gave the go ahead for the invasion Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors back in as Bush and the UN demanded and Bush attacked anyway. Bush was going to invade one way or another.

Also it is a White House lie that the Russians and the French intelligence agencies thought Saddam still had WMD's at most they said there was still a slight possibility that they still existed, but could not confirm it. Bush based his "intelligence" (a word he knows little about) for the invasion on the Italian Intelligence agency that had what later turned out to be a painfully obvious forgery about the infamous "yellow cake" from Africa. Hardly the ringing endorsements that the White House later claimed. In other words just one more Bush lie in the run up to the war he was determined to have no matter what Saddam did or did not do or have.

[justonetruth]

In any event, it seems clear to me that our (the Bush administration's) policy in Iraq has failed. Furthermore, his reluctance to make a clear and immediate policy change indicates his awareness that the battle for Iraq is lost. If the Democrats had not taken control of Congress, the President would be happy to "stay the course", further exaserbating this catastrophe.

[justonetruth]

In point of fact, I believe the statement "...the Intel Comm gets the same intel the President does." is incorrect. The President recieves daily briefings from CIA and chooses what information to share with Congress.

[missamerica4]

jeffk:

""Actually I was a member of the Intelligence community ""

So was my husband. His top sec. clearance was beneficial in his career after he retired from the Military.

""know for a fact that Saddam's WMD's were move out of country for years prior to the invasion. ""

Then why was the U.N. still demanding that Saddam account for the WMD ?
Why did the Russian and French Intel tell our Intel that Saddam did indeed have WMD?
Why would Saddam risk losing it all if He did not have WMD.
First he said he did, then he said he didn't. If he didn't.... why not open up for the inspections? He did not. He ordered his scientist to lie to inspectors.

Of course moving them is not the same as destroying them. He could always get them back...and they are still somewhere...waiting to be used.

[jeffk1623]

As you know the Intel Comm gets the same intel the President does. The fact is. they all believed it... I don't think anyone meant to lie. After the fact it has become political....but back then they all "owned it ".

missAmerica4

Actually I was a member of the Intelligence community and, without divulging details, know for a fact that Saddam's WMD's were move out of country for years prior to the invasion. This is another reason I am so against this war and know for a fact that the Bush administration was lying from day one.

Again I state this administration and the military has attemtped to brainwash everyone into following it's narrow minded extreme right wing conservative desires. Those desires are simple to understand if you look at them with open eyes. The cooperate side of right wing wants to control the oil reserves and profit from the destruction and so called rebuilding of Iraq. The Christian side of the right wing wants to defeat Islam and force Christianity into the region.

[bluestardad]

Little can be added on most of these blogs that contribute more than what each of you here have so eloquently spoken. Remember it is imperative that you convert your knowledge into action by contacting the local news paper%u2019s Letter to the Editor and your Senator and Representative with your views. Your passion must be converted into actions.

[randalds]

Come on Georgie! Get yourself a small glass tube and some steel wool. Get some crack from across the street at the park in front of the White House (send one of the twins for it as I'm sure they know some people there) and fire up! Be careful not to burn your fingertips! Follow it up with some "sauce" (scotch is good) to kill the taste and the next thing you know you'll be ordering a nuke strike on Canada! "Take that, 'ey!" You'll go down in history! That's what you wanted when you attacked Iraq, right? To go down in history as a big brave "war president".

You're such an as*shole.

Oh and P.S., the hot *** with Condi will be even that much hotter! You remember how good it was when you used to snort up and take advantage of passed out sorority girls, right? This will be even better because Condi will be awake!

[randalds]

As you know the Intel Comm gets the same intel the President does. The fact is..they all believed it... I don't think anyone meant to lie. After the fact it has become political....but back then they all "owned it ".

What would you have done if you were President?
As President could you really take a chance?
Most all info pointed to WMD, some said no. That does not mean anyone lied.
Boils down to them or us....You are the President sworn to protect America.... What do u do?

Posted by missAmerica4 at 12:20 AM : Dec 30, 2006

You must be joking! The intelligence committee got the intelligence that the White House sent them. They don't get a separate briefing from the president. He gets briefed and then passes it on to them, except that in this case what he passed on was cherry-picked to make a case for war that didn't actually exist. So many right-wingers have been telling this lie that even they think it's true. It's as much bullsh*it as the one that all of the European intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD's too. That's an even bigger crock! This was not a case of a president not taking a chance that Saddam had WMD's. It was a case of a president hungry for war with Iraq and willing to seize any excuse to start it.