Bush Says Troop Cutbacks Might Stop

President Says It's Up To Gen. Petraeus To Decide When Iraq Is Stable Enough To Drawdown Troops

(CBS/AP)  President Bush said Saturday that he has made no decision on bringing more U.S. troops home from Iraq, and that the ultimate decision lies with the top commander in Iraq.

"My attitude is if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me," Mr. Bush said.

Meeting with General David Petraeus at a U.S. military base in Kuwait, President Bush said the withdrawal of "surge" troops from Iraq is on track.

But as CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante reports, he cautioned that all decisions about returning troop levels to where they were before the surge will be made by his top commander based on conditions on the ground.

"I made it clear to the general that I need to know his considered judgment about what it takes to keep the security gains we have achieved in place," he said.

"The only thing I can tell you is we're on track for what we've said was going to happen," Mr. Bush said, referring to plans to withdraw some 30,000 "surge" troops from Iraq by July.

However, later Mr. Bush said he is open to the possibility of slowing or stopping altogether any plans to bring home more U.S. troops from Iraq, defying demands among a majority of Americans to speed the withdrawals.

Mr. Bush said the U.S. presence in Iraq will outlast his presidency.

General Petraeus and the American Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, are due to give Congress another progress report in March.

The president also defended the Iraqi government, which has made little progress in passing legislation to unify the country - a stated goal for the troop surge and a key indicator of its success.

"I am not making excuses for a government," Mr. Bush said. "To go from a tyranny to a democracy overnight is, uh, virtually impossible."

At the sprawling, dusty brown Camp Arifjan - the largest U.S. base in Kuwait and home to 9,000 American troops - Mr. Bush said, "There is no doubt in my mind that we will succeed. There is no doubt in my mind that when history is written the final page will read, 'History's final victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world.'"

Mr. Bush said the build-up of U.S. troops in Iraq that he ordered one year ago has turned the country into a place where "hope is returning." And he predicted a U.S. force presence in Iraq that would long outlast his presidency.

"We must do all we can to ensure that 2008 will bring even greater progress," Mr. Bush said. He said long-term success in Iraq is vital to stability in the Mideast, and warned that the United States should not turn its back on its friends.

For the troops here and in Iraq, the question is: how many can come home in 2008? The question for Kuwait and the other Arab states the president will visit is: will you support the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort - and help in contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

After Petraeus and Crocker reported in September, Mr. Bush announced he would withdraw some troops from Iraq by July - essentially the 30,000 sent as part of a buildup ordered a year ago - but still keep the U.S. level there at about 130,000.

Mr. Bush said he and his top general didn't talk about specific troop levels. Instead, the president said they discussed the parameters for continuing to assess the situation leading into the March report, including Mr. Bush's edict that "any position he recommends needs to be based upon success."

"That's what happened the last time," he said.

"It's that same principle that's going to guide my decision. I made that clear to the general," Mr. Bush said.

He defended his decision last year to order a buildup of troops to Iraq, the one that is now scheduled to essentially phase out by this summer.

"The new way forward I announced a year ago changed our approach in fundamental ways," he said. "Iraq is now a different place from one year ago."

Mr. Bush also defended the progress made by the central government in Baghdad, which has lagged in passing legislative reforms seen as key to tamping down the sectarian violence that still plagues the country and hampers other progress.

"What they've gone through to where they are now is good progress," Mr. Bush said, adding it still isn't enough. "They have got more work to do."

One benchmark sought by the United States as a key step toward national reconciliation was achieved today, when Iraq's parliament adopted legislation on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs.

The voting was carried out by a show of hands on each of the law's 30 clauses. The bill, officially called the "Accountability and Justice" law, seeks to relax restrictions on the right of members of Saddam Hussein's now-dissolved Baath party to fill government posts. It is also designed to reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed because of their ties to the party - actions which deepened sectarian tensions between Iraq's majority Shiites and the once-dominant Sunni Arabs.

Later today, during a meeting with Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa in Manama, Mr. Bush commended Iraq's parliament for passing the legislation.

"It's an important step toward reconciliation," Mr. Bush said. "It's an important sign that the leaders of that country understand that they must work together to meet the aspirations of the Iraqi people.

"I know you've been concerned about Iraq and the politics of Iraq," Mr. Bush told the king. The president said he was pleased to inform the monarch about the passage of the law.

"I come with an upbeat message, a hopeful message - a message that will prevail here in the Middle East," said Mr. Bush, the first sitting U.S. president to visit Bahrain, an oil-rich nation in the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bush also invited the king to visit him in Washington.

As the President arrived on this island nation, approximately 300 Bahrainis protested near the U.S. Embassy in the capital of Manama. Sunni and Shiite Muslim political and rights activists organized a demonstration under the watchful eyes of anti-riot police.

Protesters chanted slogans and waved placards calling on the U.S. to withdraw its military forces from Bahrain. A U.S. base here is home to the 5th Fleet.

Ibrahim Al-Sharif, leader of the opposition Labor Democratic Movement, told demonstrators that President Bush was not welcome in Bahrain.

"He will be mostly welcome if he had come with peace in his hand," Ibrahim said. "We have seen wars in the past and we expect another war."

Saturday's demonstration was the third this week.

On Friday, protesters burned U.S. and Israeli flags after spreading the latter on the ground and stepping on it.

A second protest consisting of some 80 people took place in front of the U.N. headquarters in Manama and was organized by several liberal and Islamic youth organizations and human rights activists.

[tylenol6]

CBS, where are the stories of all the protests of the Bush and him being called "murderer" on this Middle East trip???????? It seems to be plastered on foreign newspapers. The american people do know Bush is hated
in foreign countries as well as here in the U.S. So once
again, WHERE ARE THE STORIES????????

[iceman_1960]

"Until then, enjoy your partisan victory dance on their graves."
- Posted by Iceman_1960 at 12:15 AM : Jan 14, 2008



That was uncalled for.

[iceman_1960]

"Gee, it must be HORRIBLE to be a liberal now. To actually be rooting for an American loss in Iraq, so you"ll win an election. How hideous, how unpatriotic, how much more evil can you get?"
- Posted by michaelt302 at 07:27 PM : Jan 13, 2008

Let us know when you figure out a way to restore to life all the Americans and Iraqis who had to dies so Dubya could be a big war president like his daddy.

When you figure that out, let us know.

Until then, enjoy your partisan victory dance on their graves.

[prinzowhales]

michealt302--Bush says we may well be there for ten years...does that sound like someone who thinks Iraqification is working?...or, that the surge worked?
Of course, Bush & friends are the same a$$holes who hung "Mission Accomplished" banners to celebrate the great man''s arrival on an air craft carrier....

[prinzowhales]

michealt302--Bush says we may well be there for ten years...does that sound like someone who thinks Iraqification is working?...or, that the surge worked?
Of course, Bush & friends are the same a$$holes who hung "Mission Accomplished" banners to celebrate the great man''s arrival on an air craft carrier....

[prinzowhales]

No, those are not the faces of men who are celebrating the ''success'' of the surge...politicians who forgot to put their faces on for the photographers...just what could so distract them?

[prinzowhales]

From the pictures, it doesn''t look like Barney''s protege, Betrayus, had a good time chatting with his master...he''s not smiling...usually he''s padding behind Master Bush with a great big smile...Has he finally discovered the cost of selling his soul and his honour to the vile creature who inhabits the White House? Has he just been informed that the operation against Iran has just been given the Green, Green, Green Light?

[horse3farm]

to taotxzen:

The member nations of the UN are the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Bush could do better by focusing on ummmm....let''s say....America? in which to leave a legacy. He has many issues from which to choose. He''s like a mouse running in circles....a truely dangerous idiot. Impeach Bush Now...that should be his legacy.

[iceman_1960]

I"ll switch to Firefox.

I promise.

[iceman_1960]

Even Bush admits that the troops could be brought home immediately, that the Iraqi governmment could handle the situation now.

In his own words:

"To the people of Iraq: You have made your choice for democracy, and you have stood firm in face of terrible acts of murder. The terrorists and extremists cannot prevail."
- George W. Bush, January 13, 2008

[iceman_1960]

The war in Iraq has grown less unpopular (slightly less):

"Friday, January 11, 2008

57% want the troops home from Iraq within a year.

27% now want the troops brought home immediately.

38% want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. The number wanting the troops to remain and finish the mission had ranged from 32% to 39%." (*)

[Just to put this in perspective:

Walter Mondale did better than 39% when he ran against Ronald Reagan. (Mondale got 40.6% of the popular vote.)

That"s how unpopular Bush"s quagmire has been at its best point]

(*) Source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal

[iceman_1960]

taotxzen,

Sorry, I thought at first glance you were posting some Neocon pro-war article.

My mistake.

[iceman_1960]

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, like most other members of Congress, voted for the war resolution."
- Posted by taotxzen at 10:52 AM : Jan 13, 2008

That must be the undetermined string constant.

Most DEMOCRATS in Congress voted against the war.

Had it not been for the robot-like, all but unanimous YES vote cast by REPUBLICANS in Congress, 4,000 American troops and 200,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive today.

[taotxzen]

International Herald Tribune

Republicans, Democrats and the war in Iraq
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Iraq will be a central challenge - perhaps the central challenge - for whoever succeeds President George W. Bush and has to repair the profound damage he has wrought with a war that should never have been fought and has been managed so ineptly. The candidates must talk more to the American people about when troops will be withdrawn and how it will be done, as well as how they will manage relations with Iraq and the region.

Yet the war has receded as a major topic on the campaign trail, much to the relief of the Republican candidates, who never stray far from the party line but know that Americans overwhelmingly want the troops home.

One year after Bush announced that he would try to salvage his misadventure by rushing in 30,000 more troops, casualties are down. Yet 2007 was the most violent year in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Bush has nothing to show in the way of political progress. As a result, the war continues to be a significant political disadvantage for Republicans, not to mention a constant drain in lives lost and resources squandered. Meanwhile, violence in Afghanistan has surged and Al Qaeda has strengthened. That is the real front line of the war on terror - no matter how often the Republicans say it is in Iraq.

Except for Representative Ron Paul - who wants all troops withdrawn immediately but is hardly going to be the nominee - the Republican candidates are slavishly wedded to Bush''s policy of war without end.

All oppose a pullout timetable. Even Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who accused Bush of pursuing a policy with an "arrogant bunker mentality," has promised not to withdraw troops any faster than recommended by General David Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq who has been cautious about reductions.

Senator John McCain conducted a lonely crusade to persuade Bush to beef up forces, and sees the downturn in violence as vindication. If America was ever going to be successful in Iraq, it needed far more troops than Bush sent in 2003. We are encouraged that many of the candidates promise to avoid repeating such a huge mistake.

(cont)

[iceman_1960]

Internet Explorer informs me that the prior posts cannot be displayed until I post this message because "line 358 has an undetermined string constant"

*** ????

No wonder Firefox is increasingly displacing IE.

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Even McCain acknowledges uncertainty about whether the security gains produced by the surge can be sustained. Bush''s troop buildup was sold as a way to buy Iraqi politicians breathing room to finally address the tensions driving sectarian violence, including an equitable division of oil wealth and strategies to bring more Baathists and Sunnis into the Shiite-led government. Those goals have not been met, and the administration has virtually abandoned them.

It remains unclear what the Republicans will consider sufficient success to warrant bringing the troops home. No Republican has defined victory in Iraq or given the slightest idea of how to achieve it.

The Democratic candidates all want to end the war, although the issue is no longer as defining for their campaigns as it once was, because casualties are down, the administration has made a minimal effort to reduce force levels, and the economy is teetering on a recession. The Democrats'' message has been compromised by the repeated failure of their party to pass legislation demanding that Bush alter his Iraq policy.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, like most other members of Congress, voted for the war resolution. Edwards has forcefully repudiated his vote, while Clinton has offered unsatisfying explanations for hers. Senator Barack Obama opposed the invasion. He deserves credit for that, but the focus now must be on ending the war.

Edwards has staked out a position that would produce a more complete withdrawal - within 10 months after taking office - than his two rivals. Clinton and Obama would start withdrawing troops quickly but have left open how long it would take. Obama said he would give the Pentagon 16 months to withdraw, but would adjust his timetable based on conditions in Iraq. Clinton has not assigned a specific schedule. Both candidates are willing to keep American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq as combat troops are brought home and have argued that any withdrawal must be done responsibly, a sentiment we firmly share.

Many important issues have not been fully examined. What is to become of the thousands of Iraqis who helped America and its coalition partners as translators, drivers and fixers and will face retribution? What will be the nature and content of a long-term agreement on future Iraqi-American relations? Will Congress have a say in it? Will the United States retain bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the region? Should the United Nations be involved, as Clinton and Obama suggest?

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

The Iraq war has laid bare the serious inability of American civilian agencies to quickly and coherently meet the country''s postconflict needs, from reviving energy infrastructure to organizing federal and local governments. In Foreign Affairs magazine, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and Republican, proposed integrated regional commands for civilian agencies. That''s an idea deserving consideration.

Another crucial question is the issue of pre-emptive war - or in the case of Iraq, preventive war. The United States must be prepared to use military force to pre-empt another attack on American soil. In Iraq, Bush went much further, invading a country that he imagined might someday pose a threat to the United States - not pre-empting an imminent threat but preventing the possibility of a threat. To justify his actions, he persuaded Americans that Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological and, especially, nuclear weapons programs - a claim that proved to be specious.

No serious candidate in 2008 can renounce the potential use of force to defend national security or in retaliation for an attack on the United States. But no voter should cast a ballot for a candidate who will not forswear such wars of choice. We hope American voters have learned the lesson of 2000, when Bush escaped serious questioning on foreign affairs during the campaign. He then turned sensible policies on their head and bumbled his way into a disastrous war.

[j-whitman]

When Bush was a child playing with his Plastic Army in his room he lost every battle --- It shows