The President will make a dramatic U-turn on Iraq in a TV broadcast tonight to try to salvage his hopes of re-election amid Americans' growing hostility to the casualties and chaos. Report by Paul Harris in New York, Jason Burke and Gaby Hinsliff
George Bush will attempt tonight to convince the American people that he has a workable 'exit strategy' to free his forces from the rapidly souring conflict in Iraq, as Britain prepares to send in thousands more troops to reinforce the faltering coalition effort.
Frantic negotiations continued this weekend in New York to secure a United Nations resolution that would open the way for other countries to deploy peacekeeping troops to help after Bush - with one eye on next year's presidential election - signalled a change of heart on America's refusal to allow any but coalition forces into Iraq.
Bush Approval Ratings Falling
The President has been left with little practical choice. Concern among the American public has reached such a pitch that, with his approval ratings plummeting, he will deliver a televised address to the nation tonight to reassure them that they do not face another Vietnam. With their sons and daughters dying daily in guerrilla attacks, Americans may now be becoming more frightened of being bogged down in a hostile country than of the terrorist threat against which Bush has pledged to defend them.
Meanwhile in London, with MPs due to return to Westminster tomorrow after the long summer recess in no mood to be generous, the Prime Minister faces fresh scrutiny of Britain's role in the rapidly souring peace. Bush's change of heart over the UN is potentially good news for Tony Blair, who has long discreetly tried to persuade him down this route: if successful, it could eventually allow Britain to scale back its troops, and help repair the diplomatic rift with the European Union caused by the abandoning of the UN process before the war.
In the short term, however, troop numbers will have to rise instead. Geoff Hoon, the embattled Defence Secretary, will make a statement to the Commons tomorrow. He is expected to confirm the departure of up to 2,000 British soldiers to the Basra area: the first 120 soldiers are leaving Cyprus this weekend. With routine defence questions tabled for the Commons tomorrow as well, and two debates on defence later this week, rebel Labour MPs will be queuing up to condemn the handling of the peace where once they condemned the war.
How did it happen?
The question now being asked on both sides of the Atlantic is how the allies could find themselves in such trouble. One key mistake both Washington and London made was to assume that, once Baghdad fell, countries such as France and Germany, which had stood on the sidelines, would relent and offer peacekeeping troops. They underestimated the unexpected domestic popularity of anti-war leaders.
'That was the diplomatic advice. That was what we believed would happen, and it didn't,' said one Whitehall source. 'What we were unable to read was how popular the decision [to stay out of Iraq] would be in the long run for the leaders who took it.'
In New York, diplomats were upbeat last night about the chances of securing a UN resolution allowing troops to operate under a UN mandate but with the US retaining operational command. One source in the office of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said such an agreement could 'transform the occupation'.
Bush over a barrel
Complications remain, however. The French and, to a lesser extent, the Germans are playing it tough, aware that they have Bush over a barrel, British sources say. 'They can squeeze more concessions out of Bush at the moment and they know it,' one source said.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who flew to Lake Garda in Italy for an informal meeting with his European Union counterparts late last week, is attempting to mediate between EU governments and the White House, but have want a fundamental shift in US policy on Iraq. Sticking points include a firm timetable for handing over power to Iraqi authorities, drawing up a constitution and holding elections.
Other anti-war nations, such as Russia, China and Germany, have signalled that they expect a deal. 'It is a remarkable change for the better,' Chile's UN ambassador and Security Council member Heraldo Munoz told The Observer.
After being sidelined in the build-up to the war the UN is now moving centre stage, but it the risks of becoming embroiled in a dangerous, unpredictable mission means few nations will be willing to take casualties without securing serious concessions. 'The US has come seeking assistance and there will be a price for it,' said one senior UN diplomat.
Lower approval that Bush senior.
But Bush has now accepted the warnings of his Secretary of State Colin Powell and the more hawkish Under Secretary John Bolton that there will be a worse price if he doesn't back down. Bush's approval ratings have sunk to around 55 per cent - around 20 points lower than those of his father after the 1991 Gulf War.
Bush Senior still went on to lose the next election: and the American economy is more fragile now than it was then. The nation can ill afford the extra $60 billion the White House is expected to ask Congress to occupy and rebuild Iraq next year, and sabotage to Iraqi oil pipelines and infrastructure means oil revenues will not rescue them.
Although the polls show Bush would still beat any likely Democrat contender, Bolton argues that approval ratings are a better guide. Voters feel it is unpatriotic to threaten to vote against a President during a war, so the polls could underestimate Bush's plight.
The Democrats, who once saw Iraq as their weakness, now scent blood: last week's live televised debate between eight Democratic candidates echoed to easy potshots at the President, with front-runner Howard Dean saying it was time for troops to come home.
Yet more than Bush's political survival resting on the outcome of the talks: with less domestic support than Bush for the war to start with, Blair is even more vulnerable to public anger if British casualties go rising. A leaked memo from Straw, published in the Daily Telegraph last week, warned that up to 5,000 extra British troops might be necessary or the Iraqi mission risked failure.
Its emergence has, however, only fuelled suspicions at Westminster about the skill with which Straw is now positioning himself over Iraq. He has managed to escape being summoned before the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, even though his department originally employed the scientist, or embroiled in the wider row about intelligence in the run-up to the war.
With the departure of key Blairites such as former Health Secretary Alan Milburn from the Cabinet, Straw is now considered a possible contender as the 'anyone but Gordon' candidate to succeed Tony Blair, and MPs report he has been cosying up to the Parliamentary Labour Party since the early summer. With Blair facing another three weeks of minute scrutiny by Lord Hutton over every twist and turn of the run-up to the Iraq war, nerves are taut.
Similarly in Washington, a rapid revision of the pecking order in the White House is going on, with the hawks wrongfooted by the unravelling of their thesis on Iraq. 'They were true believers, and are stunned by the fact that its not worked out,' said the University of San Francisco political scientist Richard Stoll.
A classified report drawn up by the US US Joint Chiefs of Staff and leaked last week blamed hurried and inadequate planning for the crisis, with too great a focus on an invasion and not enough on organising the peace. As the leading dove, Powell's stock is now rising in the White House, while that of the President's hawkish National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is judged to be falling.
Rice - Consistently Wrong
'Condi Rice is in trouble,' said one Whitehall source.
'She has been consistently wrong since this thing started, wrong about what would happen, and Colin Powell has been consistently right.' The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's insistence during a trip to Iraq last week that the situation was 'getting better every day' is also ringing increasingly hollow.
Rumbling in the background in America, meanwhile, is the same debate that is at the foreground of Westminster politics: question marks over intelligence. Although the official line in Washington is that weapons of mass destruction are still being looked for, there is no sign of the 38,000 litres of deadly botulintoxin or the 25,000 litres of anthrax or the 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent claimed by Bush in his State of the Union speech last January as a justification for going to war.
The President has much to explain to the American people when he takes to the airwaves tonight.
posted on September 7, 2003 07:38:10 AM new
President Bush is continually being bombarded by left wing media who tell lies, half truths and twist the issues and so many people are 'buying' into it.
posted on September 7, 2003 08:18:36 AM new
That makes no sense whatsoever, Linda.
From the Post article
Analysts called the address an attempt by Bush to take command at a time when his justification for the war has proved factually flawed, his planning for the occupation is being criticized as inadequate, and Iraq is beset by rising sectarianism, sabotage and chaos.
Ivo H. Daalder, a senior foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he sees no indication that Bush plans to redress the concerns that have made foreign governments reluctant to contribute money or troops to the occupation.
"This is typical Bush: 'I know what's right; here is what's right; you have to do what I tell you to do,' " Daalder said. "They think they can fix this with a speech instead of doing the hard work of traveling to these countries and convincing them that we're willing to listen to their point of view and figure out what they need for us to do in order for us to do this together."
posted on September 7, 2003 08:31:03 AM new
Yes, helen, it's just the left's way....always making things sound MUCH worse than they are.
Your party has had a recent history of doing this. Many, many examples could be given. But while you're running off at the mouth, the things you lefties are saying have been disproved, one by one. It will be shown to be true again.
You guys aren't being referred to as the 'Angry Left' for no reason. lol
posted on September 7, 2003 08:44:23 AM new
Linda says...
Your party has had a recent history of doing this. Many, many examples could be given. But while you're running off at the mouth, the things you lefties are saying have been disproved, one by one. It will be shown to be true again. You guys aren't being referred to as the 'Angry Left' for no reason. lol
"the things you lefties are saying have been disproved, one by one. It will be shown to be true again."
???
Anywho...your party needs a good dose of kaopectate because they are "running off" at the wrong end...shi!ting on the American public. And you are damed right... Anybody who is not angry is not thinking straight.
posted on September 7, 2003 08:50:08 AM new
I believe getting issues ironed out in the Middle East is in the world's best interest. And it will come about, given some time.
ALL the 'terrible' predictions the left has made since we first began to talk about going to war with Iraq, have been proved WRONG.
Go read my list of *positive changes* that have been brought about in the M.E. with the regime change in Iraq. Removing Saddam was a very smart thing to do.
posted on September 7, 2003 08:54:57 AM new
helen - Maybe you missed this part of the opinion you posted:
Although the polls show Bush would still beat any likely Democrat contender....
and I'm glad President Bush will be addressing the nation. About time he steps up and addresses the 'twisting' of the facts from the liberals.
Remember....it's been a long time fact that the majority of American's trust the Republican party when it comes to national security.....over the democratic party.
posted on September 7, 2003 09:24:34 AM new
Dream on, Linda...Bush is smack dab in the middle of a colossal mess no matter how hard you and the right wingers try to paint it otherwise. Americans are beginning to see how they have been duped by this administration and they are angry! The CNN poll this week found that 41 percent will definitely not vote for Bush and only 29 percent will.
Disaster surrounds us. The war is a disaster with no end in sight. The economy is a disaster with no end in sight. The environment is being trashed and the domestic front is being ignored --while in the background, Ashcroft is eliminating civil rights. How on earth can you hang on to some nebulous and distorted news story declaring that all is right with our world?
What about the daily killings in Baghdad? How does that fit into your lovely picture of the war zone?
posted on September 7, 2003 09:50:54 AM new
Now you're being redundant helen, continuing to repeat yourself over and over and over. Those questions have all been addressed, you just don't choose to believe them.
It's YOUR article that stated: Although the polls show Bush would still beat any likely Democrat contender....
But I will vote for you to receive the "Ms. Pessimistic Award of the Year" for Vendio posters. lol All that negativity all the time.
posted on September 7, 2003 10:11:20 AM new
Here's an article I agree with....as usual you anti-war types blow everything out of proportion.
Each American casualty is featured as if our troops were stuck in a quagmire of increasing combat. More than three dozen Americans [July 03] have been killed in action since May 1. Each death is a tragedy on an individual level; on a national level, however, this does not presage a crisis. If that rate continued for six months, the risk of a soldier dying would be 1 in 2,000.
[i]A recent Gallup Poll found that 74% of Americans believed the current rate of casualties was to be expected.
During the campaign from Kuwait to Baghdad last March, the risk was much higher. And that rate pales in comparison with casualties in Vietnam, Korea and World War II. By historical standards no American unit in Iraq is engaged in serious combat.
But since no deaths are expected under your thinking, even 1 would be too many...so the point is really moot because that's not a reality of *any* war.
posted on September 7, 2003 10:38:30 AM new
That's the thing though, Linda, there shouldn't have been any war because the connection between Iraq and al qaeda was never proven. Besides the immenent threat of being hit with nuclear weapons coming from Iraq, that was the justification for war. So far, none of this has panned out.
Powell, speaking on ABC's "This Week" hours before the president was to address the nation about his global effort against terrorism, said there was no need for a mid-course correction in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"We have a good strategy and we're executing that strategy," he said. "The results are that two despotic regimes are gone. The results are that there will be no more mass graves created ... that children are going back to school."
While Kennedy faces facts...
"The administration has to abolish its 'my-way-or-the-highway' attitude," Kennedy said. "For the secretary to suggest that we have a successful strategy flies in the face of the fact that we're seeing Americans killed daily" and have seen several recent bombings.
"We don't have an exit strategy," he said. "It's difficult to understand how you can have a successful policy in Iraq when you don't have an exit strategy."
... Even though Bush the Younger has done everything in his power not to replicate the fate of his dad, he is replicating the fate of his dad. Only months after swaggering out of a successful war with Iraq, he is struggling with the economy. His numbers have fallen so fast, Top Gun is now tap dancing. He will address the nation to try to underscore the imaginary line that links the budget-busting pit of Iraq to the heartbreaking pit of 9/11.
Just as the father failed to finish off Saddam, so the son has failed to finish off Saddam. Just as the conservatives once carped that the father did not go far enough in Iraq, now the "cakewalk" crowd carps that the son does not go far enough.
Dick Cheney's dark idea that a show of brutal force would scare off terrorists has ended up creating more terrorists.
posted on September 7, 2003 04:59:08 PM new
The chaos in Iraq is seen as weakness by the real terrorists in the mid east and they are taking advantage by infiltrating Iraq.
posted on September 7, 2003 07:01:09 PM new
"Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war – a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time (well, of the next few years, anyway)."
The cost of leaving will certainly be high, just not anywhere near as high as trying to "stay the course," which can only magnify and postpone the disaster. And yet – regrettable to say – even if this difficult step is taken, no one should imagine that democracy will be achieved by this means. The great likelihood is something else – something worse: perhaps a recrudescence of dictatorship or civil war, or both. An interim period – probably very brief – of international trusteeship is the best solution, yet it is unlikely to be a good solution. It is merely better than any other recourse.
The good options have probably passed us by. They may never have existed. If the people of Iraq are given back their country, there isn't the slightest guarantee that they will use the privilege to create a liberal democracy. The creation of democracy is an organic process that must proceed from the will of the local people. Sometimes that will is present, more often it is not. Vietnam provides an example. Vietnam today enjoys the self-determination it battled to achieve for so long; but it has not become a democracy.
On the other hand, just because Iraq's future remains to be decided by its talented people, it would also be wrong to categorically rule out the possibility that they will escape tyranny and create democratic government for themselves. The United States and other countries might even find ways of offering modest assistance in the project. It's just that it is beyond the power of the United States to create democracy for them.
posted on September 7, 2003 07:34:18 PM newThat's the thing though, Linda, there shouldn't have been any war because the connection between Iraq and al qaeda was never proven.
Then what was the video of Al Qaeda leaders and Saddams sons together at a gathering a few months back prove that was shown all over the national news? Looks like another far left snow job.
posted on September 7, 2003 07:47:20 PM new
Are you for real. Pictures don't lie. It was all over the evening news I believe it was in May.
By the way, I vote democrat as well. Just you are plain wrong in your view now.
You are the deserving of the following:
[ edited by stonecold613 on Sep 7, 2003 07:51 PM ]
Remembrance of Quotes Past, in which Bush was able to link Iraq with 9/11 even though there was no evidence to support that suggestion. The American people, in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy were easily led to believe that a leader such as Saddam Hussien could possibly be the perpetrator. Even now, after finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq some people still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The truth of course is that he was not.
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."
Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. "The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists," said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The poll's findings are significant because they help to explain why the public continues to support operations in Iraq despite the setbacks and bloodshed there. Americans have more tolerance for war when it is provoked by an attack, particularly one by an all-purpose villain such as Hussein. "That's why attitudes about the decision to go to war are holding up," Kohut said.
Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.
posted on September 7, 2003 07:57:08 PM new
Please as anyone who has ever used photoshop can tell you pictures frequently lie.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 7, 2003 07:59:00 PM new
As usual, you distract the issue with crap. No one is stating the Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Just that his sons did have a connection with Al Qaeda.
posted on September 7, 2003 08:02:29 PM new
The one sentence that stuck out for me was about being weak and inviting terrorist attacks... I like this President, he lets them know we will not be weak.
posted on September 7, 2003 08:03:40 PM new"Are you for real. Pictures don't lie. It was all over the evening news I believe it was in May."
It has been firmly established that Saddam had no connection with Al Qaeda. All major media deny the possibility that Saddam was associated with Al Qaeda.
People at "gatherings" aren't always accomplices or even friends.
