Bush praises Pakistan just hours after U.S. strike.

This is from the NY Times.
Gilani may be able to neglect to mention the missile strike on Pakistani soil but it will be noticed in Pakistan as I note in another post. This is the second time that Midhat Umar has been reported killed so we still will need to wait to have the kill confirmed. Apparently seven people were killed including the head of a school. That the U.S. should carried out this attack just hours before Bush met with Gilani is meant to send a message to Pakistan. With other attacks inside Pakistan and with the new nuclear deal with India, the U.S. can expect that whatever Pakistan may say they will probably work for some type of deal with the Taliban and even try to undermine the Karzai government and also the influence of India in Afghanistan.

July 29, 2008
Bush Praises Pakistan Just Hours After U.S. Strike
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday praised Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists along its deteriorating border with Afghanistan, only hours after an American missile strike destroyed what American and Pakistani officials described as a militant outpost in the region, killing at least six fighters.
Mr. Bush, meeting with Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, at the White House, sought to minimize growing concerns that Pakistan’s willingness to fight extremists was waning, allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup inside Pakistan and plan new attacks there and beyond.
Senior American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just three days ago, publicly scolded Pakistan for not doing more to root out safe havens like the one bombed on Monday in Azam Warsak, a village in South Waziristan near the Afghan border.
Among those believed to have been killed in the missile attack, evidently carried out by a remotely piloted aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, was an Egyptian identified as a senior Qaeda trainer and weapons expert, according to residents and officials in the area, as well as American officials. Neither the operative’s identity nor that of the others has been confirmed.
The officials spoke anonymously because of the political and diplomatic sensitivities of attacking targets in Pakistan.
The Egyptian operative, Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, appears on the State Department’s list of 37 most-wanted terrorists, with a reward of $5 million for his capture. He is said to be the man who designed the explosives that Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, hid in his sneakers during a failed attempt to blow up an airliner on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001.
He was falsely reported to have been killed in a similar attack in January 2006 in news accounts that attributed the claim to Pakistani officials. The timing of Monday’s strike, the latest in a series by remotely piloted American aircraft inside Pakistan, coincided with the first official visit by Mr. Gilani to the United States.
The meetings on Monday carefully sidestepped the political and diplomatic sensitivities that have strained relations ever since political opponents of the country’s authoritarian president, Pervez Musharraf, won elections this year and formed a governing coalition lead by Mr. Gilani.
Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Gilani discussed the American strike inside Pakistan, nor recent episodes like the American bombing of a border post in June that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers and inflamed anti-American sentiment. The two leaders appeared eager to show that they were working together closely and respectfully.
With Mr. Gilani by his side on the South Lawn, Mr. Bush praised Pakistan as “a strong ally and a vibrant democracy” and expressed appreciation for “the prime minister’s strong words against the extremists and terrorists.”
“We talked about the need for us to make sure that the Afghan border is secure, as best as possible,” Mr. Bush said before the leaders continued their discussions. “Pakistan has made a very strong commitment to that.”
In his brief remarks and in a joint statement later, Mr. Bush also expressed respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Mr. Gilani, himself seeking to demonstrate his government’s willingness to fight extremism, noted that his party’s leader, Benazir Bhutto, died in an attack by extremists in December.
“This is our own war,” he said, speaking in English. “This is a war which is against Pakistan. And we’ll fight for our own past. And that is because I have lost my own leader, Benazir Bhutto, because of the militants.”
Mr. Bush also announced that the United States would provide $115 million in food aid, including $42 million in the next nine months, to help Pakistan deal with rising food prices, and pledged to support Congressional efforts to expand American aid to areas beyond security and military affairs, including education, energy and agriculture.
The focus of their meetings remained terrorism, though. Asked about tensions in the relationship, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, acknowledged what she described as “the complex issues on the border” between Pakistan and Afghanistan but suggested that differences were overblown.
“It’s tense in that we are working together to try to fight counterterrorism,” she said, “but I think that we are much more on the same page than some people would like to paint.”
In Pakistan, officials and a resident with ties to the Taliban in South Waziristan said Monday’s strike occurred before dawn. At least two missiles hit a compound that had been used as a school, the officials said.
The local resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been a meeting at the compound on Sunday, but that many of the attendees had left. A local militant commander, Maulavi Nazir, said the strike left seven people dead, including the head of the school. He complained of frequent American strikes in Pakistan and violations of its airspace.
In Washington, officials were still awaiting confirmation that Mr. Midhat, the Qaeda operative, was among those killed, an American official said.
If so, the official said, it would deal Al Qaeda a significant blow.
“This guy is one of their absolute key specialists in poisons and explosives,” the official said. “He was also a key trainer of people involved in operations inside and outside the tribal areas.”
Mr. Midhat helped Al Qaeda and Taliban plotters tailor bombs or poisons for specific terrorist missions, according to the official and the State Department’s rewards list..
“It doesn’t mean they can’t find other trainers,” the official said, “but they will have lost their most seasoned trainer.”
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan, Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

Gonzales Resigns

Better late than never. I thought that Gonzales might actually weather the storms.
Bush will no doubt extol his great virtues. His greatest virtue was loyalty to his master and perhaps helping Bush get the Hispanic vote.

Attorney General Gonzales resigns: official
Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:44 AM EDT



By Jackie Frank and David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, an official said on Monday, ending a controversial tenure as chief law enforcement officer that blemished the administration of President George W. Bush.

The official confirmed a Web site report of the resignation by The New York Times, telling Reuters an official announcement would be made later in the day.

The 51-year-old Bush loyalist was at the center of a political firestorm over the sacking of federal prosecutors last year, which critics in Congress complained were politically motivated.

The official told The Times that Gonzales had told Bush on Friday in a telephone call that he would resign. The official said the job would not be open for long.

Gonzales worked for Bush when he was governor of Texas in the 1990s. He served as White House lawyer in Bush's first term as president before becoming the first Hispanic attorney general in February 2005.

Current and former administration officials had said the department's integrity had been damaged under Gonzales with controversy over the firing of the prosecutors, his support for Bush's warrantless domestic spying program and other issues.

EMPLOYEE MORALE

They said as a result employee morale had been hurt and Gonzales' relations with the Democratic-controlled Congress had deteriorated beyond repair in a firestorm of criticism from lawmakers, including some Republicans.

Several senators had said they had lost confidence in Gonzales and his ability to head the Justice Department.

While acknowledging mistakes in the handling of the dismissals, Gonzales had denied the firings were politically motivated to influence federal probes involving Democratic or Republican lawmakers.

Bush has defended Gonzales and cited Gonzales' rise as an achievement for Hispanics, the largest minority in the United States.

"I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said at a recent news conference. "As a matter of fact, I believe we're watching ... a political exercise."

Gonzales drew fire from civil liberties groups for writing in January 2002 that parts of the half-century-old Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war were "obsolete" and some provisions were "quaint."

He also was criticized for Bush's warrantless domestic spying program adopted after the September 11 attacks. Only in January, in an abrupt reversal, Gonzales said the program finally would be subject to court approval.

(Additional reporting by James Vicini)

Iraq strategy promising, needs time: Bush

If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again.


Iraq strategy promising, needs time: Bush Sat Aug 25, 6:13 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush insisted Saturday his new war strategy in Iraq showed promise but needed more time to bear fruit as the White House fought to rebuff calls for a withdrawal of US troops.

"We are still in the early stages of our new operations," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "But the success of the past couple of months have shown that conditions on the ground can change -- and they are changing."

In a clear jab at critics demanding a drawdown of US troops, Bush added: "We cannot expect the new strategy we are carrying out to bring success overnight."

The president said that every month since January, US forces have killed or captured on average more than 1,500 Al-Qaeda fighters and other insurgents in Iraq.

Bush's positive portrayal of the unpopular war, part of a broader campaign by the White House to fend off calls for an early withdrawal of US forces, came despite a plea by a prominent Republican senator to begin at least a symbolic pullout of troops.

John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and an influential voice on military issues, jolted the White House on Thursday when he called for a withdrawal of up to 5,000 US troops to "send a sharp and clear message" to the Baghdad government that the US commitment was not open-ended.

Bush has not responded directly to Warner's call, but in his radio address he said security had improved in Iraq since his "surge strategy" deployed an extra 30,000 troops earlier this year.

Recent operations had cleared "terrorists out of population centers" and given "families in liberated Iraqi cities a safer and more normal life," Bush said.

"As security improves, more Iraqis are stepping forward to defend their democracy," he said, adding that more Iraqi men were signing up for the army and that Iraqi police were patrolling streets.

Bush hopes to shore up support for the war effort among Republicans ahead of a crucial report to Congress by the top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The two are to present a progress report in mid-September on US efforts to quell violence and promote political stability with about 160,000 US troops now in the country.

In contrast to Bush's upbeat assessment on Iraq, an analysis by US intelligence agencies presented Thursday offered a more pessimistic outlook. Democratic leaders in Congress cited the analysis as proof the president's approach was a failure.

The declassified estimate confirmed some important yet fragile gains on security, but said the country's political scene was still riven by sectarian suspicions.

"Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and sectarian violence "probably will intensify," the intelligence report said.

The US military leadership also appeared divided over the right course of action in Iraq, amid reports top officers in Washington favored a major reduction of US forces soon while commanders on the ground wanted a more gradual drawdown.

The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, denied a report that he was poised to urge Bush to cut US force levels in Iraq by nearly half next year to ease the strain the war has placed on the military.

In Iraq, US Army Major General Rick Lynch said any withdrawal this year in his area of operations around Baghdad would be "a giant step backwards," allowing insurgents to regain sanctuaries wrested from them in tough fighting.

In Washington, Democratic lawmakers kept up calls to begin a withdrawal of US troops as they hoped for defections among moderate Republicans.

"Further pursuit of the administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's best interests," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told the Washington Post.

"The conflict in Iraq is an Iraqi political problem, not a US military problem," said former senator and Vietnam war veteran Max Cleland in a radio address.

More than 3,700 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"Despite this enormous sacrifice, we find ourselves mired in a civil war with no end in sight and Iraqis unable or unwilling to make the political decisions necessary to end this conflict," Cleland said.

Bush was expected to renew his defense of his war plan on Tuesday when he addresses members of the American Legion in Reno, Nevada.

The president lashed out at war critics in an address last week, warning a US pullout from Iraq could trigger a catastrophe similar to what occurred in Southeast Asia after the US debacle in Vietnam a generation ago.

Cheney pushing for Action on Iran

It seems that there is no stopping Cheney and the neo-conservative cabal. An attack on Iran could very well divert attention from the mess in Iraq and serve to unite the populace behind a very unpopular president but perhaps not. I rather expect that Israel will be given the job of attacking Iran. However, many including myself, expected an attack several months ago.

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian


While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP



The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."




The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

Bush: Insurgents are same as 9/11 attackers!

That Bush can get off unscathed it seems when making such absurd comments says something about US press reports. Of course there are insurgents in Iraq who admit to being Al Qaeda inspired but the point is that these are no doubt a minority of the insurgents. Also, much of the killing of innocents occurs through conflict between Sunni and Shia and has nothing directly to do with the insurgency. One could mention as well that some of the killing of innocents is a direct result of US and allies attempts to control the insurgency. Bush has in recent speeches mentioned Al Qaeda again and again trying to brainwash the US public into thinking that the war is all about war on terrorism. He also has suggested that if the US withdrew that the oil fields etc. would fall into the hands of Al Qaeda type terrorists. Even if the US withdrew it is surely doubtful that any Al Qeda linked government would take over. Al Qaeda has already alienated Sunnis in the areas where they were most influential and the US has taken advantage of this by arming Sunni leaders in those areas.


Bush: Insurgents in Iraq same as 9/11 attackers Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday July 12, 2007


Print This Email This



President Bush, defending his troop surge in Iraq, insisted Thursday that the insurgents attacking US troops in Iraq "are the same ones who attacked us on Sept. 11."

Bush was speaking at a White House press conference on the same day an interim progress report on his troop surge in Iraq was released. Asked for proof of the connection between insurgents in Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, Bush said both had pledged their allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us on Sept. 11," Bush said.

The president was responding to a question from NBC correspondent David Gregory, who asked why Americans shouldn't believe he is "stubborn or in denial." Gregory was referencing a report in Thursday's Washington Post that indicated CIA Director Michael Hayden saw as "irreversible" the lack of progress in Iraq.

Facing a new report out today on the progress of his troop surge, Bush downplayed the fact that the report shows Iraqi lawmakers are making "satisfactory" progress on less than half of the 18 benchmarks that are required related to the troop buildup. The president reminded reporters that the buildup was just completed within the last month, and he tried to urge more patience in the war's fifth year.

Bush said the report shows the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on two.

Democrats used the occasion of the progress report's release to criticize Bush's war policy.

"Does this White House think that we don't know how to turn on our televisions?" asked Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, in a prepared statement. "Don't tell us we're making progress in Iraq when the last three months have been some of the deadliest since this war began for our brave troops who have sacrificed so much. And don't tell us it's progress when the Iraqi leadership has done nothing – nothing – to take the political steps necessary to end their civil war."

During the press conference, Bush acknowledged that public opinion is turning against the war in Iraq, but he continued to insist that he believed the fight was winnable.

"There's war fatigue in America," Bush said. "It's affecting our psychology ... it's an ugly war."

Bush insisted progress was being made in Iraq, several times invoking Anbar Provence, before continuing to try to tie the Iraq war to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden," Bush said. "We need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously."

Bush also refused to rule out committing more troops to Iraq in the future, saying he would not publicly speculate about what he will do when Gen. David Petraeus delivers a final report on the surge's progress in September.

"I'm not going to answer your question," Bush told a reporter who asked about the possibility of sending more troops to Iraq.

As Bush tried to leave the press conference, a reporter called out a question about a new intelligence report that shows al Qaeda is gaining strength and is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

Bush said it "is simply not the case" that al Qaeda is stronger now than it was before the Sept. 11 attacks, although he asserted the terror group to defend some of his more controversial programs.

"No question al Qaeda is dangerous ... that's why we need terrorist surveillance programs," Bush said, in an apparent reference to his warrantless wiretapping program.

Bush's double-take was a one-time deal, though. As he left a second time, a reporter tried to get in one last question.

"Is bin Laden alive?" the reporter asked, as Bush continued to leave the room without offering an answer.

The following video is from MSNBC's News Live broadcast on July 12, and contains clips from press conference edited by David Edwards:

Bush: Troop cuts in a while-maybe!

Bush is transparent. He is simply attempting to stave off the attempt to force him to make a commitment now. He has left it open to actually decide on a drawback of forces in September but who knows what he will decide then. It remains to be seen whether the recent rebellion within Republican ranks will go anywhere.

Bush deploys idea of troop cut "in a while"
Facing a GOP rebellion, president signals he may be open to a course shift in Iraq
By Jeff Zeleny and Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times

Washington - Fearful of a Republican rebellion over Iraq that his own aides believe could force him to change course, President Bush said Tuesday that the United States would be able to pull back troops "in a while," but asked Congress to wait until September to pass judgment on a future military presence there.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., freshly back from a trip to Iraq, joined in the call for patience, imploring lawmakers not to "let fatigue dictate our policies."

As the Senate began a two-week debate over a major military spending bill, the White House dispatched Cabinet officials and advisers to urge other Republicans to stand by Bush.

The administration's message was spelled out in remarks Bush delivered in Ohio, in which the president signaled more clearly than before that he might be open to shifting toward a smaller, more-limited mission in Iraq in the future - without stating precisely when.

"I'll be glad to discuss different options," Bush said to a business group in Cleveland. He went on, "I believe we can be in a different position in a while, and that would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity of that country, enough troops there to make sure that al-Qaeda doesn't gain safe haven."

With Republicans divided in their support of Bush, it remains an open question whether a series of proposals in Congress, including those calling for troop-withdrawal deadlines, will gain the 60 votes needed for initial passage in the Senate when the measures are scheduled to be considered next week.

As the debate began Tuesday, Bush's national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and his new Iraq coordinator, Lt. Gen. Doug las Lute, arrived on Capitol Hill to lobby senators, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates was fielding phone calls from lawmakers in both parties.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she received a call on Tuesday morning from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, urging her to wait until September before criticizing the Bush policy.

But "the tide has turned," Snowe said. "They obviously would prefer that we wait until September, but my view is that we should send a very strong message now."

Among the proposals to be considered over the next two weeks is a plan requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days and be completed by the end of April 2008. The sponsors, Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the legislation would allow troops to remain in Iraq for a limited mission of combating terrorism, training Iraqi forces and protecting U.S. forces.

Bush's words on Tuesday signaled the beginning of a White House counteroffensive aimed at emphasizing that, like Americans around the country, he too wants to bring troops home.

"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it; can we accomplish an objective?"' Bush said. "Well, first I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish this fight and win in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must, for the sake of our children and grandchildren."

While Bush hinted in his remarks that he was open to exploring different options in the future, he did not expound upon them in any significant detail.

In a White House memorandum circulated on Capitol Hill and beyond, the administration said it was "too early to declare the surge a success or failure" but highlighted what it called signs of progress, including "a substantial drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad since January."

Administration officials sought to downplay the review of the benchmarks of progress in Iraq. The document, required by congressional budget legislation, is based on reports from senior commanders and diplomats in Iraq.

"This week started to take on greater importance than anyone in the administration had intended," said one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "September is our window."

The GOP senators who believe September is too late for a new strategy began huddling privately Tuesday to begin discussing compromise legislation to change course in Iraq. Sens. Rich ard Lugar of Indiana and John Warner of Virginia are among those crafting such proposals.

At the same time, a string of Republicans stepped forward and voiced support for the president, while Democratic leaders accused Republicans of using procedural maneuvering to delay votes on the Iraq legislation.

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., said the critics were being hasty.

"Do we not have the patience to see a totally new strategy, which is appearing to work, given a chance?" he asked.

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_6344389

Bush pushes for Kosovo Independence

This will just generate more friction with Russia. Bush doesn't seem to care. Interesting that Kosovo's separatists are mainly Muslim and often associated with terrorist tactics. But they are pro-US so what the heck. I wonder if Bush is actually serious about looking at the Russian radar proposal. Somehow I doubt it.


Bush says time to grant Kosovo independence-1
17:56 | 10/ 06/ 2007



(Adds quote, details, response to radar offer in paras 3-10)

MOSCOW, June 10 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. President George W. Bush said Sunday it was time to grant Kosovo independence pursued by the Balkan region's Albanian majority.

At a news conference in Albania Bush pledged further U.S. efforts to grant the province independence from Serbia.

"Independence is the goal. That's what the people of Kosovo need to know," Bush said. "We believe Kosovo ought to be independent."

Bush said he expected Russia, which has opposed to a UN vote on Kosovo's internationally supervised sovereignty, to change its mind.

Putin reaffirmed his position on the issue in Russia Saturday while meeting with Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, who said "seizing 15% of the territory of a UN member state" would set a "severe precedent of violating international law." Serbia has been strongly opposed to independence for Kosovo, its historical and spiritual center for centuries.

Washington pushes for a UN vote this week on the plan for Kosovo drafted by envoy Martti Ahtisaari.

Kosovo, which has a population of two million, has been a UN protectorate since NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against the former Yugoslavia ended a war between Serb forces and Muslim Albanian separatists in 1999.

President Bush was welcomed as a hero in Albania in contrast to protests that accompanied him throughout his European tour this week - in Germany where he attended a Group of Eight summit, in the Czech Republic and Poland, where he discussed missile defense plans, and Italy, where he met with Pope Benedict XVI.

On Sunday, he reiterated that Russia's proposal at the G8 summit to use the radar it rents in Azerbaijan together was logical and important as it implied cooperation in missile defense. Bush said Washington was ready to discuss the initiative.

President Putin said in Germany the radar station in the South Caucasus state could be used instead of opening new facilities in Europe. He reiterated that the U.S. missile defense plans, reportedly designed to counter possible attacks from Iran and North Korea, were directed against a nonexistent threat, and would jeopardize Russia's national security.

He earlier threatened to aim Russia's nuclear weapons on Europe, if Washington deployed missile defenses on the continent.

Rice: Bush Didnt Want War!

Someone forgot to brief Rice or else she is just an inveterate liar as are some other members of the Bush administration. This is from Juan Cole.


Monday, April 30, 2007

Rice: Bush didn't Want War

Condi Rice on Sunday denied allegations by former CIA director George Tenet that Bush came into office determined to have a war against Iraq. This is the interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:


QUESTION: Because you remember Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury Secretary, where he wrote in his first book, The Price of Loyalty with Ron Suskind, and what Ron Suskind later wrote in his own book, The One Percent Solution, that the Bush Administration came in with a mindset to deal with what they called unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.

SECRETARY RICE: That is simply not true. The President came in looking at a variety of threats. We then had the September 11th events. The September 11th events led to a kind of reassessment of what the threats were. But in the entire period after the President became President, he was trying to put together an international coalition that could deal with Iraq, first by smart sanctions, smarter no-fly zones, then by challenging Saddam Hussein before the Security Council to meet the just demands of the Security Council, and ultimately by having to use military force. But this was an evolution of policy over a long period of time. Of course the President came in concerned about Iraq. President Clinton had used military force against Iraq in 1998. We had gone to war against Iraq in 1991. But the idea that the President had made up his mind when he came to office that he was going to go to war against Iraq is just flat wrong. '


But here is what Bush's ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz reports Bush saying during an interview when Bush was still governor of Texas in the late 1990s:


' “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” '



So that was 1999.

Then we have this account from May, 2000, by journalist Osama Siblani, who met with Bush in Troy, Michigan when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination:


' OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?

OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . .

And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time. '


Then let us come to January, 2001, when the Supreme Court had installed Bush in power. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs of the very first Bush cabinet meeting:


'"The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone ... Rumsfeld and [Joint Chiefs chair Gen. H. Hugh] Shelton, he said, 'should examine our military options.' That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining 'how it might look' to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq ... Ten days in, and it was about Iraq."


O'Neill specifically said that Bush instructed Rumsfeld to look at military options and how it might look to use US ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq.

How much clearer could it be that Tenet is absolutely right that there was never any serious debate about the merits of 'taking out Saddam' in Bush's inner circle?

For more evidence that the fix was in with regard to Bush and action against Iraq, see my "The Lies that Led to War" in Salon.com.

posted by Juan @ 4/30/2007 06:35:00 AM 1 comments