Reply #10: London Times: Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months (not what Bush said!)

[Nothing Without Hope]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1922836,00.html

Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months

From Richard Beeston and Stephen Farrell in Baghdad and Michael Evans in Basra
The Times, December 13, 2005

BRITAIN and America are planning a phased withdrawal of their forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad after this week’s elections.

In a move that has caused alarm in the outgoing Iraqi administration, American and British officials have made clear that they regard the end of Iraq’s two-and-a-half-year transitional period as the green light to begin withdrawing some of their combined force of around 170,000 troops as early as March.

(snip)

A senior Western diplomat in Baghdad said yesterday: “One of the first things we will talk about (with the new Iraqi government) is the phased transfer of security, particularly in cities and provinces. It will happen progressively over the next year.”

(snip)

The moves appear to run contrary to statements by President Bush and John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who insist that coalition forces will not “cut and run” and will stay until the mission in Iraq is complete.

(snip)

I enjoyed reading the take on this at the Mahablog, which contrasted the very clear statement in the London Times with Bush's several inconsistent statements in his speech on Iraq today. Here is the Mahablog entry on this:
http://www.mahablog.com/2005/12/12/cut-and-run

And here is the full text of Bush's speech today on Iraq:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-bush-text,0,7270373.story?coll=ny-world-big-pix

What Bush said today was NOT consistent with the London Times statement. For example:

We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Our goal is victory. And victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.

As is pointed out in the Mahablog, what WAS very clear in Bush's Iraq speech today is that he is STILL laboring to link the Iraq war with the 9/11 attacks. For example:

I’ve come to discuss an issue that’s really important, and that is victory in the war on terror. And that war started on September the 11th, 2001, when our nation awoke to a sudden attack.

Like generations before us, we have accepted new responsibilities. We’re confronting dangers with new resolve. We’re taking the fight to those who attacked us and to those who share their murderous vision for future attacks.

We will fight this war without wavering, and we’ll prevail.

The war on terror will take many turns, and the enemy must be defeated on every battlefield, from the streets of Western cities, to the mountains of Afghanistan, to the tribal regions of Pakistan, to the islands of Southeast Asia and to the Horn of Africa.

Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity.

So we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

In the Q & A session, Bush was actually asked a direct question about his repeated and continuing attempts to tie Iraq to 9/11. Wonder of wonders! The Mahablog excerpts the juiciest part:

QUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to know why it is that you and others in your administration keep linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalists or Middle Eastern expert confirmed that such a link existed.

BUSH: What did she - I missed the question. Sorry.

I beg your pardon. I didn’t hear you. Seriously.

QUESTION: I would like to know why you and others in your administration invoke 9/11 as justification for the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalists or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed.

BUSH: Oh, I appreciate that.

9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us; that we can’t take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it. It doesn’t have to be militarily necessarily but we got to deal with it. We can’t just hope for the best anymore.

So the first decision I made, as you know, was to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. This is where the terrorists plan and plotted.

And the second decision - which was a very difficult decision for me, by the way, and it’s one that I didn’t take lightly - was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He is a declared enemy of the United States. He had used weapons of mass destruction. The entire world thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had declared in more than 10 - I can’t remember the exact number of resolutions - that disclose or disarm or face serious consequences.

I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein: `You’re a threat.’ And the 9/11 attacks accentuated that threat, as far as I’m concerned.

And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm. And he refused.

And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.

I don't have the stomach to try to count the shear number of blatant lies in this incoherent Bush spew on the general subject of "Iraq...9/11...Victory...tough decision...Saddam bad...9/11...Saddam refused inspections...I'm such a tough leader...Victory...."

The London Times article sounds rather more coherent and well-informed that Bush. If they are right, then withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will begin early next year, perhaps in March.

The other point is that Bush is lying as fast and as often as he can and saying "victory" so often he might as well just write it on his forehead and shorten his speeches by at least half. And he is STILL tying 9/11 to Iraq and STILL claiming Saddam Hussein did not allow weapon inspections and that the "whole world" believed he had WMDs.

Let's hope the London Times is right.