AFP: Bush targets Iraq policy change by Christmas

[Eugene]

Bush targets Iraq policy change by Christmas


by Stephen Collinson
Sat Dec 9, 12:06 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush will work on a new approach to Iraq
in meetings with top advisors next week, and could announce the strategy before
Christmas, the White House said.

Pressure is building on Bush after he distanced himself from several key
recommendations put forward by a top bipartisan commission this week, which called
for a complete overhaul of US policy to avert Iraq's slide into chaos.

He will frame his decision in talks with his secretaries of state and defense,
military commanders and US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as outside
experts.

-snip-

The goal is for Bush "to be able to give a speech before Christmas (December 25),
but it's not set in stone," Perino said.

-snip-

Bush was cool on two key commission proposals -- talks with Iran and Syria, and
withdrawing most US combat troops by early 2008.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061209/wl_afp/usiraqdiplomacy_061209050657

Also: Bush rejects Iraq report's key proposals, unveils Mideast initiative - AFP

[The Count]

1. Yup. A speech. That's the ticket. Fearless leader will make it all right.By Christmas,

no less. Geez, it's not just W who's nuts, his "advisors" are delusional. Still creating that reality, I see....

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. The all spin misadministration - all talk, no content. designed for success....

miserable failure is way too mild to describe the incompetence of this "man" and those he surrounds himself with.

[nancyr]

3. Who cares?

Who can even stand to listen to him anymore? He's pathetic.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. The change will be rhetorical

Bush and many in his regime do not seem to have learned that a word is merely a symbol and not the thing for which it stands. If we just say we are winning in Iraq, then we are winning in Iraq. Those who say otherwise need to get with the program; since Bush is so fond of B-Western cliches, one might expect him of accusing anyone who says the war is lost of making "bad medicine."

This explains the curtailment of civil liberties in the US. There would have been no need for this had the war on terror been fought effectively with modest but measurable goals, such as capturing Osama and his lieutenants, rather than using the September 11 attacks as a poor pretext to pursue the neoconservative wet dream of colonizing Iraq. American cannot be allowed to say Iraq is lost or that invading was a bad idea in the first place or that Bush and his aides misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq because to merely say these things is what makes them so, not the fact that they are so.

The confusion of the symbol and the thing is evident among congressional Republicans as well. It manifests itself, for example, in the way they think they've accomplished something positive by pushing a constitutional amendment against burning the American flag while allowing Bush to burn the nation for which it stands.