advertisement

Bush & DeLay

A long, twisted, political relationship is over. Asked about the DeLay news today, the president didn't exactly gush over the loss of the "Hammer" on Capitol Hill. In fact, Bush seemed to talk beyond the troubled legacy DeLay leaves behind, insisting "our party will continue to succeed because we're the party of ideas."

The White House has always struggled to express the president's support for DeLay because, well, Bush doesn't really SUPPORT him, he's always endured him. DeLay has been a presidential ally even though Bush never much cared for him personally nor did he feel his style helped the party.

The president's carefully chosen words today reflect two realities: one, DeLay's move has now solidified the Abramoff affair's impact on the Republican party's already troubled 2006; two, Bush knows full well his problem-prone second term is equally to blame for the party's woes.

The upside is that the White House may find a new opening here. They are desperately looking to start the comeback and a DeLay exit combined with some additional changes in the White House may help them make the argument that there's a new look to the party running Washington.

Discuss (27 comments)  Email this | Link to this

The stakes

The President makes a really important point: terrorists will emerge from Iraq defeated or emboldened. But are the terrorists really the problem? What would happen if they were defeated this week? Would a unity government immediately be formed? Isn't the sectarian violence real and not just the work of insurgents? Isn't there a longer, deadlier history here that the President is overlooking? Indeed, top U.S. commanders have said sectarian violence is outpacing the insurgency as the greatest threat.

Discuss (119 comments)  Email this | Link to this

Iran

Bush says it's behind some of the technology for IEDs. First applause line here when the President says Iran is becoming more isolated and that the U.S. will confront the Islamic regime. Note the approach to Iran much different than Iraq. Here, it's still the Europeans taking the lead.

Discuss (25 comments)  Email this | Link to this

Improvised explosive devices

They are the focus of the speech now... IEDs, the roadside bombs which are the weapon of choice for insurgents. President says the threat is now the subject of a new task force among war planners. They want to target bomb makers and root out bomb-making cells. Iraqis, he says, are providing new intelligence. Number of tips from 400 last March to 4,000 last December about bomb making activities. Second, Mr. Bush says troops are getting new training on defusing IEDs. Key here, say advisers, is to try to show the public that they are making quick adjustments to conditions on the ground. The President also is speaking about putting best minds in America on the task of tackling the IED threat. He won't share some of the new technology being developed to defeat the bombers. This is quite a contrast to the body armor story. The President wants to convince the public that troops will get best equipment now. Interesting, it's IED explosions that get the most coverage day in and day out. The White House wants to deal with the public's perceptions.

Discuss (10 comments)  Email this | Link to this

More on training Iraqis

The President said there are more than 100 Iraqi batallions fighting... today it's 130 batallions... with more than 60 taking the lead. Major focus now on training Iraqi police, which has been infiltrated by Shia militias. Troop levels? No change here. No artificial timetables. Still appears that troop level drops to about 100,000 by year's end. But if civil war breaks out?

Discuss (11 comments)  Email this | Link to this

Training Iraqi security forces

President Bush points out that Iraqi troops responded to the Samarra bombing, not Americans. That's progress, he suggests. He's talking now about how Iraqi troops quieted the crowd after the mosque bombing. This is the kind of the detail that is so often missing from the White House communication of the war. I'm not sure most people know this level of detail. But is it really making a difference?

Discuss (2 comments)  Email this | Link to this

Civil war in Iraq?

The President hopes not. He says that terror groups and Saddam loyalists now hope to incite civil war since they can't defeat US forces. But Iraqis won't let it happen, he assures us. Advisors caution that Iraq has approached the line of civil war before, but reliably step back. He reminds Iraqis how important it is to have a unity government. "We will not lose our nerve. We will help the Iraqi people succeed." Critics wonder whether we, alone, can help them succeed.

Discuss (21 comments)  Email this | Link to this

"Live" blogging the president's speech

Moments from now President Bush will launch another attempt to soothe the nation's anxiety over Iraq with a series of speeches designed to explain how the war is going and the plan to turn things around. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said today that "progress is being made, but more needs to be done." The problem for the President is that the public has moved well beyond that. There isn't a communication problem in the country's estimation, there's a policy problem.

Unlike the President's last PR blitz, this one comes amid growing concern about civil war. The successful elections of last December have been overtaken by the real prospect that sectarian violence will overtake the insurgency as the greatest threat to the future of a unified, peaceful Iraq.

Is it hopeless? Polls show many Americans, including a majority of Republicans, are asking that question. The other question: what is the U.S. role now? We alone can't make it better, if Iraqis don't fix it themselves.

I'll be live blogging during the President's speech from George Washington University. Click "Discuss" to send me your comments.

Discuss (50 comments)  Email this | Link to this

Cover for the White House?

If you saw today's White House briefing, none of us could believe that Scott McClellan was backing off the President's threat to veto any attempt to derail the ports deal -- allowing Dubai Ports World to assume management of major U.S. seaports. But he was, and minutes later we find out there is a deal: DPW will transfer management of the U.S. ports to a U.S. entity, thus giving the White House some cover.

The White House says they only knew of "rumors" of a deal, but one wonders whether there was coordination between the White House, DPW and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who announced the agreement. It's clear the White House knew, especially after meeting with congressional leaders this morning, that Congress was prepared to buck him on this.

No one here wanted the President to veto his own party, so leave it to DPW, the state-run company no one apparently trusts to manage U.S. ports, to be the great peace broker in Washington! More to come of course.

Discuss (175 comments)  Email this | Link to this

What I'm seeing in India

Our afternoon outing in Delhi took us to the Sarozgini Nagar market, a teaming outdoor bazaar where the relentless push for a sale is overwhelmed by the sadness you feel when accosted by young, barefoot children begging for money.

And this is NEW Delhi, an area filled with embassies and pockets of wealth. A city of almost 14 million people is caught between its poverty and its tremendous promise. The lead story in the Times of India this morning trumpets: "It’s A Deal. A Very Big Deal." The reference, of course, is to the agreement to share civilian nuclear energy with India. This is a big story and The New York Times explains why its so controversial back home.
                                                                                                                     
I remain enthralled with this part of the world and the growing U.S. interest in India as a counterbalance to China -- militarily and economically.

CONTINUED »

Discuss (9 comments)  Email this | Link to this