Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

Bush vs. Obama

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"And so, yeah. I mean, that's one of challenges we face is denying Al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere. And their intentions -- that's what they said, that they would like to have a base or safe haven in Al Anbar province."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times tried to get Bush to go further. "Do you believe that his comment was naive?" she asked. Bush wouldn't say. But it was pretty clear what he meant.

And Bush did establish a new benchmark of sorts for Iraq. He has said that he wants to leave a sustainable policy in Iraq to his successor. Stolberg, rebuffed on her Obama question, asked: "Can you describe for us specifically, what do you mean by sustainable? Do you have specific goals and objectives that in your mind would meet the criteria of sustainability?"

Bush's reply: "Yes, which is to keep enough troops there so we can succeed."

Meanwhile, in Iraq

Sudarsan Raghavan and Amit R. Paley write in The Washington Post: "U.S.-backed Sunni volunteer forces, which have played a vital role in reducing violence in Iraq, are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support."

Amit R. Paley writes in The Washington Post: "Iraqi government leaders on Wednesday rejected a law requiring nationwide elections by the fall, sidetracking a measure that U.S. officials consider a key benchmark for political reconciliation in Iraq.

"Parliament passed the legislation two weeks ago. The veto by Iraq's presidency council was an unexpected setback."

Steve Lannen writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach.

"Parliament considered it in a bundle with two other bills, a general amnesty and a budget, and approved it on Feb. 12 in what was welcomed in Washington as an example of good government, compromise and progress toward national unity.

"Now the question is whether parliament is willing to revise the measure.

"'It was a package deal. Now that package is broken,' said Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan."

Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Kim Gamel write for the Associated Press that the veto came despite a last-minute telephone call by Vice President Dick Cheney to the holdout on the three-member panel.


<       2              >


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive