Bush to Calm Anxieties about Wars.

Read this little series of recent events and see if we should worry.

Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.
Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis. Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who heads the transitional government chosen after January elections.
The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington. He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700. A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.
"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground "? there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time "? the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."
A few Republicans have broken ranks with the White House on Iraq, supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006. "After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.
Many GOP lawmakers also have been reluctant to embrace Bush's signature second-term domestic issue "? allowing younger workers to set up private investment accounts with part of their Social Security taxes.
But the president has shown no public evidence yet of backing down and has traveled the country weekly "? and will again next week "? to campaign for his proposals.
Still, at a time when Bush intended to be concentrating primarily on his domestic agenda, he finds himself shifting emphasis to Iraq.
Foreign policy has typically given Bush his highest scores with the public, but that has changed. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month found just 41 percent of adults supported his handling of the Iraq war "? an all-time low. In addition, a Gallup poll released Monday found that six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.
As with his new domestic agenda sales job, Bush plans to offer no policy changes on Iraq.
One development, though, could throw Bush completely off-stride. The Supreme Court's first vacancy in over a decade could come by the end of the month, and the fierce nomination battle that would immediately ensue would consume a huge portion of the president's "? and the entire capital's "? attention.

The House was poised to give the Pentagon an additional $45 billion for wars next year, even as public support for combat in Iraq wanes and lawmakers press for an exit strategy.
While President Bush has not asked yet for more war funds, lawmakers included money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill the House was expected to approve late Thursday.
With no end in sight in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional war costs are certain and House lawmakers are reluctant to wait for the president's request.
The Senate also is considering adding billions for the wars in its version of the spending bill.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has given the president $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide. That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May; much of this money was for Iraq.
In the month since, polls have shown that the public increasingly is dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq war.
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that only 41 percent of adults "? a low-water mark "? said they supported Bush's handling of the war. A Gallup poll reported that six in 10 Americans want the United States to withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.
Responding to the growing criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Americans to "reach down" into themselves and "look for the kind of patience and generosity that we have exhibited in the past."
"Now, I do think that we owe to the American people to say again and again that this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term. This is going to be an Iraqi enterprise," she said.
Military officials said they hoped to reverse the downward trend in public support.
"It is concerning that our public is not as supportive as perhaps they once were," said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their country's behind them," Conway said.
Discontent about the war is evident among lawmakers.
On Thursday, a small group of House members from each party introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by year's end a plan for bringing home troops from Iraq and take steps to follow through. Withdrawal would have to start by Oct. 1, 2006, according to the measure.
"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.
Introduced the same day attacks west of Baghdad killed six U.S. troops, the joint resolution is the first such proposal offered by both Democrats and Republicans. In 2002, most Democrats and six House Republicans voted against sending troops to Iraq.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a resolution this week that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops.
The White House argued that a timetable cannot be considered until Iraq's army is strong enough. The administration also has said any withdrawal plan would encourage insurgents to wait for foreign troops to leave Iraq.
"Timetables simply send the wrong message. They send the wrong message to the terrorists. They send the wrong message to the Iraqi people. They send the wrong message to our troops who are serving admirably and working to complete an important mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
Excluding war money, the House bill provides $364 billion for the Pentagon for the 2006 budget year that begins Oct. 1. That amount is about 3 percent greater this year's base funding. The House bill is about $3 billion less than the president wants for defense.
The measure would fund a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military. Lawmakers hope it could help entice current and prospective troops at a time when enlistments are lagging.
Bush, in the Pentagon spending proposal he submitted to Congress in February, did not request any money to pay for the wars. The White House insisted it did not yet know how much would be needed for next year "? an argument it has used before to omit war costs from its initial budget.

Osama bin Laden and Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar are not believed to be in Afghanistan anymore, the U.S. ambassador said Thursday, raising fresh questions as to the whereabouts of the elusive terror mastermind. Zalmay Khalilzad, tapped by President Bush to be the next U.S. envoy to Iraq, did not reveal where the two might be hiding or whether his comment was based on new intelligence.

Kill them. They don't understand anything but fear, I ain't sure they don't think they are Allah. We need a military base in the mid-east, a large one. If you think fuel is high now imagine things without our troops- but please, PLEASE let'em do what they do best. CUT LOOSE OUR DOGS or let these countries defend themselves. Charge them in blood- might as well ,that is what our boys are paying in! Leave WAR to the WARRIORS.

[PVVikeFan]

Good posts. Both of you.

Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo." The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.
Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has "? to put it mildly "? come into question," he said.
In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.
"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.
"It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.
Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.
Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.
The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.
U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time.
"This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1. It also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concluded the U.S. military had given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, said that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo." The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.
Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has "? to put it mildly "? come into question," he said.
In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.
"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.
"It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.
Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.
Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.
The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.
U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time.
"This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1. It also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concluded the U.S. military had given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, said that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."