‘Bush out of touch with reality in Iraq’

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush is out of touch with reality, leading liberal US newspapers said yesterday commenting on Bush’s “strategy for victory” in Iraq speech, which conservative dailies welcomed as “most notable”.

Bush’s speech on Wednesday at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, “seemed at times more plucked from a black-and-white fantasy than the more complex reality,” said USA Today. Far from rebuilding support for the war, Bush “missed his moment” and “threw into sharper relief the long-running disconnect between his rosy perceptions and what’s attainable,” said the nationally distributed paper.”US entry into Iraq was premised on faulty intelligence.Its exit should not be conditioned on a faulty notion of what’s achievable,” added the editorial.Shortly before Bush’s speech, the White House Wednesday issued a policy paper on Iraq outlining the goals that must be reached before US troops can be withdrawn.”The document, and Mr Bush’s speech, were almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything’s going just fine,” said The New York Times, which compared Bush to late US President Richard Nixon and his 1969 strategy to end the Vietnam War.”Substitute the Iraqi constitutional process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr Bush’s ideas about the Iraqi Army are not much different from Nixon’s plans – except Nixon admitted the war was going very badly,” said the Times.”A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more,” the editorial concluded.The Washington Post agreed with Bush’s argument that US troop withdrawal depends on conditions in Iraq and the judgment of US commanders.However, the daily said, Bush “continues to understate the magnitude of the challenge.””Every plan the administration has prepared, starting with the original invasion, has been based on overly optimistic assumptions and insufficient resources.”Now, once again, the strategy supposes a series of successes in the next 12 months that approach the miraculous,” said the Post, adding that it was unrealistic to presume Iraq could achieve stability three years after the US-led invasion.”It’s not realistic to expect it after four years, either – whether or not there are benchmarks and timetables,” said the Post editorial.The Wall Street Journal found no fault in Bush’s speech, saying it was “most notable because for the first time in months Mr Bush dug into the details of the US military strategy, especially the training of Iraqi forces.”For the leading economic daily, “there are reasons for optimism in Iraq.”It urged Bush to continue “making the case for the war …and never failing to lay out the path to victory.”The Journal even makes Bush “one more immodest proposal: How about a Presidential visit to address the new Iraqi Parliament early next year?” As expected, the ultraconservative Washington Times slammed the Democrats’ “cynical politicking” in taking advantage of Bush’s low approval ratings and disassociating themselves “from what they perceive to be failure in Iraq.”Bush’s speech “presented nothing new,” said the Washington Times, “The president’s explanation of the situation on the ground, so to speak, was nonetheless welcome.”- Nampa-AFP3Far from rebuilding support for the war, Bush “missed his moment” and “threw into sharper relief the long-running disconnect between his rosy perceptions and what’s attainable,” said the nationally distributed paper.”US entry into Iraq was premised on faulty intelligence.Its exit should not be conditioned on a faulty notion of what’s achievable,” added the editorial.Shortly before Bush’s speech, the White House Wednesday issued a policy paper on Iraq outlining the goals that must be reached before US troops can be withdrawn.”The document, and Mr Bush’s speech, were almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything’s going just fine,” said The New York Times, which compared Bush to late US President Richard Nixon and his 1969 strategy to end the Vietnam War.”Substitute the Iraqi constitutional process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr Bush’s ideas about the Iraqi Army are not much different from Nixon’s plans – except Nixon admitted the war was going very badly,” said the Times.”A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more,” the editorial concluded.The Washington Post agreed with Bush’s argument that US troop withdrawal depends on conditions in Iraq and the judgment of US commanders.However, the daily said, Bush “continues to understate the magnitude of the challenge.””Every plan the administration has prepared, starting with the original invasion, has been based on overly optimistic assumptions and insufficient resources.”Now, once again, the strategy supposes a series of successes in the next 12 months that approach the miraculous,” said the Post, adding that it was unrealistic to presume Iraq could achieve stability three years after the US-led invasion.”It’s not realistic to expect it after four years, either – whether or not there are benchmarks and timetables,” said the Post editorial.The Wall Street Journal found no fault in Bush’s speech, saying it was “most notable because for the first time in months Mr Bush dug into the details of the US military strategy, especially the training of Iraqi forces.”For the leading economic daily, “there are reasons for optimism in Iraq.”It urged Bush to continue “making the case for the war …and never failing to lay out the path to victory.”The Journal even makes Bush “one more immodest proposal: How about a Presidential visit to address the new Iraqi Parliament early next year?” As expected, the ultraconservative Washington Times slammed the Democrats’ “cynical politicking” in taking advantage of Bush’s low approval ratings and disassociating themselves “from what they perceive to be failure in Iraq.”Bush’s speech “presented nothing new,” said the Washington Times, “The president’s explanation of the situation on the ground, so to speak, was nonetheless welcome.”- Nampa-AFP3