Mixed audience hears Bush’s goals

Bush insists he’ll stand by his Iraq goals,” Oct. 26

What is this victory in Iraq the president refers to, and how will we know when we achieve it? Only when we have a stated goal can we understand the best strategy for achieving that goal. Is it regime change? That’s done. Is it to get rid of weapons of mass destruction? That’s done (that was an easy one).

Reduce the membership of Al Qaeda? Improve the quality of life in Iraq? Increase the flow of oil to the United States? Impress other populations in the Middle East? In those areas, we seem to be working backward.

The only plausible goal I’ve heard is to keep fighting in Iraq to keep Al Qaeda distracted from striking the U.S. How do you declare victory in that case? Ten years without an attack? Americans need to know what this victory is the president is adjusting tactics for.

BILL MOSIER

Hermosa Beach

*

Bush said that he and his fellow Republicans were campaigning to stay in “power” rather than in “office.” A Freudian slip? Honesty? He also claimed that his party was the only one that could assure the country’s security and lower taxes. Every high school student learns in economics that guns and butter don’t fit in the same budget. Pay for both war and security and lower taxes? I hope Americans realize that Bush’s promises are impossible.

LYNNE SHAPIRO

Marina del Rey

*

Re “Giving cover as election nears,” news analysis, Oct. 26

There’s quite a telling line in the news analysis. We learn that “with uncharacteristic nuance,” the president explained the difference between government benchmarks for performance and the dreaded timetable for withdrawal. Yet in the same news conference, he says benchmarks will allow the government to say to the Iraqi people: “Here’s what we intend to do, and here’s when we intend to do it.”

This is the same president who savaged his 2004 opponent for “nuanced” positions on Iraq but is now talking out of both sides of his mouth. The late ventriloquist Paul Winchell would be envious.

BLAISE JACKSON

Escondido

*

Re “Iraq reality check,” editorial, Oct. 26

The news conference I saw never had the president saying “and so on.” He spoke of dead U.S. and Iraqi soldiers; benchmarks and a young sovereign government; a people freed of tyranny; and militias representing religious and ethnic groups that have no dictator holding them back.

Why is it most people who don’t hate Bush heard a news conference full of information? The U.S. has given Iraqis the opportunity to set up their own government and rule themselves. Obviously some are bent on a different course. What did The Times want to hear? A withdrawal date? An ultimatum to the 5-month-old Iraqi government? Your assessment shows your prejudice. You heard something none of us heard.

CHRIS ULLMAN

Manhattan Beach