WRAPUP 4-US Democrats outraged by Bush 'appeasement' remark

Reuters: [2008-05-15 23:32:00]

(Recasts, adds Clinton, Gates quotes)

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats erupted in outrage on Thursday after President George W. Bush suggested a pledge by the party's presidential front-runner Barack Obama to meet Iran's leader was akin to appeasement of Nazi Germany.

Bush's comments, made in Jerusalem to the Israeli parliament during celebrations for Israel's 60th anniversary, stirred up the campaign for the November election and prompted Obama to accuse him of engaging in "the politics of fear."

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said.

Without mentioning Obama by name, Bush compared "this foolish delusion" to the prelude to World War Two.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said.

The United States entered the war more than two years after the German invasion of Poland when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii in 1941.

Bush, who has generally avoided talking about the campaign to elect a new president in November, drew a sharp response from Obama, the first-term Illinois senator who is close to defeating rival Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Obama maintains he would be willing to meet with leaders of hostile nations like Iran, Syria and Cuba. He argues the United States blundered by refusing to talk to them.

'FALSE ATTACK'

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," he said.

Republican John McCain, who has clinched his party's presidential nomination, did not repeat the word "appeasement" when asked about Bush's comments as he campaigned in Ohio.

But he did criticize Obama's pledge to speak directly to U.S. foes, particularly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He said Obama needs to explain why he would talk to him.

"It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says that Israel is a 'stinking corpse,' that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?" McCain said.

Clinton, who has criticized Obama's pledge to meet Ahmadinejad, nonetheless came to his defense.

"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it," she told reporters.

Both Bush and McCain frequently criticize Ahmadinejad for threatening Israel and believe he must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon, a goal Iran denies.

White House spokesman Dana Perino insisted Bush did not specifically mean to target Obama, saying "there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to."

A prominent McCain backer, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic vice presidential candidate, said Bush "got it exactly right" by rejecting the idea that "if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers they would cease to threaten us."

Many Democrats slammed Bush and pointed out the words of his own defense secretary, Robert Gates, who said on Wednesday: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them."

The Bush administration has talked directly with Iran over the conflicts in its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan and has offered to discuss a wide range of issues if Tehran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

"If George Bush believes engagement with Iran is appeasement, the first thing he should do when he comes home is demand the resignation of his own Cabinet," former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, an Obama supporter, said.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel." (Additional reporting by Ellen Wulfhorst, Caren Bohan and Jeff Mason; editing by David Storey and Eric Walsh) (To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/) ((For a TAKE A LOOK on the campaign [US/VOTE])) ((Reuters Messaging: steve.holland.reuters.com@reuters.net; +1 202-898-8300, fax +1 202-898-8383)) Keywords: USA POLITICS/

US House blocks Iraq war money, sets pullout plan

Reuters: [2008-05-15 23:13:00]

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, in a surprise and largely symbolic move, defeated legislation on Thursday to fund the war in Iraq for another year.

But it also sent the Senate a controversial troop-withdrawal plan that will give that chamber an opportunity to restore the money for waging the conflict, which is deeply unpopular with the public.

With a large group of anti-war Democrats voting against giving the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through mid-2009, the House defeated the measure by a vote of 149-141.

Meanwhile, 132 Republicans voted "present" -- meaning neither "yes" nor "no" -- on the legislation, which brought another difficult debate about U.S. war policy just as the presidential and congressional elections are heating up and Republicans fear large losses in November.

Some Republicans said they were protesting the way Democrats brought the legislation to the House floor without House Appropriations Committee consideration.

Most Republicans support the money for the war and oppose timetables for pulling troops out of Iraq.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters he expects the Senate to restore the war funding and give House Republicans another chance to approve it.

The White House has issued a veto threat against setting dates for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq as part of a war-funding bill. President George W. Bush vetoed such a measure a year ago.

"The legislation provides for a new direction in Iraq that will end this sad chapter in America's history and bring home our brave men and women in uniform," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters before the vote.

But in the face of the veto threat and Senate Republican opposition, even some House Democratic leaders acknowledged that their troop withdrawal plan likely would be abandoned before war funds are ultimately sent to Bush for his approval.

The House bill "seeks to tie the hands of our military commanders and impose an artificial timeline for withdrawal," the White House said.

Lawmakers may fall short of the goal of passing a final version of the legislation, which also expands U.S. food aid abroad, by the end of May, when a congressional recess begins.

The Pentagon says it needs the money by sometime in June.

MORE THAN $800 BILLION

Under the House-passed plan, U.S. combat troops, who have been fighting in Iraq since early 2003, would begin withdrawing within one month of the legislation being enacted. It would set a goal of completing the troop withdrawals by the end of 2009.

Assuming Congress eventually delivers the new funds, more than $800 billion will have been appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going for Iraq.

By proposing to send the Defense Department enough money to pay for the wars through the middle of next year, Democratic leaders said they would have given the next president, who takes office in January, several months to come up with his or her own war plans.

But the move also was aimed at eliminating the need for Congress to pass more war money later this year, shortly before the November congressional and presidential elections, in which the unpopular war is expected to play a prominent role.

Also on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said the five-year-old war in Iraq can be won within four more years. Earlier in his quest for the White House, the Arizona senator had talked about a U.S. military commitment that could continue for a century.

Pelosi mocked that new forecast, saying, "That's not what people usually mean in a presidential year when they say 'four more years.'"

As the House debated, the Senate Appropriations Committee worked on its bill to fund the wars while adding more money than Bush sought for U.S. hurricane recovery efforts and other accounts. It might be debated next week.

Besides withdrawing troops from Iraq, the House bill would give more financial help to war veterans to attend college. Democrats want to pay the cost -- $51.6 billion over 10 years -- by imposing a 0.5 percent tax on individuals with gross incomes over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million.

Republicans said the tax would hurt small business owners.

In the midst of an economic downturn, the bill also would help the unemployed by continuing jobless benefits for an additional 13 weeks. In states where unemployment is highest, another 13 weeks of benefits would be added for a total cost of $11 billion over 10 years. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Thomas Ferraro; editing by Patricia Zengerle) ((richard.cowan@reuters.com; Reuters Messaging: richard.cowan.reuters.com@reuters.net; 202-898-8391)) Keywords: IRAQ USA/FUNDING

UPDATE 3-Gunmen wound 3 Iranian embassy staff in Baghdad

Reuters: [2008-05-15 23:06:00]

(Updates with Iran's IRNA comments, U.S. reaction)

By Tim Cocks

BAGHDAD, May 15 (Reuters) - Gunmen opened fire on a car carrying three Iranian embassy staff in Baghdad on Thursday, wounding them and their Iraqi driver, a spokesman for the Iranian embassy said.

"The gunmen attacked the car with our employees at around 5 p.m. (1400 GMT) while they were travelling to visit Kadhimiya shrine," embassy spokesman Sayed Tasleem told Reuters, referring to a Shi'ite shrine in northwest Baghdad.

He said two of the victims were badly wounded.

Iraqi police confirmed the attack but did not have any further details or say who they thought could be behind it. Iran's official IRNA news agency blamed the U.S. military.

"American agents carried out terror attacks on Iranian embassy staff in Baghdad," IRNA quoted an unnamed source as saying. "Iran will seriously follow this case and wants those responsible ... to be arrested and punished."

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the allegation was "completely ridiculous".

"We're not in the business of assassination," Major Brad Leighton said. "I don't know why the Iranian press would report that. Obviously, they've got an agenda."

Diplomats have been a favourite target of militants in Iraq. Poland's ambassador suffered severe burns in a bomb attack in Baghdad in October last year.

Iran is one of the few countries in the Gulf region with a fully fledged embassy in Iraq.

Most Gulf states have no permanent representatives in Baghdad and many regional diplomats have stayed away from the country since a suicide car bomber attacked the Jordanian embassy in 2003, killing 17 people. Egypt pulled out when its ambassador was kidnapped and then killed in 2005. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran) ((tim.cocks@thomsonreuters.com; Reuters Messaging: tim.cocks.reuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: IRAQ/SHOOTINGS

UPDATE 1-FACTBOX-Reaction to Bush 'appeasement' remark

Reuters: [2008-05-15 23:01:00]

(Adds Clinton comments)

May 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush stirred up the campaign to replace him by suggesting on Thursday that Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama's pledge to talk to Iran's leader represented "the false comfort of appeasement."

Following is reaction to Bush's comments:

BARACK OBAMA, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND ILLINOIS SENATOR

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack.

"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel."

JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND ARIZONA SENATOR

McCain did not repeat the word "appeasement" but he criticized Obama's foreign policy approach of being willing to speak directly to U.S. foes. He singled out Iran, questioning why a U.S. president would want to talk to someone like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama. It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says that Israel is a stinking corpse (and) that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

HILLARY CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND NEW YORK SENATOR

"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced.

"Unfortunately this is what we've come to expect from President Bush who has refused to change course in Iraq, neglected Afghanistan and failed to provide leadership on a range of important issues that face our country and the world."

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT INDEPENDENT SENATOR

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naive thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists.

"It is critical to our national security that our commander in chief is able to distinguish between America's friends and America's enemies, and not confuse the two."

JOHN KERRY, MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR

"George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset.

"The bottom line is that George Bush's policies have made America less safe. The Middle East is more unstable than it's been in decades. Al Qaeda is reconstituted, Israel is more threatened, Hamas controls Gaza, Hezbollah threatens to take over Lebanon, Iran is stronger and Iraq is in chaos.

"America needs -- and Israel deserves -- presidential leadership that actually makes us safer and stronger."

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT

"We have a protocol, sort of a custom, informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil.

"I think what the president said in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.

"I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks who aspires to leadership in our country."

(Reporting by Deborah Charles, Richard Cowan, Caren Bohan and Ellen Wulfhorst; Editing by Xavier Briand) (To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/ ((For a TAKE A LOOK on the campaign [US/VOTE])) ((deborah.charles@reuters.com;+1 202 789 8579; Reuters Messaging: deborah.charles.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: USA POLITICS/BUSH REACTION

Council backs stronger UN presence in Somalia

Reuters: [2008-05-15 22:37:00]

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, May 15 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on Thursday that opens the door to a stronger U.N. presence in Somalia and possible deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in the lawless Horn of Africa country.

Somalia's transitional government is expected to welcome the resolution, even though the text contains no hard promises that the council will eventually deploy U.N. peacekeepers in Somalia as the government has repeatedly requested.

While all 15 council members agree the situation is dire, most have been reluctant to send U.N. peacekeepers to Somalia, where warlords, Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian-backed Somali government forces clash almost daily.

Talk of outside intervention is still colored by memories of a battle in 1993 in which 18 U.S. troops and hundreds of Somali militiamen died. The incident inspired a book and a Hollywood movie -- "Black Hawk Down" -- and marked the beginning of the end for a combined U.S.-U.N. peacekeeping force.

In the resolution adopted on Thursday, the Security Council explicitly backed a recent report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on his preparations for a U.N. force that would replace African Union peacekeepers, known as AMISOM.

It also calls for Ban "to continue his contingency planning for the possible deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Somalia to succeed AMISOM."

The resolution includes language proposed by South Africa, a strong advocate of sending U.N. troops to Somalia, in which the council explicitly says it will "consider ... a peacekeeping operation to take over from AMISOM" if conditions are right.

South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told reporters afterward he was very pleased the council said for the first time it would think about sending troops to Somalia if conditions on the ground are deemed acceptable.

"It sends a signal to the people of Somalia that we've heard their cries," he said.

HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS

In February the Security Council extended for six months U.N. endorsement of the AU peacekeeping mission. It consists of two Ugandan battalions, totaling 1,600 troops, and an advance party of 192 Burundians.

The British-drafted text says the council is also concerned about human rights in Somalia and the "worsening humanitarian situation." It also says the country "continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region."

It urges U.N. member states to boost support for AMISOM.

The British text also threatens to impose sanctions against those who try to undermine "a peaceful political process, or those who threaten (peacekeepers) ... by force, or take action that undermines the stability in Somalia or the region."

It says the council wants a list of "individuals or entities" to be targeted by sanctions within 60 days.

It also asks the council to back Ban's recommendation that the U.N. Somalia operations be moved from Nairobi to Mogadishu, a measure aimed at boosting the U.N.'s visibility in Somalia.

France and the United States are drafting a companion resolution that will deal exclusively with the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia and elsewhere. The second resolution would authorize countries to actively pursue pirates.

A surge in maritime hijackings for ransom off Somalia has made it one of the world's most dangerous shipping zones. (Editing by David Wiessler) ((louis.charbonneau@reuters.com; +1 212 355 6053; Reuters Messaging: louis.charbonneau.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: SOMALIA UN/