Bush speech stirs debate

By Rachel Clarke BBC News Online in Washington

The bottom line was the top line for news coverage of President George W Bush's speech updating the nation on the continuing conflict in Iraq.

But while the request for an additional $87bn was "eye-popping" according to one commentator, the address also prompted new analysis about the US role in Iraq.

And Mr Bush's insistence that the action against Saddam Hussein and the aftermath was part of his war on terror focused attention on the hunt for al-Qaeda, particularly with the approach of the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

There seems little doubt that Congress will grant the extra money requested by the president, most of which will go straight to the military though some will be spent on rebuilding Iraq.

Critics say the speech was not enough to reassure Americans

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice went on ABC's Good Morning America programme to say that the additional money was not only necessary, but could prove to be a good deal.

She said that if Iraq could be stabilised, "those costs will be won back over and over again".

But Democrats, particularly those hoping to run against Mr Bush for the presidency next year, questioned the budget priorities.

Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said the money already spent on the war and its aftermath could have been used to provide healthcare for every person in the US.

We're now about to go over the half-trillion-dollar mark in the deficit because the president insists on his reckless economic policies at home, as well as his reckless adventures abroad Howard Dean, White House hopeful

Mr Dean, who has opposed the war consistently, conceded that "failure is not an option" now for the US which must continue its mission in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

But he launched more criticism of Mr Bush for calling Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror that began as the World Trade Center in New York came crashing down nearly two years ago.

"The president is now leaving the impression in his speeches, without directly saying so, that, in fact, Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11, that he was in league with al-Qaeda," Mr Dean said on the CBS TV network.

"Those things are not true. They have not been documented. And we're losing eight to 10 soldiers every week, with more wounded.

"We're now about to go over the half-trillion-dollar mark in the deficit because the president insists on his reckless economic policies at home, as well as his reckless adventures abroad. I think it's a mistake."

'No answers'

Another Democrat contender, Representative Dick Gephardt said Mr Bush had been "going down the wrong path," while Senator John Kerry, another White House hopeful, said the address left many questions unanswered.

"Giving a speech on national television does not reassure Americans about what's happening in Iraq - to be straight with the American people about Iraq takes more than a speech, it takes real answers to tough questions," Mr Kerry said.

The leading newspapers in the US, also questioned the approach of the president.

The New York Times said in an editorial that polls show most Americans still believe Iraq was behind the 11 September attacks though there has been no evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to the plot.

[Mr Bush] argues for more and more tax cuts that would prevent the government from paying both for the war and for domestic needs - Congress cannot follow the president's irresponsible lead on this score Washington Post

It said one reason for the view was that Mr Bush continues to draw the line between 11 September and the old Iraqi regime, but said that was an unhelpful attitude.

"There are still good reasons to maintain America's commitment in Iraq. But Mr Bush's tendency to refer to everyone from Baath Party loyalists to guerrilla fighters as terrorists seems designed to confuse the public rather than clarify the administration's goals," it said.

'Terror central'

David Gergen, an adviser to former Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said on the CNN network that Mr Bush was raising the stakes for himself by making Iraq part of the war on terror.

The anchors on the Fox News morning show came out strongly behind President Bush, hailing his approach and with host Brian Kilmeade agreeing that Iraq now "is terror central".

This nation has the moral obligation to finish what it started Los Angeles Times

The Washington Post said Mr Bush was right to continue US operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan and to ask for the resources necessary.

But its editorial called on Congress to consider the domestic financial implications as it considers the president's new request for military funding.

"[Mr Bush] argues for more and more tax cuts that would prevent the government from paying both for the war and for domestic needs. Congress cannot follow the president's irresponsible lead on this score," it said.

On the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times supported Mr Bush's assertions that the US could not retreat, agreeing with him that previous pullbacks after attacks on troops in Beirut and Somalia could have encouraged terrorists.

But its editorial also looked to domestic needs.

"This nation has the moral obligation to finish what it started and hand Iraq back to the Iraqis," it said.

"Then, perhaps, the dream of taxpayer dollars building new schools, roads and medical clinics can be one that can be afforded not just in Iraq but in the United States."