|
U.S. press against Bush’s stirring
speech
INFLUENTIAL U.S. dailies attacked President George
W. Bush this Wednesday following the problems
provoked by his sixth annual address to the nation
which was marked by his so-called “new strategy” for
Iraq.
According to PL, The New York Times argued in
an editorial that Bush has never demonstrated
interest in the two-party system and his domestic
agenda was defined years ago, with large-scale tax
cuts for the rich and a stifling debt for the
country.
For
its part, The Washington Post described the
president as politically wounded but rhetorically
unscathed now that he has insisted on sending
thousands more soldiers to the Arab country despite
widespread rejection by both the U.S. population and
Democrat and Republican congress members alike.
Meanwhile, AP reported that a senatorial committee
has passed a resolution stating that Bush’s plan to
send more troops to Iraq is contrary to national
interests. The Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee,
dominated by the Democrats, gave recognition to the
measure by voting 12 in favour and 9 against.
THREE MORE PENTAGON TROOPS DIE IN IRAQ
Baghdad, January 24.—Three U.S. soldiers died
between Tuesday and Wednesday, announced the U.S.
military in various statements. One of the soldiers
was taking part in a joint operation with an Iraqi
unit in the center of Baghdad, in which another two
were left wounded.
Another two Marines died this Tuesday from injuries
caused during combat in the province of Al Anbar, to
the west of Baghdad.
Since the invasion began in March 2003, at least
3,063 U.S. soldiers have died in this country,
according to the Pentagon’s figures.
Meanwhile, from London, the ANSA agency reported
that Prime Minister Tony Blair has rejected a call
from the Liberal Democrat Party to announce a
withdrawal of British troops in Iraq for the end of
next October, a measure that he said would send out
a disastrous signal.
For
the leader of the Lib Dems, government ministers
should begin a period of consultation with regional
allies and the international coalition in order to
specify dates for withdrawal.
Translated by Granma International
|
