The three Democratic members of Rhode Island's congressional delegation each criticized President Bush today for failing to give the American people more detailed information during his speech this morning on Iraq.
The delegation's only Republican, U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, called the speech a positive first step to overcome what he called "canyon-sized cracks" in the administration's credibility, but added that the president needs to offer honest and factual specifics about the war.
Bush did not answer key questions about the country's involvement in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed charged.
Speaking on C-SPAN after Bush's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Reed said the president was more general than specific and that he neglected to answer important questions such as, "How long will America be in Iraq?"
Reed, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stressed that the Americans support the troops. But he complained that Bush did not detail his plan for stabilizing Iraq, or transforming it into a democracy, or spell out what it would take to accomplish those goals.
He also said the president neglected to explain how the commitment of troops in Iraq would affect U.S. security elsewhere.
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said, "The president once again failed to take an opportunity to level with the American people. His 'strategy for victory' appears to be more of a public relations campaign to justify why this administration wants to stay the course, elaborating on the same familiar talking points: 'We'll stand down as they stand up,' and, of course, the blind insistence that we're making progress but victory takes time."
"The truth is, the administration has no real answers for the questions so many Americans are asking," Kennedy said in a press release. "Again, the president declined to offer an explanation for how we stop this insurgency that is only growing more virulent every day. He has failed to answer the troubling questions about why so few Iraqi troops are prepared to take over security and why disturbing accounts of atrocities are on the rise."
Kennedy said "a true strategy for victory would give us a clear picture for how we bring our troops home as soon as possible leaving Iraq stable and secure."
"We need more. And our troops deserve better," he said.
U.S. Rep. James Langevin said, "The president's speech did little to assuage my growing concerns about the track we are on in Iraq, however, it is a comfort to hear him admit that adjustments need to made. We need to continue to accelerate the training of Iraqi Security Forces so we can ease the burden on our own troops.
"I agree with the president that fundamental conditions must be met before we can safely begin a substantial pull-out of our troops, but what was missing from the president's speech today, and what has been missing from the Administration's strategy all along, is a specific outline of how we meet those goals and conditions."
Langevin noted that while debate over the U.S. future role in Iraq was critical, it was also critically important to continue supporting the U.S. military on their mission there.
Chafee said, "The American people are going to want to hear these facts to judge our success."
"There's no doubt that there's been a credibility problem, but I think that can be fixed with statements going forward - from today on out - with statements that are absolutely accurate," Chafee said. "The weapons of mass destruction debate has been the main canyon of credibility."
Chafee voted against the congressional resolution authorizing war against Iraq and said from early on that he did not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He did not vote for Bush in the last presidential election, and instead voted for Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, as a write-in candidate.
-- With reports from the Associated Press
ARTICLE TOOLS: 
