Jim Baker: "We cannot stay the course" http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/iraq.study.group/index.html Should be interesting to see how W responds, as this is plainly a smack-down from Daddy's (more experienced) friends.
I was impressed by the directness and firmness of Baker and Hamilton. I was horrified to hear Bill Kristol on Fox denounce the report afterward as "not a serious" document. He tore into the fact the word victory was never mentioned and that it didn't recommend strategies for the military to achieve this. What a fool! Bush is probably throwing this into the Oval Office fireplace as I type, much to his peril. His own party will bash him over the head with this report--and rightly so.
I hope you're right. I've become even more of a pessimist over the last few years, so it is hard to think positive about what may happen.
No kidding. I'll bet the report didn't include the words "unicorn" or "US winning the 2010 World Cup" either. at Kristol. I remember a year or two ago when he was on TDS, shortly after one of the variety of bundles of bad news on Iraq. He looked like shit, and sounded completely demoralized. He seemed on the verge of "turning." But he obviously hasn't and obviously won't. He fits one definition of insane. And the sad thing is, I think he's really a bright guy, he's a Republican I have some respect for, he's got some sense. Except for his neoconservativism. That's a philosophy that has been about as thoroughly repudiated as a philosophy can be. Hell, even communism can be argued to be a good 10-20 year method for modernizing a pre-modern society. Neoconservativism has no accomplishments and no niche of success.
I think the bigger issue will be all the Republicans, House, Senate, and presidential, who will be on the ballot in 2008. Would you want to be one of those House guys who won with 50-53% of the vote if Bush ignores this report? Would you want to be a Senate candidate? That's where Bush is going to have trouble...Senate candidates, and GOP House members from the Mountain West and from the Northeast. They're very likely to abandon him if he tries that. I don't think that would quite make a veto-proof majority, but it'd too close for comfort.
It's possible that they'll try to pick and choose from it. But Baker made it clear that their recommendations are meant to be taken as a whole, in order to make a difference. Sounds like we could be heading for a confrontation. Although, I think that Robert Gates is likely to be in favor of the commision's recommendations, so maybe there's hope. I would think there's a good chance that even the president must be at the point where he realizes he needs to listen to new ideas. After all, he did get rid of Rumsfeld, and I didn't think he'd ever do that.
Can't wait for the press conference. Even money that Tony Snow plays the whole thing down with that snide little sneer of his - "the report is advisory only, and the President is not bound by it", or something to that effect.
They may try to downplay it, but I hope not. From a political standpoint, this is the best shot for the president to save some face. And because the report is bipartisan, it also is his best shot at some level of cooperation from the democrats on Iraq, which he must know he will need. Obviously politics ought not to be the main consideration. I haven't looked at the report closely enough, and even if I had, I don't have the knowledge of the situation to give an educated opinion on its merits. I suspect none of us here does. But having said that, I like what I hear so far, and I do think it's very likely that its implementation would be a definite improvement over the current situation. A sticking point seems to be the idea of working with Syria and Iran. I can understand the administration's reluctance to do so. But of course, as Baker says, given the influence they already have, it's not realistic not to include them in the process. And I'd think that there must be a common interest with Iraq's neighbors in wanting to have Iraq stabilized.
Bill Kristol is a thoroughly discredited idiot. My favorite quote from this cretin: Speaking to Terri Gros on Fresh Air April 1, 2003. http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2006/09/index.html I hate you Bill Kristol. Please die a slow, horrible death.
I only see one concern. That would be the daily death toll for civilians. If Iraqi governement cannot comply and help troops. USA should take down intern-government and re-establish a train of thought. I mean. Its been years since government was corrected. If these mearsure don't take a swift turn; its only outcome is the same. Kinda like Romans displaying heads on stick. Instead these governemtn officals will stand trail and detain with other prisoners. That should lighten the load a bit. Don't you think... For one; I am sure you could kick out all Iraqis and move the white man in there. Heck send them to Iran. That could be jesture of support. Anyone that disrupts progress will serve jail time. Just like here in USA. Seems harsh but something is bound to give.
Will Bush follow through with the recommendations? Or won't he? Its hard to read the tea leaves because BushCo has been caught in a web of lies since the election. Long-time BSP&CE contributors know that BushCo has been full of lies forever (the media is only now playing pin the tail on the donkey). My take is whatever Dubya says will not come to be.
Dan Froomkin today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/30/DI2006113000820.html
You'd think that, but I wonder. Iraq was pretty stable in the 1980s--how'd that work out for Iran? And does Syria mind having one less regional power to compete with? Given that their border is sparsely populated region, how much does the instability affect Syria's internal affairs? I agree that, in the long term, Iran and Syria SHOULD want Iraq stabilized. Right now, though, having Iraq as a dysfunctional mess on OUR hands might not bother them too much. Or am I paranoid?
It shows you are doing more thinking than 80% of washington dc. Add to that the fact that neither Iran nor Syria has anything to gain (and lots to lose) from a nearby example of happy peaceful prosperous people with a completely free press, open and fair elections, etc etc... I think its a very fair question to wonder if Iraq's neighbors are asking "this help you want - what's in it for me?"
I honestly wonder whether Bush is even capable of listening to new ideas. I suspect that firing Rumsfeld was not so much an admission of failure nor an indication that he intended to change course. Instead, I think Bush was personally insulted by the election results. His feelings were hurt. Rummy was his emotional and political scapegoat. I think he will never be able to admit that he was wrong. He will never be able to tolerate listening to the input of his political rivals. Furthermore, I know it's not really possible to psychoanalyze a public figure, but I really believe that Bush's rivalry with his own father is largely what drove him into this war. If he were to take the commission's recommendations, that would be a huge concession of defeat in that regard. I question whether he has the capacity to do that.
"I would urge the President to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for his mistake and instead recognizing that it is not about him. It's about our country." Thanks Al for your thoughtful advice. At this particular time, I am sure that this type of intelligent criticism will be most helpful in constructively engaging the White House and encouraging them to accept the necesity of changing their policy in Iraq. Seriously, Gore should stop being an ass. It doesn't help.
What makes you think that Bush will respond to anything short of blunt force trauma? The time for niceties is long past.
This ISG report is awesome. Just great. I absolutely believe in these guys I think they're fabulous and they've done the US and the world a tremendous, tremendous service. This is "W"''s way out-by following this stuff he'll improve upon his legacy. And if Bush ignores the report and stays the course, he'll be branded in history as a complete failure. And I know he gives a s about his legacy.
We shall see. Granted, it is much too late, but he now has an excellent opportunity to prove that he has the capacity to do just that. Lets watch and see if he downplays the commision's findings or if he takes them seriously. As I said, engaging Syria and Iran may be a sticking point, and I think we can understand why it is a legitimate concern. This issue may lead to a confrontation, as the commision clearly seems to think it an important aspect of their plan, and the admnistration is likely to have reservations about it. It possibly may lead to the White House trying to downplay the report, which would be a mistake. I personally think it is important that we include them in any negotiations over Iraq, as they have a lot of power in influencing some powerful interests within Iraq. (Of course, it's understood we're not to give in to these countries wishes, but rather to listen to their concerns and try to establish some common ground that we can all build on.) But I can also understand the arguments against this 'constructive engagement' with Syria and Iran, and it has nothing to do with the president's perceived psychological profile. Beyond that particular controversial issue, I think the president is ready to listen to new voices. He did get rid of Rumsfeld, and chose Robert Gates, who appears to have more common ground with the commision's ideas, and with Baker in particular. (based on some of his statements.) Perhaps the election results did wake up the president in a way that the news from Iraq failed to do. Perhaps he is ready to listen to new ideas about policy in Iraq. I think we have to wait and see how much the president is willing to listen to Gates, how much influence he has. That will be key in what happens for the next two years.
I think it's great that he said that. For one thing, he's right. And for another thing, we need more people who won't cowtow, who won't mince their words. The reason we're in this mess is because for long so many people kept quiet. Oh, we're at war, mustn't insult the White House. Well ******** that. Thank god times are changing.