I am looking to see if he is accepting any plans from us common folk. If so I will provide a link. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/Bush.Dems.radio.ap/index.html Instead of leaving it up to the assclowns in DC, from both parties, he should listen to the people of this country to see what should be done. The first group that should be listened to should be those returning from fighting overseas. They are the most qualified to offer realistic plans. Thankfully we have a great site like CNN to goto for information like this and not some new york rag paper to rely on.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Seems like the "New York rag papers" haven't fallen behind CNN on this one... As for other plans, the Iraq Study Group gave an extremely comprehensive and researched approach combining diplomacy with our military deployment. It is no guarantee for success but it was honest enough to acknowledge the situation is dangerous. Yet, what did Bush do with it? He's not going to follow the ISG's recommendations. He paid lip service to the ISG but as expected he'll follow the neocons' advice. In other words, Bush just made another contribution to what will be a defeat.
Dear dubya: Thank you for accepting alternative proposals on how to proceed in Iraq. My plan calls for you to can cheney's ass, replace him with someone competent like Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel, and then you sit your sorry ass down in a long overdue resignation. Then we will have someone competent making decisions. There. I have submitted my plan. Of course, I advocated a three state solution about three years ago, but then again, you aren't really interested in actually "listening" to other plans, now are you.
If I stupidly drive off-road in a Toyota Camry and get stuck in a swamp, can I turn to everyone in the car and complain "well - what are YOU going to do about this f*cked up situation? Don't complain to me!" It's Bush's baby and he's deservedly getting slammed for a slew of errors. The negative public opinion and ire of Congress didn't just develop overnight. Adding more soldiers to a civil war is just another in a long line of harebrained choices by Bushco.
Bush's Iraq "plans" haven't worked so well thus far, and then he wonders why his party (well, not that everyone in the GOP stood with him; as we know, the Republican Party's ranks have been marked by disagreement with Bush's policies) lost in November. Then, he wonders why the Democrat-controlled Congress opposes escalation (let's call it what it IS).
Bush can't can Cheney even if he wanted to of course. My plan is simple. Get the hell out as soon as we can.
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said. Huh? I am trying to remember if there wasn't a comprehensive, bipartisan, plan developed by Jim Baker and the gang? Maybe * didn't know about the ISG plan? He is just a dangerous moron. Now he is trying to drag Syria and Iran into the war. Beautiful.
I think he'd go after Russia too. It's just that Dumbya did that Larry David stare-into-the-eyes of Putin thing and he knows he's on our side.
Jack Murtha came up with a plan here: Funny thing is when Murtha announced his opposition to the war last year Bush's minions accused him of endorsing the Michael Moore position. Joe Biden has also offered a partition plan for Iraq and 80% of Senate Democrats voted for the Levin-Reed Amendment last year which called for a phased withdrawal IIRC. This is just the usual load of crap the administration continues to peddle. One congressman said its like dropping a raw egg on the floor and expecting someone to make it whole again.
Chimpy says, "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." Other than stay the course what is it that he has proposed?
What day was it? Nov. 8th? "I look forward to working with Democrats to get things done." Today - "heh-heh, I realize they can't stop my megalomaniacal plans in the Mideast so - heh-heh, i'm gonna continue the juvenile namecallin'."
Remember on Seinfeld, when George realized his life was shit, and had the epiphany that all of his instincts, therefore, had to be wrong? He resolved to do the opposite of what his instincts told him to do. And like magic, his life became wonderful. That's my Iraq plan. George, (Bush, not Costanza), decide what your instincts tell you to do, then do the exact opposite of that.
And if course it means dragging in Israel as well. And with their vested oil interests, China can't stay out. All the world's armies will converge in a giant cataclysm, probably at Megiddo. Yes... it's all starting to make sense.
Never mind that ISG did precisely what Bush suggests and he chose to ignore their recommendations and indeed take steps in the exact opposite. But, fundamentally, the problem with Bush is more profound. His foreign policy is opposed by realists, yet it is an affront to what any genuine idealist would want for America. Here is my advise to Bush. If you want to do good, stop giving wrong answers to the wrong questions. That is bound to confuse everyone, even if it will delight the special interest groups that are feeding you the wrong question and answers in the first place. Instead, begin by asking yourself these questions. First, how do you want to define America's interests? What do you want America to stand for? Do you want America to indeed be that shinning city on the hill; a place that people of different creeds, colors, and backgrounds get together, and in ordered freedom and liberty, free from the prejudices of the old world, create a society that is better than all those that stand in the alternative? And which then attract its followers, not by force of arms nor through greed for what they have, but by force of example, merely for the promise of a better life. If this is the America you believe in, then ask yourself if you have made America a better, more promising, more enticing, example by your actions? Is America a better country domestically, or in its foreign actions, because of your policies? I think you know the answer. Lets say that contrary to the false propaganda that tries to present you as an idealist, you are a realist at heart. You still need to ask yourself a few questions, such as: whose interests within America do you wish to advance? Do you wish the advance the interests of a particular caste, or of the majority now living, or of the greatest number now living under some utiliaterian principle, or including of future generations yet to come? Often, these interests aren't exactly the same. If you want to advance the interests of those who want America to be an imperialistic nation-state, in the mold of the imperialistic nation-states of the old world from whose yolk America grew and then outgrew (or so some might have hoped), then make sure that at least it is America that decides its foreign policy priorities and not some other people beholden to some other dream. The truth is that while America is the big power in this putative partnership with Israel, its is Israel that is calling the shots. Everyone who cares to study the subject dispassionately can show this to be the case, which is why they need to be silenced under accusations of anti-semitism and the like. Until and unless you have taken a clear hold over your own putative bases, especially the one represented in Israel, and until you make sure they move in the direction you set and not vice versa, you should be much more careful of feeding your putative partner's every wish. That partner can and will become the one that will bite the hand that feeds it. Of course, I would like to suggest that you resist the temptation of trying to build America in the mold of these enterprises from the old world. That instead you truly focus on what some call the American dream; of strengthening the ideas that have driven the American dream forward. Forward from a society that once didn't consider blacks as fully human, which restricted its dream to propertied men, and which had to still work within the prejudices of the old world it had escaped. And towards that shinning city on the hill, which does well by itself and attracts people to it by its virtue, not by force of its arms. Get out of the Middle East. Completely. Instead, build on, don't substract, from what it taks to make America that shinning city on the hill. Don't worry about creating false bogey men either. A strong America, one that is successful and befriended elsewhere for its example, and which is not into imperialistic agendas and alliances, need not fear anyone. Especially since that America will have within it representatives from everywhere else to solidify its friendships. And to drive the lesson of its example the world over.
In fairness to President Bush, the only alternate plan for Iraq we have heard from Democrats explained in detail is Jack Murtha's unique relocation plan to "nearby Okinawa..." (only a short 4700 nautical miles away)! So Democrats... anything specific to counter our Chief Executive's Iraq plan or just more generalities along the "cut & run" strategy? Let's hear 'em...
In the unlikely event Iran is attacked, it will be a blast reading your posts. BWAHAHA. The dream to create a glorious Persian Empire (or a "Thousand-Year Empire," as the case may be) is an impossiblity. As much as you would like America to become impotent, Iran would ultmiately suffer. The void would mostly be filled by people who dislike Persians a lot more.
Why? You think the issue I raise will sound different, when America acts even more in the direction that vindicates my statements? Which country came out most clearly and openly against the recommendation of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton group? Which groups within America opposed those recommendations the most? And Bush, who was under pressure to take those recommendations, had a change of heart after a visit by which foreign leader? If America and Iran go to war, it will because of Israel's influence first and foremost. That would only further vindicate my position. I would take my chances....But if America is afraid to create a void, perhaps it should heed what this opinion piece in the Boston Globe seems to suggest. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/14/exiting_via_iran/ Exiting via Iran
Not different substantively, but far more animated and enterataining. I recall something about Saudi Arabia hinting that it will join the war if America withdraws. The Holocaust conference, while baffling to most in the West, was part of a clever strategy to make the conflict (whose genesis had nothing to do with Israel) about the Jews. It mirrors the successful strategy that the Nazis employed in delaying America's involvement in WW2. As in the earlier example, Jews have the most to fear, but would ultimately only head a very very long line of victims. The real question is whether wiser voices in Iran can change course before it's too late. Instead of being an apologist for the Mullahs and Herr Ahmadinejad, you should devote your talents to helping sensible and courageous leaders like Noureddin Pirmoazzen. Iran has the next move. Of course you will, but ultimately you can file this under "be careful what you wish for."
Here's mine; it was available in late 2005 to your President. http://www.selvesandothers.org/article11699.html
I am not worried about what you have been trying to suggest. The fact is that just like the Jews, the Arabs have generally been rather impotent politically. Except for a sudden and impressive surge in the 7th century, benefiting from the simultaneous exhaustion of both the Persian and Byzantine empires, the Arabs have generally been unable to maintain their own independence. Much less impose themselves politically on the region. Indeed, in broad terms covering the past few millenia of history in the region, the center of political power in the Middle East has rested generally with whoever has ruled Iran on the one hand, and the Anatolian peninsula on the other hand. In this regard, conversely, even at the heyday of the Islamic caliphate, the Arabian peninsula itself quickly became a political backwater. Thereafter, as in the days when the region was divided between Iran and Rome (and later Byzantium), political power in the region was divided among the Ottomans (seated in the capital of the old Byzantine empire) and the Safavid empire of Iran. Incidentally, speaking of history, the arrangements reached between the Ottomans empire and Iran regarding Iraq are perhaps instructive as to the kind of arrangments that would still be required for a stable governance of that country. Iran, both under the Safavids as well as under later dynasties, waged numerous wars against the Ottoman empire over control of Iraq, a territory that belonged to Iran under the Achaeminid, Parthian and Sassanid dynasties. While nominal control of Iraq was ultimately decided in favor of the Ottomans, the Ottomans were eventually forced to cede certain rights to Iran with regard to the governance of the region. First, all provincial governors of the region were to be appointed by the Ottomans with the consent of the Persian monarch. Secondly, Persian clerics were to be given freedom and autonomy in settling in southern Iraq due to to the important shia shrines located there, and allowed to engage in missionary work. As a result of which southern Iraq turned overwhelmingly shia. After WWI and the break up of the Ottoman empire, these arrangements were violated by the British. Indeed, when the British assumed political control of Iraq, the Persian clerics in Iraq organized a rebellion against British rule and that caused the Brits to not only suppress the rebellion, but to grow mistrustful of the shia, giving preferential treatment to the sunnis and laying the foundation for later sunni control of Iraqi politics.