It's not really that the middle east won't believe him. No-one with half a brain in their head would believe him. This is more about the right way and the wrong way to deal with things. The entire planet is watching this. And they are seeing, with 20:20 vision, the uncomfortable truth about the way your country operates and it's not very pretty. There are many ways out of this situation, but it would take a very large change of direction. I'm not seeing any balls for that.
And there are many of us in this country who couldn't be more appalled at what has been going on. Living in Portland, OR, I'm subjected to a lot of liberal politcal bumber stickers, almost none of which are especially clever. However, the other day I saw one that said "If you aren't appalled, you haven't been paying attention." Bingo! All I can do is hope that the immense pressure and Robert Gates' presence in the DOD will influence Bush to do what needs to be done.
Here's Bush's reaction w/the ISG team: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2006/12/06/VI2006120600409.html I couldn't agree w/you more Matt. It's time to get behind the President because this is serious business and it could mean a good thing for us and the world. Looks like Bush is willing to take the report seriously, and that's a huge admission on his part. We'll see what happens. I can only hope they get it sorted out.
The time for the 'stay the course vs cut and run' argument is over. Americans don't see it that way any more, and even the president has to be able to see that. Right or wrong, the commision framed the whole Iraq argument in a different way, and nobody can accuse them of partisanship. Now it is a question of whether we implement their ideas or not.
That is sad. What the ******** is victory supposed to mean? Victory was already achieved, the tyrant Saddam is gone, mission accomplished, all that crap. The problem is that the US couldn't handle the aftermath after the victory. The US can kill insurgents, they can kill terrorists, whatever, but that's not going to lead to victory. Freedom and democracy is a beautiful idea, but I realize now that it is a mistake to try to impose it by force. At this point, only the Iraqis can fight whatever fight they need to fight in order to earn their freedom, to save their country, if indeed they want it saved, and to turn it into whatever they want it to be. All America can hope for, and indeed is responsible for achieving, is to leave the place stable enough so that they can get started with the process. I think that is what the commision is trying to achieve, and I am hopeful that the president will listen.
So far throughout his administeration Bush "extending an olive branch" has been roughly akin to Lucy holding a football for Charley Brown. Its not surprising that there is concern that he is only giving lip service to bipartisanship and the report, and Gore's comments should be seen in that light-- not particularly rude, but more "fool me twice."
The part where he says "I would urge the President". He's not talking to the president. He's talking to the Left telling the Left something it wants to hear.
The most important recommendation from the ISG is the call for the US to engage Iran in negotiations. Indeed, while there is a similar call with respect to Syria, there is a huge difference between the ramifications of talking to Iran as opposed to just talking to Syria: There was no "Syrian list" that won the Iraqi elections consecutively! Assad's writ, without Iran's backing and support, would possibly not even cover Syria today and there is little that Assad can offer in Iraq without the US engaging Iran. To be sure, the issues I raised can and should be discussed in another thread, but I make this point as a prelude to posting the following news item. In doing so, I am suggesting that the ISG report has already met a preemptive strike by the Bush administration, which is under heavy pressure from the top elements in the Israeli government and their neocon supporters to ignore these recommendations -- especially as they relate to engaging Iran in negotiations. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06444234.htm
Here's the report in full: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20061206_btext.pdf If you've got time, by all means read it. Fascinating stuff.
On the other hand, while Iran is intent on giving the finger to the US and Europe, Syria may be more likely to cooperate. Syria finds itself isolated, its economy is not doing well, it has problems in Lebanon, I think Assad will welcome the opportunity to engage in some positive diplomacy. And, there is a lot Syria can do to help if persuaded to do so, beggining with cracking down on its border with Iraq, which is being used by the insurgents and foreign terrorists. Also, the talks can be done in the context of also working with Syria to try to find a constructive way to deal with their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a matter of finding some common ground, and building from it. I think as the report says the US should try to constructively engage both Syria and Iran when it comes to trying to improve the situation in Iraq. But Iran is going to be a tougher sell than Syria, even though as you say their influence is greater.
1. Of course he's talking to the president. That's what he meant when he said "I would urge the president." 2. His statement is not incorrect.
I actually agree with this. The US should have started multiparty talks with Iran and Syria years ago. Bush's apparent resistance to the idea demonstrates, for the millionth time, that he's not a serious man.
We should have been talking with them from the get-go because now we'll be talking from a position of weakness, relative to three or four years ago. That sucks.
Check out this idiotic NY Post frontpage: These guys seem intent on rolling out the old braindead 2003 rhetoric. Morons.
I find this front page hilarious. It's like they purposely didn't want anyone to take their headline seriously.
Nah, that was yesterday. I was a bit freaked, since yesterday was one of the worst one day totals since the mission was accomplished. To have two days like that in a row would be an especially troubling development.
The silliness of Gores statement is completely evident in this thread. the people who have had any sympathy towards Bush's positions have been talking about the merits of the report and how we can use it to move forward. The Bush bashers have done what they have always done.. called Bush names, blmed him for everything and generally offered very few suggestions to move forward. (Of course any suggestions they may have had, are pretty much rejected by this group like Immediate withdrawal, or complete partition into three states) So if we are truly going to move forward, Do we need Al Gore telling the President what he needs to do, or do we need Al Gore telling the president's critics that now is the time to set our feelings about Bush aside and "and instead recognizing that it is not about him. It's about our country. "
Gore brought up a very important issue that is worth discussing. Bush's selfish interests do not match up well with the country's. That's not an attack on him, just reality. We (especially our soldiers) would be much better off leaving Iraq, but that would cement Bush's Presidency as a failure. This is a big problem.