ISG Report Released

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Claymore, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    :rolleyes:

    Bush is the President, the Commander in Chief. He led us into a situation he didn't plan for, and he's spent the better part of the past two years assuring the country that everything's fine. Bush sent American troops into harms way and seems to have had no idea what to do about it.

    Al Gore has been giving PowerPoint presentations on Oprah.

    Glad to see your priorities are in order.
     
  2. Roel

    Roel Member

    Jan 15, 2000
    Santa Cruz mountains
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Great post! But I seriously doubt the president is going to follow the recommendations of the report. The president and his inner circle have ignored all inputs provided, and have ignored reality. Since the president and his inner circle are the core of the problem, they need to removed before we can go forward with an effective solution.

     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Just 'talking' to Syria is an easy sell, since the US maintains diplomatic relations with Syria and was talking to them until quite recently. But the compromises necessary to gain Syria's genuine cooperation on Iraq, or -- even more importantly for the US/Israel -- the compromises necessary to divorce Syria from the larger alliance in the region led by Iran, aren't going to be easy for the Israelis and, by extension, their neocon supporters. That is unless they want to give up the Golan and agree to an acceptable two-state solution for the Palestinian problem, renounce any regime change intentions with regard to Syria, and then encourage someone other than Iran (i.e., Saudi Arabia) to butress the cash stripped Syrian economy.

    If the Israelis and their neocon supporters are willing to go that far to win Syria's cooperation, they might as well show more support for the US engaging Iran in negotiations. They will probably find an all around better deal through such negotiations, in the sense a new Middle East not hostile to the 'new' US policies, could emerge from the process.

    The alternative you suggest is not going to work in the long run, and won't be solving much in the short run either.
     
  4. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Oh, so you completely oppose this report then, because it does not recommend leaving Iraq any time soon.

    So Bush's interest in trying to prevent Iraq from blowing up into a murderous civil war, where other regional power may become involved is not in the country's interest. In General Bush wants to see things go well in Iraq, he would love nothing more than for Maliki to take control of the country and for their to be political solutions so we can bring our troops home and Iraq will not explode. That is not in the our country's interest?

    So what do you think about the recommendations?

    Most of them don't very widely from Bush's "as they stand up, we will stand down" policy with the caveate, that if they don't stand up quickly enough we should still stand down.

    The other major recommendation is to more actively engage Iran and Syria. To be honest I don't really think that will make much of a difference, as both of those countries will do whatever they see as in their best interest whether or not we engage them in any diplomacy. It can't hurt to much to give it a shot, and at least get the Iranians to go public saying they will try to help stop the violence.


    If the administration had released this exact report as their own, Bush's critics would have called it more "stay the course", and villified it.

    Don't get me wrong, I am happy that this report is giving both Repubicans and Democrats the chance to set aside their differences and present a united front, I just find it hillarious that everbody is so worried that Bush won't accept this report, when the report is so much closer to his own position than the position of his most vocal critics.

    Gore's comment hold just as true for people like Murtha and other democrats who would not normally completely dismiss many of the recommendations in this report.
     
  5. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY

    What on earth are you talking about? What priorities are youi talking about.

    My priority is, in spite of the past for all sides to move forward together. Others priorities seem to be to take every opportunity possible to bash Bush.
     
  6. BudWiser

    BudWiser New Member

    Jul 17, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
    Everybody needs to do that.
     
  7. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Jun 29, 2006
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bush is completely and utterly to blame for Iraq. Period. No one else.

    We need EVERYONE to tell him that every single day until it sinks in.

    Thousands are dead because of Bush.
     
  8. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except Saddam Hussein
     
  9. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Jun 29, 2006
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Saddam Hussein presented no threat when Bush decided to invade Iraq.
     
  10. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    If by 'others' you refer to Al Gore, some radio talk show hosts, and some posters here then yes. But for the most part, the Democrats right now are talking nice and refraining from bashing the president. If we're to be fair to the president, let's be fair to the other side as well. I think there is a sense in Washington that all the campaign bullshit is over and now it's time to get down to business.

    I thought from today's press conference that the president is open to taking the recommendations of the report. (And Tony Blair as well.) Also, the Democrats I heard interviewed also seem to be positive about it. (for example, I heard a very encouraging interview with Congresswoman Jane Harman, she sounds very hopeful that we may be at a turning point.)

    From his comments at the hearings, it also sounds like Robert Gates supports the report. Of course, as he said, he needs to consult with the generals as well. And that is understandable, they cannot be left out of the equation.

    Obvioulsy, as Baker said, the report is not a magic formula, and certainly the situation in Iraq is not becoming any simpler. But at least now there is something that seems to be a common ground. It's no longer 'stay the course' vs 'cut and run'. I get the sense that at least now people from both parties seem to be trying to pull in the same direction instead of recriminating each other.

    It is mostly from the talking heads, the talk show hosts, from the right (Hanaty, Limbaugh tearing down the idea of negotiating with Syria and Iraq), and from the left (Air American hosts trying to use the report out of context for the sole purpose of putting down the president) that I hear the usual vindictiveness. I'm just saying this from flipping radio stations while I was driving, maybe some of the talk show hosts are being positive, I don't know. But it seemed to me like most high profile politicos (other than Gore) were praising the report and sounding optimistic, while the talk show hosts were the ones trying to continue spreading the venom.
     
  11. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If the man didn't run his nation like a bitch we would have never invaded. See Jordan. Kuwait and the UAE for examples of how dictators/royalty can run an arabic society wiothout destroying a signifigant portion of their population.
     
  12. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Jun 29, 2006
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If Bush hadn't launched an invasion, a significant portion of our military popluation wouldn't have been destroyed for no reason.
     
  13. Revolt

    Revolt Member+

    Jun 16, 1999
    Davis, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To the folks who don't want to look back, the following article shows how critically important it is to keep an eye over the shoulder. Why? Because BushCo has continuously lied to the American public. It took the report to even let folks know just how bad things are.


    http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/88898.html
     
  14. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
  15. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Heard it on the radio. Again, tone here is key. The reporter asked the question like an asshole and got his response back the same way.
     
  16. Revolt

    Revolt Member+

    Jun 16, 1999
    Davis, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Classic Dubya nonsense. Great find.
     
  17. Revolt

    Revolt Member+

    Jun 16, 1999
    Davis, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It seems awfully hard to not be a complete asshole when addressing Dubya on this topic. Nothing but lies and half-truths from the administration over the past four-plus years.
     
  18. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well don't expect roses then.

    As for the purpose of the question itself, come on. All it was was a passive agressive swipe at GWB. There was no quest for real information. He wanted to know about Bush's feelings. Whatever. If it was me in that position, I'd tell him to go Cheney himself.
     
  19. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    It recommends setting a goal for withdrawing a majority of troops by early 2008. The purpose is clearly to get us working on the endgame.

    I'm not even criticizing Bush here. I'm simply pointing out that concern for his legacy could encourage him to make (more) foolish moves.
     
  20. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    If an overwhelming majority of Americans didn't support the idea of invading Iraq at the time, the president wouldn't have launched an invasion and congress would not have given its overwhelming approval to the effort.

    If you want to play the blame game, you can blame the president, but there's plenty of blame to go around. And there are already plenty of threads that are mostly about asigning blame in a partisan manner. The bashing of Bush, the morality of removing Hussein, the failure to find WMD's, we've all familiar with all the arguments brought forth and we heard them all a million times already. But we can do it again, feel free to open a thread on it, and maybe somebody will want to rehash it with you. I know many people here love to do it.

    Hopefully we can use this particular thread to talk constructively about the merits, (or problems) of the ideas brought forth by the commision report, and to discuss all the possible solutions to the present situation. We can use it to criticize the president and other relevant parties, as appropiate, for their response to the report and for the current policy in Iraq.
     
  21. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    If the Bush Administration actually knew what they were doing, I would find his comments in the press conference very inspiring.
     
  22. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Jun 29, 2006
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Americans supported an invasion because the admministration lied about reasons for an invasion. Of course, you can pretend that Colin Powell never went in front of the UN and pretended that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.
     
  23. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Sigh.

    Or, we can go back to bashing Bush. That will solve all the problems.
     
  24. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    What was 'assholish' about the question? It was direct and to the point and W came back with a glib response to a serious question. If anyone was an arsehole there it was Bush.

    What is wrong with asking a President who's responsible for this war, and has appeared to be in denial about the reality of Iraq in every interview he's given on the subject, about his reaction to a highly credible report which contradicts every strategy he's espoused to date?
     
  25. striker

    striker Member+

    Aug 4, 1999
    Are you saying that Bush decided to invade Iraq in order to save the Iraqi population from Hussein?
     

Share This Page