Bush Still Sane, Still President. Resists Baker Coup to Surrender to Iran in Iraq
By gamecock Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
All of the insane trial balloons emanating from the Baker Study Group for War losers burst when they touched down on the porcupine needles of reality that constitute the mind and spine of still President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Arsenal of Freedom, George W. Bush.
No word if the Study Group Program for the Sanity on War-Challenged will continue beyond this fiscal year.
Given the unique nature of MSM coverage actually reporting the facts and what they mean in the real world and not just in the All-Events-Only-Matter-Only-In-How-They-Confirm-Bush-Is-The-World's-Menace World, I will let them report the verbal shots heard round the world today:
Asia Times
Bush holds his course
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Despite a growing and virtually universal consensus both in the US and abroad that the United States must engage Syria and Iran if it hopes to stabilize Iraq, US President George W Bush appears determined to ignore Baghdad's two key neighbors as long as possible.
That is increasingly the assessment of analysts who had been hopeful that the Democratic sweep of the mid-term congressional elections in November, as well as Bush's decision to replace Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld with former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, would incline the president toward a more accommodating stance.
In particular, it had been thought that those two developments would make the anticipated recommendation by the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker - that Washington actively promote and participate in regional negotiations on Iraq that would include Iran and Syria - politically irresistible. Its long-awaited report will be released next week.
But recent statements by Bush and other senior administration officials, as well as the departure of a key "realist" adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have fueled growing speculation that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hope they can still prevail in Iraq without having to sit down with the two "evil-doers".
Indeed, that appeared to be the message Bush wished to convey on Tuesday at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Riga where he recommitted the US to support for Iraq's "young democracy" and vowed not to withdraw US troops "until the mission is complete".
"He has no intention to change his policy in Iraq," Pat Lang, a former top Middle East analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded after reviewing Bush's remarks.
In the same appearance, Bush also seemed to rule out talks with Tehran and Damascus under present circumstances. "Iran knows how to get to the table with us. That is to verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment programs," he said, stressing, however, that he had no objection to direct talks between the Iraqi leaders, such as those carried out over the weekend in Tehran by President Jalal Talabani, and their counterparts in Iran and Syria.
The New York Times described Bush's comments as "laying the foundation to push back against" the ISG's anticipated recommendations, an assessment that echoes recent suggestions by senior officials, including Bush, that the ISG is just one of a number of ongoing reviews of the situation in Iraq that the administration will consider in the coming weeks.
read it all
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL01Ak01.html
Wall Street Journal-Transcript of News Conference
Bush:
Our objective is to help the Maliki government succeed. And today we discussed how to further the success of this government. This is a government that is dedicated to pluralism and rule of law. It's a government elected by the Iraqi people under a constitution approved by the Iraqi people, which, in itself, is an unusual event in the Middle East, by the way.
We talked today about accelerating authority to the Prime Minister so he can do what the Iraqi people expect him to do, and that is bring security to parts of his country that require firm action. It's going to -- the presence of the United States will be in Iraq so long as the government asks us to be in Iraq. This is a sovereign government. I believe that there is more training to be done. I think the Prime Minister agrees with me. I know that we're providing a useful addition to Iraq by chasing down al Qaeda and by securing -- by helping this country protect itself from al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda wants a safe haven in Iraq. Al Qaeda made it clear earlier that suicide bombers would increase sectarian violence. That was part of their strategy. One of our goals is to deny safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Maliki government expects us and wants us to provide that vital part of security.
So we'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people. I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.
We want the people of Iraq to live in a free society. It's in our interests. In my judgment, if we were to leave before the job is done, it would only embolden terrorists, it would only embolden the extremists. It would dash the hopes of millions of people who want to live in a free society, just like the 12 million people who voted in the Iraqi election. They want to live in a free society. And we support this government, because the government understands it was elected by the people. And Prime Minister Maliki is working hard to overcome the many obstacles in the way to a peaceful Iraq, and we want to help him.
Read it all (subscription required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116489695497336924.html?mod=Asian-Busine...
al reuters
He said that while the Iraqi government was free to talk to Iran about helping end the violence, U.S. conditions for direct talks with Tehran remained unchanged.
"As far as the United States goes, Iran knows how to get to the table with us, which is to do that which they said they would do, which is verifiably suspend their enrichment program," he told a joint news conference after talks with Estonian President Toomas Ilves on his way to a NATO summit.
read it all
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID...
spine still intact
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/28/day_2139_bush_spine_s...
Bush remains:
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
And the war against the MSM continues 'stack. I am more convinced than ever that we must break the MSM monopoly thru broadcast network ownership if we are to ever break the Dems and the Left as they must be broken as surely as al Qaida and all Islamo-facists must be broken. I actually begin to question who abets whom.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
results and spin, Pelosi and others' (all Dems, most Republicans the MSM quotes) statements of defeatism, including the far-left statement by the next victim of the Clinton war room opposition research machine, ie The Obama, speculation about the Baker coup, is THE BIG STORY in the world today and for the past few weeks. While the MSm and even Redstate may not feature it as such, despite all the recent debate here that presumed Bush would fold and quick, we can take comfort that al Qaida and Iran's Memebers Only shod Holocaust-denier-so-lets-get-it-right-the-next-time President understand the implications. They got a real world jolt Today after weeks of MSM driven faux reasons for optimism.
Bush, "da Man
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
in this forum, for characterizing the Baker study group's actions as an attempted "coup." That is a horrible misuse of language. The Baker study group was called into being by President Bush himself and other leading Republicans. There have been reports about what is in the report, but we still don't know for sure. So why not wait to see what the panel has to say before attacking it?
On a related note, I believe the time has come for conservatives to have a reckoning among ourselves about Iraq, and more generally, about what we really believe should be the philosophy of the Republican Party on foreign policy. After 9/11 the leadership of the GOP embraced a neo-conservative (or, to be more accurate, a neo-Wilsonian, liberal interventionist) perspective emphasized spreading freedom and democracy rather than securing commercial and geopolitical interests as its primary goal. In one sense that shift was understandable, even noble. But at this point it is abundantly clear that it rested on an unrealistic view of the world. The underlying assumption of neo-conservatism and liberal interventionism is that every country is ready for democracy. Given our experiences in Iraq, I'd say that idea is plainly unsustainable.
That means that we need a new paradigm for Iraq, and that is why we have the Baker Study Group: to provide fresh ideas. It may be that none of their ideas are all that good or all that fresh. I certainly don't favor the idea, which apparently is part of their report, that the United States can directly negotiate with Iran and Syria for any length of time, since it would seem to be in the interests of those countries to undermine the security situation in Iraq rather than work to improve it. Nevertheless, ideas are what President Bush has asked for, and If you think we don't need new ideas, then you probably also believe that everything is going swimingly in Iraq. Which would also mean that you have no grasp on reality.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
the "fresh ideas" we are going to get from the Baker group are the same "fresh ideas" that we used for 60 years after WW II; the same "fresh ideas" that caused the mess in the first place.
A suggestion to talk to Syria and Iran as if their aid would be positive is clear indication of the uselessness of the Baker group. Bush should skip the formal presentation of the report so he can rearrange his sock drawer --- his time would be better spent.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I read no further!
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
The word "paradigm" is defined as follows:
PARADIGM:
EXAMPLE, PATTERN; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
There, now you can read further.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
as I bask in the glory of Bush, my president, making me proud.
see great column on same
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12012006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/witless_...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Its members also reached a consensus view that Depends is a really fine brand of adult diaper, and that they love reruns of "Murder, She Wrote."
You perhaps note that I am writing with extreme disrespect toward the Iraq Study Group. That's because its report is a scandal and an embarrassment; it's flatly immoral to seek to make or guide policy in this fashion.
There is a time for brutal honesty.
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
but the "fresh ideas" that you alluded to were the same ones that won the Cold War. Realpolitik was the governing foreign policy paradigm for the Republican Party in the post-war era. It worked for Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 1. It can work again.
And no, realpolitik did not get us into Iraq, however you want to slice it. Like President Bush I believe that now that we are in Iraq we can not afford to leave right away without sacrificing our long-term security interests. To do so would risk creating an international "badlands" which would become a terrorist haven in the heart of the Middle East. In that respect, his resistence to the "cut-and-run" crowd has been heroic. However, at this juncture we can not afford not to recognize the plain truth that our current strategy will not work. Iraq, as it is presently constituted, will never be a functioning democracy. The question you need to ask yourself is this: is the (illusory) dream of democracy in Iraq worth risking American security? For me, the answer to that question is not in doubt.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I don't agree that it was realpolitik that "won" the Cold War. It was hard nosed, in your face, Ronald Reagan that "won" the Cold War. To a large degree it was reapolitik that allowed to Cold War to fester for as long as it did. It was backing down during the Berlin blockade and resorting to the airlift* rather than facing down the Russians and demanding tha they live up to their agreements on unfettered ground access to Berlin. It was realpolitik that supported the House of Saud and created the Shah of Iran. It was realpolitik that had us supporting any tinpot dictator as long as he was our tinpot dictator and claimed to be anti-Communist --- regardless of how anti-freedom and anti-his own people he was. It was realpolitik that created Burdick's 1958 novel The Ugly American.
I didn't say, nor did I intend to infer, that I thought realpolitik created the present situation in Iraq although I would contend that realpolitik allowed the previous regime to exist amid the Middle East Mess created by earlier application of realpolitik.
--------------
* Not to detract from the effort and bravado of the people who conducted the airlift, truly a magnificent effort
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I don't agree that it was realpolitik that "won" the Cold War. It was hard nosed, in your face, Ronald Reagan that "won" the Cold War.
Let's refresh our memory of the Reagan Era. Who was his Secretary of State? Alexander Haig, followed by George Shultz. Who was his Chief of Staff? James Baker, or "Antichrist" as he's apparently known on this website. Who signed the largest nuclear weapons reduction treaty in history? Ummm ... yeah, Reagan. Who practiced containment as though it were a religion in Latin America (especially in Grenada and Nicaragua)? Yep, Reagan. Who cut deals with Saddam AND the Afghan mujahadeen? That would be Reagan too.
The bottom line is that Reagan was every bit as much a foreign policy realist as his Republican predecessors. The problem you seem to have with accepting that simple observation stems from two sources. 1) You seem to equate "realism" with "wimpy liberalism." 2) You seem to equate "realism" with a reluctance to use force in the pursuit of legitimate foreign policy goals. Neither assumption is accurate. The realpolitik crowd used force all the time. Iran, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada - all of these are examples of realist interventionism. They were instances when the U.S. government applied a limited amount of force under specific guidelines to achieve limited and clearly defined objectives. Examples of liberal interventionism (or "neoconservative" intervention, as we call it today) include Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and Iraq. These are cases when the U.S. government used force to achieve unspecific goals with unclear guidelines. I will add the caveat that the occupation of Iraq originally had specific goals (i.e., eliminate Iraqi WMD programs and foster democracy in Iraq), which of subsequently become muddled for reason that do not need to be revisited here.
To a large degree it was reapolitik that allowed the Cold War to fester for as long as it did. It was backing down during the Berlin blockade and resorting to the airlift.
To this I reply with a well-deserved phooey. The Berlin airlift was the only appropriate response to a desperate situation which Stalin initiated by laying seige to West Berlin. The only other two options left on the table were 1) capitulate; 2) Start World War III. Thankfully, Truman (also a great cold warrior, btw) chose the only realistic option. Had he chosen to capitulate the history of the Cold War might have gone differently. Had he chosen to start World War III then I might have four arms, two heads, and flippers.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
that overused by liberals when they can't justify their policies, word) of the Baker, Nixon and Kissinger school. Read "Reagan's War" by Peter Schweizer. And what but the same school left Saddam in power in 1991 due to a lowest common denominator coalition that let Syria set limits on what we could do?
One real difference in this war is that unlike with the USSR and communists, we have been attacked by the adherents of the islamo-facist ideology and cannot be sure an Iran can be deterred.
As to democracy, Japan was a cult nation deemed incapable of democracy after WWII, and what else should we offer nations whose regimes we remove? Iraq actually IS a democracy in a real sense now with a government, freely elected by a people no less courageous than our founders. We are in a long war. I do think it is worth it for us to help this people try to change the
paradigm!
in the Middle East for our long-term security. It may not work, but just beacuse the MSM considers projects that aren't completed in 13 weeks, doesn't mean that's the fact.
JFK-We do things not because they are easy. We do things beacuse they are hard.
Staying free is hard. Liberal appeasement is easy, until the barbarians are at the gate.
btw, you use the "p" word correctly. I just have had so many inane conversations with liberals, incl an ex-girlfriend that used that word when they got backed into a logical corner from which they could not escape.
I respect your rhatican identified courage. Neosporin is good on the claw wounds! smile
Are you kin to Bowie? Braves fan?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
It may not work, but just beacuse the MSM considers projects that aren't completed in 13 weeks, doesn't mean that's the fact.
anything after 13 weeks goes into re-runs!
Then you start a whole new season with a new storyline!
one can finish the sentences of the other! especially when I'm too lazy (and peck type so slow) to do so! Thanks, D, beacuse that was exactly the analogy I was hinting at.
Boy, ole BooBoo has written a classic! as in dreams of a cat!
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
who cut deals with Saddam back in the 1980's. Liberals like to use that as an excuse to criticize him, but I say that he did was he had to do under the circumstances. Reagan was faced with a situation where he had few attractive alternatives (a common situation in foreign policy, as we've discovered). On the one hand he had a radical religious dictatorship in Iran which was idealogically opposed to U.S. interests, and on the other hand we had a cruel totalitarian dictatorship in Iraq which was not necessarily opposed to U.S. interests. So we made a deal, and supplied Saddam with the weapons he needed to contain the Iranian threat. Later, when it appeared that Saddam had become too powerful and might overwhelm the Iranians, we helped them survive (and secured the release of American hostages in Lebanon) by providing them with weapons as well. This was the genesis of the Iran-Contra Affair, and many people, even today, argue that it was an example fo the seamy underbelly of U.S. foreign policy.[1] But defenders of the Reagan Administration argued, with good reason, that they had done what they had to do to preserve U.S. interests and prevent two very nasty governments from becoming so powerful that they could threaten those interests and the stability of the region.
Now, as concerns the Japan-Iraq analogy, I would argue that there really is no comparison. In Japan democracy succeeded because the Japanese government, including the all-important royal family, endorsed it. They endorsed democracy because they had no choice, having seen two of their cities vanish in less than a week. Obviously, we do not have the option of nuking Iraq. Moreover, since we have no domestic basis of support in Iraq similar to what the American occupation force could count on in Japan, we can not coerce the Iraqis into accepting a system of government that is alien to them. It is true, we have had three elections. But not every group participated in those elections. Those that did participate did so at the behest of the leaders of their various ethnic, tribal, and sectarian interests. Consequently, the government now in place in Iraq does not act as an impartial mediator of disputes, but actively participates in the ongoing sectarian violence in that country by taking sides with the Shi'ites over the Sunnis. If this is democracy, I am a toaster.
[1]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
While I agree that one does risk being thrown into a whimpering fetal position fit by the Rooster's crowing logic, I would direct you to the following better examples of bravery:
1-The armed forces of the US
2-The voters, elected officials and armed forces of Iraq
3-Bush risking tea with Webb
PS
Things are literally going swimmingly in Iraq provinces outside the increasingly less Sunni triangle through which the Tigris and Euphrates flow during good summer weather.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I am not brave. My brother, who is fighting in Anbar Province to ensure your safety and mine, is brave. And if something should happen to him I want his sacrifice to mean something. A stable Iraq, which is not actively hostile to the West or America, would be a worthy accomplishment. It matters not one little bit to me wheather that country is in one or three pieces, or whether it is democratic or something else. We are no longer in the position to be choosey.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Syria and Iran dictators are doing what they're doing because they know can't possibly survive a world in which a democratic Iraq survives. What we really need to be asking is how we can bring down the Iranian and Syrian regimes without occupying them.
To my mind the key question is this: Would US interests really be hurt if a power vacuum or some kind of rickety, unstable successor regime came into being in either Syria or Iran? I don't think they would. In the case of Syria, it would open a window for Lebanese freedom and Hizbollah defeat. In the case of Iran, it would open the opportunity for the vast majority of the Iranian population which is anti-mullah to assert itself.
9/11 was an attempt to decapitate the US government. Ironically, we have a much better chance to decapitate enemy regimes where power is highly concentrated and popular support is lacking and where the enemy's ability to retaliate is limited.
We need less Maginot and more Michael Corleone.
Would US interests really be hurt if a power vacuum or some kind of rickety, unstable successor regime came into being in either Syria or Iran? I don't think they would. In the case of Syria, it would open a window for Lebanese freedom and Hizbollah defeat. In the case of Iran, it would open the opportunity for the vast majority of the Iranian population which is anti-mullah to assert itself.
Decapitating Syria just might allow us to dig up all those nasties we suspect are buried out there in the desert.
And NOW, without Saddam Hussein to worry about attacking a weakened Iran, a decapitated Iran could be a very good thing for the region.
And both would only help to stabilize Iraq!
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight
OK, you're not & it's a great blog. I just wanted to balance all the nice things people are saying about you so you won't have problems getting thru doors... =:>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
accomodate rooster-head paradigm. (I.Q. tests had me pegged a moron. Idiot would be an improvement, I think!)
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
we all know how that turned out.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
that in spite of pundits proclamations of CW and other such BS that have not happened we still have a President who decides on matters based on actual events on the ground. This President does not always join in all of this background noise constantly coming from the MSM, but when he does speak it matters so much more.
Off topic gamecock, are you still thinking of responding to me about 2008 GOP Presidential candidates like Thompson? Keep up the work soldier.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I have been swamped with work and my main writing love, ie substantive issues but am going to read everything on Thompson, et al on r4'08 tonight and Sat am and do some writing to follow up my below latest on r4'08. I am glad Thompson and Hunter are in and that Frist is out. As you may know, I lean towards Romney now and hope to allay your fears as well as some of my fellow evangelical friends, but I want more choices in case Mitt can't wear the Reagan mantle.
more later
I promise
meanwhile see the link to my latest on the Top Three
http://race42008.com/2006/11/29/the-view-from-down-here-post-2006-positi...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
how much I love you GC?
you got a home run here baby!
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius