right when he is in the middle of a big crowd of his thugs!
That's the only message they will understand...
Posted on 10/26/2006 5:14:16 AM PDT by beckaz
IT WAS wrenching to listen to President Bush's news conference yesterday. He's struggling to do the right thing. But he's getting terrible advice.
He's still counting on a political solution in Iraq. Ain't going to happen. And you can take that to the blood bank.
Our famously loyal president has one grave flaw: He's a poor judge of character. He trusts the wrong people. Then he sticks by them.
Bush met Russia's Vladimir Putin, "looked into his soul" - and failed to recognize that the guy is an unreformed secret policeman. He stubbornly defends Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon's architect of failure. Now he's standing up for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a man who has decided to back our enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Your fantasy is my fantasy. (But Jim Baker lurks in the shadows...)
It is time to release the DOGS of WAR on Mookie and his militia, the Sunnis and anyone else who sticks their head out of a rat hole.
WE CAN DO THIS!!!
I disagree Rumsfeld is the biggest problem. I think Bush should fire the entire State Department first.
Forget the carrots. Bring out the sticks. This b*llshiite about mollifying the whims of the Iraqi "sovereign" government is a loser's game dreamed up by State Department Utopians. We overthrew Saddam and replaced him with a government of our own choosing and for our own strategic reasons. Now we should make it perform or change it so it does - not let it tie us down in a fool's mission of trying to satisfy our mortal enemies while they dither with political carrots.
Al Sadr is now seen as the "Strong Horse". We ought to make him a dead horse. Today.
right when he is in the middle of a big crowd of his thugs!
That's the only message they will understand...
Rumsfeld is doing a great job, especially considering how much Pentagon internal (Army in particular) and Congressional (using military budget as district pork) resistance there is to his reforms. After huge reductions in military during Clinton years, he won two wars in record time, and now getting ready to do the same with Iran. He offered to resign 3 times, lest be a "political" liability only, as if another SecDef would be immune from liberal attacks - whether we stay in Iraq, or pull out of Iraq. It's their way of getting to higher targets - pull some "bricks" from under them. It was State (Bremmer et al) that "ran" Iraq for over two years after Iraqi Freedom, not the US military (unlike Germany and Japan for 7 years post-WWII), so we know where the responsibility lies for whatever mistakes were made there from summer 2003.
In any case, we already won "war in Iraq", and "war in Afghanistan", no matter that media and libs want to make it into a "loss" or "Vietnam". These are now just really bases for operations against Iran, which is a real next target. al-Sadr is nothing without Iran. So is Syria, which is why we didn't bother with them by now. Once Iran undergoes a regime change (internally or after bombing their nuke sites) their clients like Syria and al-Sadrists in Iraq and Hezbollah are done and Middle East is mostly pacified. This will also majorly pi$$ off Russia and China, because they're being left without clients and their sphere of influence in Middle East is reduced immeasurably, just like Chirac immediately became nobody from being a "protector" or "Godfather after fall of Saddam. Then it will also become much, much easier to deal with NoKo situation through China. Kim may finally get the attention he craves so much, though he may not like the kind of attention he gets. In other words, all roads now lead to Teheran, everything else (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, NoKo) follows - or, more accurately falls apart of its own weight. Till then, let's just not make too many mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere, lest it become a distraction to ultimate victory.
Mookie should have been taken out in 2004 when he sent his militia in action. Fact is that even now if we did off him that many Shia would applause. There is a whole faction that thinks of him as a Iranian stooge.
Everyone can see the handwriting on the wall except Bush and Rumsfeld
The Greek King Epirus, after what you might call a Phyrric victory, coined the phrase "Another victory like this and we're lost." We're not going after Iran during President Bush's time in office.
It was State (Bremmer et al) that "ran" Iraq for over two years after Iraqi Freedom, not the US military (unlike Germany and Japan for 7 years post-WWII), so we know where the responsibility lies for whatever mistakes were made there from summer 2003.
State ran the reconstruction (right into the ground), but security aspect was entirely handled by the U.S. military. The reconstruction failed, in large part, because we couldn't maintain security outside the wire. That made an already mismanged reconstruction effort impossible.
Other than that, your post is a lot of wishful thinking.
I don't see Shi'as and Sunnis killing each other and destroying each other mosques as Pyrrhic victory... sure they are a bit slow in filling daily kill rations (gangs in Rio kill more per diem without any talk about Civil War), but still it's a good example to other Muslims of who their real enemies are and who can be their friend and help free them from tyrants if only they have will themselves.
We're not going after Iran during President Bush's time in office.
A lot depends on this election, but if Republicans do reasonably well for mid-term elections and keep control, which I fully expect (turnout, turnout, turnout!), then Iran may just be as surprised as al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, and later Saddam in Iraq, that we went after them militarily and not criminally, i.e. UN sanctions game is just a prelude and legalities, just like it was with Iraq.
Nobody was under the impression that we knock Saddam out ("win the war in Iraq") and then leave it to al-Qaeda or Iran to take over. We didn't do anything similar in Germany (or Europe in general) or Japan, and WWII immediately evolved into Cold War with some of our war-time allies. And Germany was entirely bombed out and defeated well beyond what we tried to do in Iraq from the outset. Germany was also already into 7th year of the military actions and lost millions of its own people. The two thing that keep up "insurgency" in Iraq are Iran (funding and supplies of technology and personnel) and Democrats in US (political attacks on their common enemies and potential for getting into position of power and providing them political and propaganda victory and possibly a military one, if we withdraw).
State ran the reconstruction (right into the ground), but security aspect was entirely handled by the U.S. military.
Not really, locally military was pretty much under control of CPA which was run by Bremmer and he had overruled several major operations that were proposed by the military - under the "hearts and minds" programme mindset. Sure, military could take it upstairs to Rummy and Powell in D.C., but that would not only lose valuable time but in most cases DoS would be given latitude.
Other than that, your post is a lot of wishful thinking.
Well, it's consistent with what I see happening in the big picture, and consistent with the "Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas P. Barnett (PDF or JPG maps can be downloaded from ), which has been influential in Pentagon. Iran's client states and organisations (Syria, al-Sadr, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) fall apart and starve financially, except for ability to cause minor low-intensity mischief, after regime change in Iran, so it doesn't make sense to divert our major resources and attention on them unless absolutely necessary (latest example was Lebanon).
The rest is just a sense of unrelenting panic sponsored by Democrats and developed and propagated by media. The polls are just one tool in their arsenal to influence public opinion.
It's time to turn Sadr City inside out like the Marines did with Fallujah.
He did offer to resign twice to Bush in 2004, but Bush refused both times.
Ping
I agree with him about when the turning point was ,capturing that leader and then releasing him because AlSadr said so. When I read that I said what the Hell is going on! If Bush wants to get everyone to get along and not hurt anyones feelings, fine, say so but dont call it a WAR because it is not.
It seems to me we better make a choice as to what we are trying to accomplish or better how we are trying to achieve what ever it is we are trying achieve and explain it a lot better than Bush is doing because when we release the enemy we capture because the enemy says so this is insanity.
I think this and the Jonah Goldberg article calling for the U.S. to ask the Iraqi government for a national plebiscite on American presence in Iraq are wonderful indications of how this mess SHOULD be resolved.
Unfortunately, all we're going to hear is more of this 'stay-the-course-but-not-stay-the-course-exactly' b.s. up until election day. That'll really help the GOP. Not.
Death to Mookie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.