Posted on 11/30/2006 7:48:45 AM PST by Tirian
The larger point is that 9/11 showed the maximum of what maniacs can accomplish with guile, a little money and an impoverished regime providing them safe haven. Compared to what maniacs will be able to accomplish with hundreds of billions of petro-dollars while running regimes flush with cash and having a limitless desire for martyrdom and murder, 9/11’s damage comes into a different, sharper focus."
Lest anyone forget: Jim Baker was instrumental in convincing the first President Bush to break his word and raise taxes.
But don't forget, he's Realistic. That's the important thing. /sarc.
I wouldn't trust Jim Baker with a 10-cent stamp.
Bush should take this report from Baker and Hamilton, smile at them, and then before everyone throw it in the trash.
The Iraq commission has ZERO expertise in running a war or the aftermath.
They are a bunch of diplomates, who think that the answer to everything is to talk the enemy to death -- except this does NOT work with terrorists.
Here is the list of the members:
http://www.usip.org/isg/members.html
"It is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, the nation’s 61st Secretary of State and Honorary Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The other members of the study group include: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson. "
Look at their detailed credentials at the link above. Even the respected ones only have experience in diplomacy, some have no experience even in foreign policy, such as Sandra Day O'Connor.
The only ex Sec Def is Perry, who was SecDef under Clinton -- not an illustrious recommendation.
Why isn't the Bush Administration -- not to mention the MSM -- point out the total lack of experience of the panel in the matters at hand, the Iraq war, about which they are making recommendations.
This is like asking a bunch of medical malpractice lawyers, instead of doctors, a second opinion about whether or not to have surgery. They may be highly successful lawyers, but giving a second opinion on surgery is NOT their field by long shot.
One of the articles mentioned that they had Kerry and McCain testify in front of the panel -- great experts! (/sarcasm)
Jim Baker was involved in that and, as Secretary of State, in the decision not to oust Saddam in 1991. He was rejected as a candidate for President in 1996, why would we let him make our policy now?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
What I see for the future of this country......First, we will, if the Democrats have their way, pull out of Iraq. We won't loose the war, we will loose our strength politically around the world. Second, muslims will take over the region and they will attack us again. Third, once we are attacked again, possibly with nukes, this country will be embroiled in a world war that will be so big, it will set Iraq, Iran, Syria and other countries back 1000 years.
Don't forget that Sandra Day O'Connor is on the Commission. The test will be whether the war is an "undue burden."
Bush should take this report from Baker and Hamilton, smile at them, and then before everyone throw it in the trash.""
I agree if that is what these "statemen" are recommending.
I thought a lot more of Jim Baker until this last couple of months. He has feet of clay, IMO.
Was Baker instrumental in letting the Republican Guard take most of their equipment back to Iraq? Did he sway Bush 1 to leave Hussein free to kill the Kurds when they revolted?
Just wondering the depth of his worthlessness.
Vernon Jordan? Charles Robb?
The only person on that panel who truly understands the problem and the consequences is Eagleburger, whom I've heard speaking as forcefully about the Islamists as anyone on FR or Jihadwatch. He does get it.
The Baker Report should come with a Chamberlain umbrella.
"Jim Baker was involved in that and, as Secretary of State, in the decision not to oust Saddam in 1991."
Baker and Scowcroft, another "realist", who's thankfully not on this panel.
Good morning.
?.....""detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City"...
"And the downside of this is?....."
Brilliant statement there, arbooz.
Michael Frazier
Ping!
Come on
This report is really an admission that the Commission doesn't know what to do but they had to come out with something to CTA . They couldn't say "We don't know what the hell we are doing "
Leave Iraq but NO TIME TABLE --Big deal
Talks with IRAN --Talking is OK as long as you don't stop shooting . It is the phoney talks where you allow the bad guys to re-arm while you stop shooting or limit the shooting that are problems
A Big Nothing ( except it will give the MSM some ammo to ballyhoo on the nightly shows )
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.