Posted on 12/08/2006 10:27:04 AM PST by jmc1969
Former White House advisers to George H.W. Bush are keenly disappointed and concerned about the current President Bush's initial reaction to the report by the Iraq Study Group.
They consider him rather dismissive of the group's conclusions, issued yesterday, which include the view that current Iraq policy is failing. The group recommends a variety of important changes, such as assigning U.S. troops to play more of an advisory and training role and less of a combat role. The ISG also recommends that the United States withdraw most of its combat brigades by early 2008 and that the administration increase diplomatic efforts, including starting talks with Iran and Syria and energetically working toward an Israeli-Palestinian solution.
Adding to the unease were President Bush's comments at his Thursday news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which he avoided commenting on specifics in the ISG report.
"We have a classic case of circling the wagons," says a former adviser to Bush the elder. "If President Bush changes his policy in Iraq in a fundamental way, it undermines the whole premise of his presidency. I just don't believe he will ever do that."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Now, there's a group that Dubya should never listen to.
Look what they did for his daddy.
Since these "former aides" are nameless, the article may just reflect what its author thinks they feel, or wishes they would feel. A useless article, IMHO.
For W to follow the ISG's major recommendations would be like his father violating his No New Taxes pledge.
He isn't right to be dismissive.
He should be openly scornful and heartily rejecting.
The King does not do enough to stop members of "his royal family" and others in Saudi from funding the people that are killing Americans.
Lemme guess, they are never named in the article? Probably Scowlcroft and David Gurgle.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Jesus, Matthew 10:36
There's still a lot of argument on that. Personally I think it's a good thing we didn't take him out.
We either let the region rebuild it (Iran, Syria, Saudi) or we do. The President lost in 92, guess who comes in during rebuilding.
That's right. The reason Balkans is so messed up, worse than Iraq it seems, (now there's a real quagmire), is because we were so uniformly one sided it's embarrassing. See how the PResident, our military, and the Iraqis do it? Anyone who steps out of line gets a uniform @$$whupping. Shia, SUnni, Kurd, other than IRaqi, doesn't matter. That's what we should have done there. But NOOO Serbs bad. Serbs must be punished because we are too lazy to actually find other scumbags on the Croat, ALbanian, and Bosnian side.
IF we are going to rebuild and Bush the elder was the one in the White House in 93, we should have taken Saddam. Otherwise, all betts are off.
I can see the toon now, backing up the Shia as a majority while, telling the others to screw off, and letting the whole of Iraq devolves into civil war.
Of course there'd be a news black out from the Monica wannabes in the DEMONcrap ministry of information and propaganda.
Look, what is really going on is that James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, Daddy's Enforcers, are trying to install Hug-A-Saudi Realism at State. Condi doesn't want to play ball and they want to toss her under the bus.
Unfortunately for the Dictator of the Month Club, W is President.
The Flavor of the Month is to open up a conference with the Boy President and his patron, the Persian Fuhrer. The ISG report opens up a huge bucket o' worms by assuming that Fascists will help us build Iraqi democracy.
Baker was running around yesterday speaking about Syria being "flipped".
No wonder Condi remained silent. She let McCain and Lieberman open up on this nonsense.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
We had the entire Iraqi Army in the field during the first war. We could have wiped them out and then had no resistance whatsoever.
Instead in Gulf War 2 we didn't fight the Iraqi Army, we just went into Baghdad and told them all to go home.
The number of troops we had in the first Gulf War was also more then enough to provide security in a country the size of Iraq. The number of troops in the second Gulf War was about half the number needed.
Maybe these were the same "advisors" who told Bush the Elder to go ahead and break his tax pledge. Not too hard to figure out why these clowns became "former" advisors.
That's easy to say without citing your named sources.
It certainly would be hard for the King to control the thousands of Royals, especially the back-bench disatified ones.
That said, the S.A. acting King did help us greatly with the invasion of Iraq. It was in the King's interest to see both Saddam and Al Qaeda removed from the area and to see Iraq stabalized and Iran out of the picture.
However, Democracy may not be in his interest and taking the side of Israel has never been in his interest.
Everyone please go immediately to the "Pray for President Bush" section of FR where we can do some good.
Actually, that backstabber would be a likely suspect.
I'd talk to Iran and Syria.
I'd send em both a telegram that said "knock that s##t off" end of messgage.
Exactly. Then they told the Iraqi people to "rise up against Saddam", resulting in one of the most shocking slaughters in modern times. The reason I did not vote for Bush the Elder for a second term.
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.