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 ...
..............No one would ever take America seriously again as a superpower................
And, the resulting nuclear proliferation would be staggering as each country knows it's on it's own!
Funny these people don't have names.
"This is no time to go wobbly."
But it would still be the same. The Iraqi military had it worse than the USSR's. At least there were plenty of "patriots" who didn't mine dying for Mother Russia. The majority of the Iraqis, including the military, hated the regime they lived in. There is no loyalty lost between them and Saddam, only fear.
Rebuilding the country, we'd face the same problem in 91-2 as in 03-6, infiltrators from Iran, Syria, and AQ determined not to let Iraq become a democracy, thereby proving that one doesn't have to die for a twisted view of God or live in the corrupt and sinful playgrounds of Sheiks, emirs, and despots. They can be free.
Terrorists recruit from people who hate the regimes we prop up. With Iraqs all over the ME, the Islamic world will soon follow suit and soon membership in Globojihad Inc. will consist of three p!$$ed of guys and a camel.
That's why they'd fight "occupiers" so hard then. That's why they are fighting us now.
Exactly. Superannuated hippies like to moan and compare Iraq to Viet Nam, but what they fail to comprehend is that Viet Nam is part of what make it vitally necessary to win this war. We *cannot* let the U.S. be seen as an overgrown bully that likes to start wars but doesn't have the stomach to end them. If we are to have any say in how the future of the world will look, it must be completely obvious to the entire world that when the U.S. starts a project, it finishes it correctly.
I agree with your sentiments. I particularly loathed this statement:
"that the administration increase diplomatic efforts, including starting talks with Iran and Syria..."
It's getting to the point where if I read the word "diplomacy" or "diplomatic" I want to puke, literally. My stomach starts getting weird.
Go W: dismiss the Surrender Group and its Saudi puppeteers...
>>Best line I heard about this came from Jonah Goldberg. "Washington is a city where it is better to be wrong in a group than right by yourself."
>>W. does not mind being by himself when that's the right thing.
You know, I'm starting to think Duncan Hunter has a chance.
I've read only summaries of the report and not the report itself.
But I'm a little confused as to how the report differs from staying the course. It recommends keeping our troops in, and it recommends training the Iraqi military to take a greater role.
As far as I can tell this is exactly the course of action we were following before the report was issued.
The only change I've seen is the idea of talking to Syria and Iran, which I would agree would be futile. Certainly we can talk to them, but realistically I don't think we have anything to offer that would change their minds. What they want is too dangerous, and I doubt that they would keep up their half of the bargain no matter what we did.
So I see a lot of loud talk about radical change masking recommendations telling us to change nothing. I see things continuing essentially as they have before.
What am I missing, if anything?
D
These are the same people who did in his father - who let the Kurds be slaughtered so that Bill Clinton looked like a "human rights champion" during the debates although he was no such thing!
"Worries aides" - but makes me very happy! He should be dismissive - this was appeasement garbage from anti-Semite James Baker, golfer to the stars Vernon Jordon, self-important jerk Alan Simpson and aging jurist Sandra Day O'Connor - not to mention Clinton gofer Leon Panetta. And everybody's favorite Jeopardy star, Lee Hamilton!
W's reaction worries father's aides? Sheesh! Who's running things? Not them!
56 should have come BEFORE 34.
;-)
I find this article very strange. It is obviously a planted story by people that are true enemies of Bush and America,
I am extremely disgusted with Baker and Company - did anyone see the list of commies on that committee Leon Panetta and that black dude who got Monica a job after she was thrown under the Clinton bus! Not to mention the national security note stealer Sandy BUrgler as a sub-committe member - GEESH - those guys INVALIDATE any report by their foul stench!
"Former White House advisers to George H.W. Bush" these pin head advisers must really think George W. is a stupid idiot. You would have to be very stupid to buy into their 79 points of surrender to the terrorists. "W" is not going to capitulate to his father's cronies. The president is a patriot and believes in American values and the American military.
I don't think Syria and Iran would have become the problem they are today had we killed the Iraqi snake then.
I think our talks with Iran should be along the lines of "if a nuclear device is ever detonated in the United States your three largest cities will be incinerated within two days of the event and we'll seize your oil fields to pay for the damage". We should have similar discussions with the Sauds and Libyans...
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.