Posted on 12/08/2006 4:02:15 PM PST by IntelliQuark
Top Democrats in Congress left a White House meeting with President Bush on Friday frustrated over what they perceived as his reluctance to embrace major recommendations from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
"I just didn't feel there today, the president in his words or his demeanor, that he is going to do anything right away to change things drastically," Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid, D-Nev., said following the Oval Office meeting. "He is tepid in what he talks about doing. Someone has to get the message to this man that there have to be significant changes."
Bush has been cool to some of the report's main recommendations. He's said he won't deal with Iran until it verifiably suspends its nuclear enrichment program and won't sit down with Syria until it stays out of Lebanon's political affairs and prevents the flow of weapons and cash to insurgents in Iraq.
And Bush has stressed many times that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until they successfully complete their mission.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Yep! Reid and Polosi are in charge now. Anything that goes wrong for here on out is their fault. Not the fault of the President.
Why Sen Reid you're the Senate majority leader. Why didn't you tell him?
Despite any reservationsdabout President Bush and illegal immigration etc, he is now about the only thing standing between us and an abject Democrat surrender in the War on Terror.
Are the Dems going to use the report as an excuse to move forward on impeachment? "The President won't listen to the ISG! We must impeach him!"
what do we have to lose? the 2008 election.
But to your point - when the President makes his strategy speech to the nation in a couple of weeks, he is going to have to answer the question you just posed. He is going to have to explain why talking to Iran isn't going to work. But he is also going to have to answer the harder question - if we don't talk to Iran, and we don't plan on taking military action against them to stop their interference in iraq, what do we do to contain them? can we stablize iraq, without dealing with iran?
Not your father's terrorists bump...
LOL Great post.
Bush should do that. But if Bush can't get Iraq to stand up before 2008 and reploy these troops elsewhere, then kiss goodbye to all who support him in Congress. The troops know that it did not take 4 years to train them to fight.
And if we could add Syria and Iran to the list!
exactly right. I keep trying to post that side of the argument.
look, all of us here want to win. we all want things to work out well. But we have closed off alot of options for ourselves - we gave iraq this democracy, so we can't use acute US military force and kick butt all over the country, without Malaki's approval. And Sadr owns Maliki, even Rush admitted that on his show today. so that limits this option. next, we know syria and iran are acting to de-stabilize iraq. anyone here seriously think we are going to attack syria or iran?
so basically, we are down to the same plan we've always had for this phase 2 of the war - the iraqis must stand up. OK, it a good plan. What if it doesn't happen? What happens if iraq is unable to pull themselves together, suppose the internal strife, the religious differences, and problems too big for them to overcome. What happens then?
Me too! I didn't take names. I wish that I did now.
To most people a compromise is an agreement. Two or more parties sit down and they each give up something for a greater agreement. Thus they end up with a part of what they want but not all of it. The misery/goodness is spread equally.
Enter the Baker Report. It's been out two days and the left is celebrating. I haven't seen them this happy since the election of Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. Katie Couric was almost wetting her panties the other night in excitement. Lefty bloggers are going crazy with happiness.
Thus I'm wondering what they gave up in the Baker Report. It was a 'compromise' right? So what did the left give up? We all know that if they had given up something that's all we'd be hearing about in the unbiased MSM is how 'unreasonable' it was.
A better question is what did we get out of it? I would expect that 39 of the 79 articles in the report would be things that I (as a conservative) agree with. So how come I have yet to see anything I like? Why are conservative pundits oddly silent?
Cause we haven't gotten crap. We didn't get anything out of this "compromise" accept ignored. The people who were supposed to represent our side gave up our principles and sold us out. This was more of an embarrassing surrender than a compromise. If both sides are supposed to get something, why aren't I happy?
Get ready for tons of gleeful talk of 'compromise' from the left. They'll tell us that now that we all agree, we go forward from here. The fact that this was a RECOMMENDATION will quickly be forgotten. The fact that we *don't* agree will be ignored. It will become the only way to handle the war in Iraq from here on in (since it mandates the liberal way of doing things.)
Thus from this point in, conservatives will be viewed as the enemy by the political powers that be. Smug liberal political elitists will be quick to remind us that "now that we all agree" the only discussion left is how to implement their ideas.
This stupid Commission was brought to us by a Republican Congress who was supposed to be fighting for our values. The only upshot is that these idiots won't be there to betray us next year.
Well...we know the Senate is not happy...since Lieberman and Collins want to have another ISG with Senate leaders this time.
To tell you the truth, of the Senators that are left after the election...I bet we can count on less than 2 hands the number of Senators that will back Pres. Bush all of the way.
it depends on what the President proposes.
I don't know...I just we could see a scene of the GOP coming out of the White House..like they had with Pelosi and Reid...
But, have these GOP Senators or House members saying that they are sure that Pres. Bush will do what is best for the security of our country.
But...if they did...I haven't seen it...
However...I have seen at least 3-4 times, a speech on the Senate floor with Gordon Smith (R) who was practically crying, saying that he WAS with the Pres....but, now he just can't be anymore...it is just too awful....
Let's see what Reid says after the Pentagon report comes out. I believe that's the one GW will follow. But I'm sure GW is putting the ISG report to good use. Like in the Oval Office executive bathroom.
I just saw that clip of Gordon Smith (R) AGAIN, this time on Hannity and Colmes...
Only this time, they played it longer..and Smith not only says he can't back Pres. Bush's war as fought...but said that the way it is being fought "may be criminal"!!!
so....there you go...Cynthia McKinney filed impeachment papers in the House today..as her going away present for President Bush...and you have a GOP Senator that voted for and backed the war hinting that what Pres. Bush is doing in Iraq "may be criminal"!!
Oh...yeah..if Pres. Bush stands firm in this atmosphere, he will be very lonely...and I for one will be very proud of him.
However....I don't think we will have a prayer of winning in 2008.
Because of current events, that is a most powerful statement. We should pass it on. Might help some understand the consequences of not winning in Iraq.
he's a weak hand, in a state that would otherwise elect a Dem.
..And yet YOU Harry Reid have not defined what changes that it might be, nor has anyone in your party to this very day identified a plan for Iraq or the WOT in general.
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.