Posted on 12/07/2006 10:39:46 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
~snip~
Back in 1990, Baker convinced Syria to join the Gulf War coalition against Saddam Hussein. Now, he wants this George Bush to talk to Syria ... and Iran, too.
"It has to be hard-nosed, it has to be determined," Baker said in a television interview in October. "You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."
But this president may not be in much of a hurry to accept Baker's ideas about that — or much else. Asked if Baker would help implement the report, a spokesman for Mr. Bush said, "Jim Baker can go back to his day job."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
what is MTP
It's called Meet The Press. It's a weekly press briefing from the Democratic party occurring every Sunday morning. The DNC representative who heads up the show is Chris Matthews. He also represents the interests of the DNC on one of the lesser watched cable news networks called Hardball, but of course nobody watches that so the DNC put him on the CBS Sunday morning to make sure the message gets out.
Jim Baker is trying to use the Commission to marginalize Rice and impose a "Saudi Solution", a second Munich Conference that would force concessions on the Israelis without any substantive return of peace and recognition. The inclusion of the Palestianian demand of a "right of return" is the showstopper.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
hey now, she fills out her suits quite nicely.
Not only McCain came out against it, but so did Giuliani. Hmmmm. The two top front-runners for the Republican Nomination both came out against the report. I think the real practical impact of this report has been gravely misoverestimated.
| War Panel Urges Unity; McCain Balks |
||
| Posted by saganite On 12/07/2006 12:37:54 PM CST · 15 replies · 217+ views The Boston Channel.com ^ | December 7, 2006 | staff WASHINGTON -- The Iraq Study Group's co-chairs want elected leaders and the American public to unify behind a new strategy for the Iraq war, but Sen. John McCain is already taking issue with some of the group's recommendations. "That's a very tough policy problem, and in order for this to happen, it can't be pie in the sky, it can't be idealistic, it has to be pragmatic," former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., told the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee is hearing testimony and asking questions of the group's co-chairs on Thursday. Many in Congress have praised the group's report.... |
||
It's here on FR and also on Real Clear Politics.
You can't argue with a drunk, and you can't deal with Satan. Satan will lie to you every single time.
Mr. Baker is a putz.
I agree with you and I like your terminology “misoverestimated” : )
Condi has been on board with all the provisions of the Saudi Plan, including decrying the "occupation", and adding the concept of "contiguity", Israel ceding land to the palestinians connecting the West Bank and Gaza, something even the Saudis didn't propose. I doubt she'd be on board with Baker's idea of peace talks WITHOUT Israel, to avoid the effects of "Jewish influence", but that's not in the ISG plan. I think the administration will be on board with the palestinian proposals.
Perhaps, though not in the context of Iraq. As I recall the concept of the group, from Baker's perspective, was to produce a "plan" acceptable to, and endorsed by, both parties. The objective not winning or losing, but to remove Iraq as an issue from the 2008 election, by instituting a plan supported by both parties. Ironically it appears the Dems will support the plan, it implies blame for failure on Republicans, but neither GWB nor the 2008 candidates seem to be jumping on board. Potentially it could have the opposite effect, polarizing the positions. Maybe even create a "let's win" constituency. My guess the last thing Baker wanted.
Is BUSH Sr going to cry some more?
BTW: It is unclear that the held up judges would all have been approved in any case. Thin margins, RINOs like Chaffee, etc.
McCain has consistently stood up for winning the WOT. I'm not sure why you blame the Baker report on him. They say: Leave Now. He says: "More troops".
He's still not my favorite guy, but he might be the most electable. Not sure how wide spread your feelings are. He seems to beat all Donkeys by a bigger margin than anyone. Maybe these are just push polls designed to confuse us?
I'd say that about describes the logic behind many of the Iraq Surrender Group's recommendations. After all, WTF does the Israeli-Arab problem have to do with Shiites and Sunnis blowing each other into little pieces? Did Saddam massacre 300,000 of his own people, start 2 wars, gas the Iranians with mustard gas and begin a nuclear program because of Israel? Not a chance.
I don't know who I loath more, Jim Baker al Saud or that retarded anti-Semitic peanut farmer from Georgia, but I will say this: if I happen to be passing by when either of them is on fire, I wouldn't pi$$ on them to put out the flames.
That is true, but the Congressional Dems are in favor of it, and they will be "in charge" of the Entire Known Universe in January, according to the MSM. They also LUVVV Gates as SecDef.
Total BS. He is right on foreign policy, right on the WOT, right on fiscal conservatism, right on privatization, right on massive agency reform, right on reigning in affirmative action, right on school vouchers, right on economics, and has pledged to appoint judges like Allito and Roberts. He is left or center on some social and gun issues, but to say he is "liberal in most every sense of the word" is simply slander.
IMHO Baker et al were all incredibly naive.
It's one thing to have a bipartisan commission to recommend how to change Social Security or even immigration. But to use that lame device to decide how to fight a war? Somehow we can use a committee of has-been "moderates" to fudge a consensus on how to proceed?
Take the 'Rats (PLEASE! - H .Youngman) for instance. What is THEIR Iraq / Middle East plan? THEY DON'T HAVE ONE!! That Party can't even agree among themselves, yet these geriatrics thought they could put together a report that would actually get support from a majority of ALL Americans?
Hell, John F. Kerry can't even reach agreement inside his own elongated skull!
And now Nancy Pelosi claims her Party is "ready to govern". LOL, they can't agree in their own caucus what day of the week it is.
All any of these impotent people can do is through tomatoes at GWB. Developing a real strategeric plan is quite beyond their limited abilities; they know less about the military than Ted Kennedy knows about sobriety.
I hope some of our troops get a copy of this report and burn it, because that's about all it's good for.
Baker is a deal maker. He approaches foreing policy like a corporation lawyer working for or against a merger. He hasn't a clue about dealing with true believers.
I'm writing that one down. Thank you!
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.