The Iraq Study Group has, essentially, bitch-slapped Dubya and rendered everything he has been advocating for the past 5 years useless.
He has proven to be rather steadfast in his moves, right or wrong. Can we expect him to suck it up and admit he has failed?
A true statesman would accept defeat and do whatever he or she could do to minimize future damage and, by doing so, perhaps salvage what little respect he has left in the world.
Is he going to do the right thing?
-accept the fact that the Iraq mess can’t be solved militarily
-talk to Iran & Syria
-work with the Palestinians & Israelis
Bottom line…make decisions based on facts and realistic goals, not paranoia and a cold-war mentality.
Taking the easy way out is for pussies. (sp?)
Besides, nobody ever said fulfilling biblical prophecies would be easy.
The man’s a rigid ideologue, and that rigidity is reinforced by Cheney, who maintains enough influence to derail or veto the most radical options. Maybe if Cheney had another heart attack and was replaced by someone sensible…
What were the alternatives? And weren’t they deemed “failures” as well? remember Oil for Food? A great success? Remember containment of Saddam? Great success?
Yes, that is what a true “statesman” would no doubt do and if I wanted someone one the cocktail party circuit who was well-liked, then bingo, got your man. I, however, prefer a leader and that is why I am happy with Bush. I am very sorry that the Iranians and North Koreans don’t like him. Ditto for Chavez and the fact that they don’t is supposed to be a bad thing because… help me out here… How about if we present it to the North Koreans and Iranians the same way they are presenting things to us. It is because their leaders have been so antagonistic and militaristic and nasty about the US and its leadership that the “feelings” of the American people have been “hurt” and therefore as a backlash the voters turned to Bush. Clearly, the “moderates” in the US government were dissed by both nations and therefore they have only their leaders to blame for the resultant win by “hardliners” in America. Works both ways but no… we cannot have that now can we?
I believe that he will but too bad that will not be what you want or rather “feel” is the right thing to do.
To my knowledge, he never suggested anything of the sort and neither did Rumsfeld. On the contrary, from the very beginning, I believe that Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld have consistently presented this as a political problem and given that it is primarily a “political” problem, how would more troops have helped? would they help now? I don’t think so. Until the politics of this matter are resolved, no peace. Bush understands that, hence no 500,000 troops. But we are not leaving either. We will be in Iraq for 60 years.
Well, why don’t you look at the track record of say presidents who attempted to talk to Syria and Iran? Start with Carter work your way through Reagan to Bush I and then to Clinton and now Bush II. Look at all the UN and EU leaders who have attempted to talk to Iran and Syria. Why not tell us where you think “talking” will work this time. Our goals are diametrically opposed and no “talking” is going to resolve that.
Which means telling the Israelis to put up with suicide attacks and terrorism as a necessary price for Palestinian “grievances?” Great idea! Never been tried before! Oh, er, it has. How did that Oslo Accord work out exactly and why didn’t it succeed? One side was not adhering to the treaty stipulations? Really? Color me shocked. What next? Arab governments that don’t respect the will of their peoples?
Take your own advice and show us factually where talking to Iran or Syria has ever been successful and what the outcomes (desired or otherwise) were. We will be waiting. Cat got your tongue? hahahahaah Don’t make me laugh. Actually, it is not a laughing matter but clearly the leadership in Syria and Iran has a very good understanding of what makes people like you tick and I suspect that the need to “understand” and “tolerate” and “seek peace” through “dialogue” or perhaps “discussions” while attempting to “resolve conflicts” through “peace-building exercises” are the motivators of choice. Excuse me while I barf into my waste basket. Bah! Naif!
Yes, much better to understand and compromise with those of differing opinions so why don’t you compromise with me now? I support Bush and his policies and I have no intention of “compromising” so you “tolerate” that why don’t you because if you don’t I will send suicide bombers to attack your house and kidnap your family. Do you want to “understand” that too? I wouldn’t want you to come off as a rigid ideologue. hahahaha
who represents the Bilderberg group or Illuminati or the shape-shifting lizards who in conjunction with the Jews…
Let’s hope that heart attacks are contagious. Seems to be a great need for sense all around this forum. Too bad you will not able to enjoy reading these witty comments since you have me on ignore, eh? hahahaha
Better come over for Fredfest V Champagne Hour this Saturday from 7 to 8. Don’t need to stay for dinner. Sands in the hourglass and all that. Don’t you want to meet those who sustain the scintillating wit and deep political insight on this forum. Oh yeah and Broon Ale will be there too! haha
I think Bush will acknowledge defeat on the day Fred Smith stops defending him…
Isn’t he still defending Nixon?
I have not looked much into the “International History” Forum yet, but you are probably right.
Oh yeah, Fred. It sure did. What is the Iraq Study Group? Is it considered impartial and objective?
What a shocker this morning. Bush says: “It’s bad in Iraq…”
Some people got down on Clinton: “Yeah, yeah, he was widely read and well informed, but he was inconsistent… always influenced by the last thing he read.”
Now there’s Bush II. Five years ago he read this…
[quote]Sept. 12, 2001.
Fr: Dick, Don, Condi.
DON’T read the memo from Colin. It’s wordy and confusing.
Yesterday we were attacked by BAD men.
Saddam is a BAD man. He tried to kill your dad, after he wiggled out of a whoopin’ your dad was supposed to lay on him.
We’re going to go get those Bad men.
Remember, DON’T read the memo from Colin.
You’re the boss,
Now he reads this…
[quote]Dec. 6, 2006
Fr: Your Daddy’s friends
DON’T listen to Dick, Don, and Condi. They’ve been telling you fibs.
All those things they told you about Iraq are NOT true.
It’s BAD in Iraq. Really BAD.
Don’t get excited.
Don’t try to run.
We’re going to help you George.
Close your eyes, and we’ll get you out of this.
Remember, Dick, Don and Condi are WRONG.
Who’s your daddy?[/quote]
And just like Clinton, he instantly reverses direction, based on the last thing he read. :loco:
hehe,where’s that “will someone give dubya a blow-job so we can impeach him” picture when you need it???
I think Fred can confirm that the odds that President Bush is going to give up his jihad are zero.
[quote=“dablindfrog”]hehe,where’s that “will someone give dubya a blow-job so we can impeach him” picture when you need it???[/quote]In your wallet.
[quote]Qaeda Panel to Study Iraq, Seek Way Out
by Scott Ott, (2006-12-07)
Just a day after the Iraq Study Group released its report and dozens of recommendations to help the United States escape what it termed a “grave and deteriorating” situation, an unnamed al Qaeda spokesman announced the appointment of a similar panel by terror leader Usama bin Laden.
“Mr. bin Laden, peace be upon him, favors a transparent process of laying all of our military and diplomatic options on the table before the world,” said the source. “The civil war in Iraq hinders our efforts to establish Baghdad as the capital of our global Islamic Caliphate. Mr. bin Laden believes it’s not going well enough or fast enough, and he’s open to any good suggestions for finding a way out of Iraq,”
Unconfirmed reports suggest that Mr. bin Laden may terminate his stalwart second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and appoint a less controversial man who could garner broader support from the Muslim media and in public opinion polls.
However, an anonymous official at the White Cavern, Mr. bin Laden’s headquarters, provided The New York Times with a classified top-secret memo that indicates the al Qaeda leader is considering a “graceful exit” from Iraq, in order to avoid the political consequences of having the conflict drag on.
it appears the folks that read things for Bush (legislation, reports from independant panels, comic books, etc) chose not to tell Dubya about the criticisms included in the report. he continues to think he has all the answers. he has the cajones to insinuate that his plan and the panels recommendations are similiar…oh, he is so blinded by his stupidity.
anyone else spot his butchery of the English language during the press conference with his lap dog, err Tony Blair?
[quote]And the Baker-Hamilton report did some very interesting things. First, it shows that Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an - to come up with a strategy to achieve an objective, something the American people don’t think is possible to happen.
way to minimize the damage!..duh
OK, the following is so bizarre. god help us all, this man is clueless. what the hell is he saying?
[quote]Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is, sir.
[color=red]I talk to the families who die.[/color] I understand there’s sectarian violence.[/quote]
what did the american public do to deserve such a blithering idiot for a leader?
2008 can’t come soon enough…