Doesn't it sound like a gathering of political science students trying to get through a challenging class?
It seems like there should be pizza at the group sessions or lots of empty Starbucks cups tossed in the corners of the room.
From The New York Times:
President Bush spent more than an hour on Monday with the independent panel examining strategic options for Iraq, and cautioned afterward that while he was open to new ideas, it was important for “people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon conditions on the ground.”
The president’s brief remarks seemed aimed at Democrats, who are demanding a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, beginning in a matter of months. Mr. Bush has steadfastly resisted any timetable, and his comments on Monday offered the first hint of how he might respond.
Why would Bush's remarks be aimed solely at Dems?
I thought Daddy's team, Bush 41's men, had similar goals in mind.
Newsweek declares on its cover that "Father Knows Best," that Daddy will bail out his firstborn once again by fixing Iraq, meaning getting the U.S. out.
Addressing reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush shed little light o n the substance of his hour-and-15-minute session with members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman. The president said that they had “a good discussion,” and that he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.”
And what would the press expect Bush to say?
"The nice men talked to me and now I'm going to do whatever they tell me to do?"
Did the reporters think that Bush would give specifics on how he now intends to manage Iraq? Problem solved after 75 minutes?
How much light were they expecting Bush to shed?
That was a ridiculous expectation.
Mr. Bush is under intense pressure to change course in Iraq, from Democrats and from some Republicans. One leading Republican, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on Monday that the election results were a clear cry for a new Iraq strategy.
“The American people have spoken with regard to their deep concern about the loss of life, the loss of limb, the enormity of the expenditures, the credibility of our country,” Mr. Warner said.
But Mr. Warner, who created a stir among Republicans this fall when he said the situation in Iraq was “drifting sideways,” appealed to his colleagues not to rush to conclusions before a report by the commission, which is expected in December.
Other Republicans also weighed in. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that he would “adamantly oppose” any effort to set a deadline for withdrawal, calling it “equivalent to surrendering in the central battlefront in the war on terror.”
Warner and Graham, two Gang of 14 members -- What a proud legacy they have!
The Times always seeks out wobbly Republicans to comment.
In this case, Graham is showing some spine; but it's still annoying that The Times likes to quote less conservative types as their Republican sources.
Democrats, for their part, continued their offensive, saying the American people had given them a mandate. In a news conference on Capitol Hill, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who will be the next Armed Services chairman, accused the administration of “ignoring obvious reality on the ground in Iraq, that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a hole that we should stop digging.”
There's no mandate.
The Dems are acting as if they have enormous majorities in the House and Senate. Not so.
The debate will soon move to the Armed Services panel. Among the senators on that committee are leading contenders in the nascent 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, who has been talking about increasing rather than decreasing the numbers of troops in Iraq.
Clinton and McCain are an interesting pair.
Clinton is being pressured by the radical Lefty base to sound like John Murtha and suggest that we bug out of Iraq starting now.
McCain, on the other hand, knows he must win over the Republican base. He no doubt feels pressure to be tough on terror and accept nothing less than clear victory.
..The Iraq Study Group, formed at the request of Congress, is in Washington this week for a last round of interviews before making its final recommendations. Vice President Dick Cheney attended the Oval Office session on Monday, and the group met with other members of the Bush foreign policy team.
In his comments, Mr. Bush appeared to be walking a fine line — declaring that he was open to new tactics in Iraq, but seeming to foreclose some options.
The Iraq Study Group has an advisory role. Bush isn't required to accept anything it may propose.
...Mr. Baker has made no secret of his belief that the Bush administration must talk to its enemies, Syria and Iran included. In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said the West should be open to Iran and Syria — but only if they take a cooperative stance.
Mr. Bush did not budge on those points. Asked about Syria, he said, “We do have an embassy there in Syria,” without mentioning that contacts with the Syrian government have been limited. The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syrian government. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, instead reiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government must suspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks.
Many officials inside and outside the administration are looking for signs that Mr. Bush will modify his views, especially now that he has nominated Mr. Gates, who led a committee of the Council on Foreign Relations calling for more engagement with Iran. But Bush aides say talking to Syria or Iran is simply not enough.
“Talking isn’t a strategy,” Mr. Hadley, the national security adviser, said in an interview last month. “The issue is how can we condition the environment so that Iran and Syria will make a 180-degree turn.”
Why mince words?
"Signs that Mr. Bush will modify his views" really means "signs that Mr. Bush will be an appeaser."
Think of how Ronald Reagan was criticized for his tough stance against the Soviet Union, the Evil Empire.
Dems charged him with doing everything wrong. He was going to start World War III. In retrospect, we know Reagan was right and the Dems were wrong.
Reagan didn't start a war; his policies brought an end to a forty-year-old war. He freed millions from Soviet oppression, and he didn't do it by kowtowing to his critics.
Expectations are high both inside and outside the administration that the Baker-Hamilton group will provide a face-saving way forward for Mr. Bush. But one leading Republican, Representative Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers should not delude themselves by thinking there would be easy answers.
I don't think Bush is trying to save face. I think he's trying to do what's best for the troops, our country, the Iraqis, and our long term future.
Of course, the delusional Dems think there is an easy answer. It's what John Murtha's been insisting on for months.
Just bring the troops home. Reploy (AKA retreat in defeat). Lose.
“No matter what the commission recommends, the day after the recommendations come out, you’re going to have American troops in Iraq continuing to train and stand up the Iraqi forces,” Mr. Hunter said. “You have to do that. There’s no shortcut to that. There’s no silver bullet and there’s no easy way to do it.”
Pelosi and her boy Murtha would disagree. Russ Feingold and John Kerry would also beg to differ. They all think there is a silver bullet.
LEAVE. Set an arbitrary timetable and LEAVE.
Problem solved Dem-style.
It would be nice if the Iraq Study Group could arrive at some solutions that would stabilize Iraq and also bring our troops home quickly.
I don't think that's possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment