Login Here
Glenn makes a point well worth emphasizing regarding the WaPo's exploration of the "Iraq Study Group":
Seeking input from the neocons on how to solve the Iraq disaster would be like consulting the serial arsonist who started a deadly, raging fire on how to extinguish it. That actually might make sense if the arsonist were repentant and wanted to help reverse what he unleashed. But if the arsonist were proud of the fire he started and actually wanted to see it rage forever, even more strongly -- and, worse, if he were intent on starting whole new fires just like the one destroying everything and everyone in its path-- it would be the height of irrationality for those wanting to extinguish the fire to listen to what he has to say.
Unless, of course, you were trying to charge the arsonist with criminal charges and were getting his confession on tape. But I highly doubt that James Baker is intent on doing that, don't you? So, beyond saving the Republican brand and Junior's sorry behind, and perhaps the hope of preventing a regional conflagration touched off by the civil war in Iraq spilling over the borders to the rest of the Middle East and beyond, what does motivate the ISG?
And isn't that a question we ought to all be asking before their recommendations get issued by fiat from high on the pedestal that the media have assigned to them already without so much as a question as to what motivates them individually and collectively? Have we learned nothing from the failure to expect accountability over the last few years? And, if not, isn't it high time we learned that lesson?
Share This 
Spotlight
FITZ!
Second Fitz?
heeheehee
ReddHedd !!
JB3 has a fiat? I always thought of him as a TownCar kinda guy….
B oy
H owdy!
I raqwar
S till
G oing
Katymine, thanks for the tip on Sirota’s piece. I thought it was excellent and very relevant.
I want to see people in jail for this Iraq thing. Primarily to say to those in the future who might be inclined along the same criminal lines: If you don’t feel up to to doing the time; don’t prep the crime.
Glenn
It’s civil war in Iraq, so unless we choose a side, we have no aim. Just targets.
Study that W.
I just finished reading the WaPo article and it sounds like Baker pretty much cut the neoCons off at the knees. If so, good for him. The general tone of the article suggests that all the experts (sans the self-deluded neocons) know that there are no good solutions. It’s way too late for the correct answer: “The only way to win is not to play.”
Teddy at 9 — ooops — thanks. For some reason, my link to Glenn’s piece didn’t take. Will try that again…blergh. Stooopid toobz.
There may be no actual persons holding a view more extreme than mine
Troops
Home
NOW
… but I was pleased Glenn described said view:
From prior threads: WaPo story by Robin Wright on the composition/motives of the ISG:
Iraq group study in secrecy, centrism
And on CNN, a snip of UK PM Tony Blair that we should stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to secure “our own security,” and not wrt to Afghanistan’s security. That’s pretty clear on the question of “motivation.” Why would we expect Baker et al to think differently?
But at least one ISG principal may have other motives. Again, from the Robin Wright WaPo article:
Is Ms O’Connor the “swing vote” again?
Just found out about this site–actually, I’d probably heard about it before and forgot about it–and thought I’d share.
http://www.buynothingchristmas.org
And it has a link to this, which also looks fascinating, and I am bookmarking to read later in more detail.
http://www.geezmagazine.org
“Junior’s sorry behind”
And Hillary’s. Among other Demos.
If you vote to commit a felony, and the felony takes place, and you are caught red-handed, and do you do not repent to the court’s satisfaction, then what is the court to do? Hillary.
Baker doesn’t have an altruistic bone in his entire body. As you mentioned, his primary interests are saving the Republican brand and Junior’s sorry behind. Personally, I’ll never forgive “Jimmy” for the role he played in usurping the throne back in 2000. One could argue that makes him indirectly responsible for the Iraq invasion.
From Robin Wright’s article (my emphasis):
The panel was deliberately skewed toward a centrist course for Iraq, participants said. Organizers avoided experts with extreme views on either side of the Iraq war debate.
Neoconservatives, who supported and crafted much of the original Iraq strategy, say the panel was stacked against them. Michael Rubin, political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, resigned because he said he was a token.
“Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy,” Rubin wrote in the Weekly Standard. Baker and Hamilton “gerrymandered” the experts only “to ratify predetermined recommendations,” he wrote. “Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
Only two of the 40 experts — May and former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht — are neoconservatives.
Lady Sandra Day could build herself a time machine, return to December 2000 and
Coincidentally, she would also help the lives of Americans at a time when everything was slipping.
Absent that, I’m not sure she’s got legacy worth protecting.
No one on B/H-ISG speaks for me, or the billions of Earthlings who share my view.
I’m struggling to think of any examples of a committee failing to recommend the best possible solution to a thorny problem…
We’ve learned not to trust the media in any way shape or form.
let’s see … Jame Baker, senior counsel to the Carlyle group. Carlyle Group - the major investors in military and aerospace companies.
Wonder who’s interests will be served by the ISG recommendations?
But FDL is media and I trust it, David!
By “media,” do you mean TradMed or BeltwayMedia or ConventionalMedia (ConMed) or CorpMed?
Stuck in the comments below, but perhaps more appropriate re the futility of the ISG. (How is it that the vibe of the bew thread speads to the tail end of the old one?)
~~~~~~
I used to think that Iraq was a lot like Vietnam: the kind of situation in which American soldiers went to die, deluded by their media and government, coerced by their generals. But there were dozens dying each week or month, not hundreds, so that was an improvement.
I worried about Iraqis. I worried about the US current account balance and the havok Bush was wreaking on the economy of the world.
I worried more about the strange adventurist language these guys were using about Iran and North Korea, and about the nuclear armed Pakistanis. I thought Iraq was a horror show, but it was not going to be everyone’s nightmare.
But with the release of the Lancet article indicating 650,000 had died, with the news of increasing barbarity of attacks within Iraq, with the murder of Pierre Gemayel, and with the transformation of Gaza into a seething mass of resistance to Israeli oppression, I think that we are not looking at one disaster per country, but a global disaster.
There are simply too many players with too many weapons and too many grievances. There is almost no base from which to work for peace, no place for hope to live.
There’s no good strategy here. There’s no way to make Dems look good. There’s no walking it back. There’s only naming the hell, getting out, and hoping others can help make it right.
There’s no middle way. There may be no way at all. I fear that we have built Sartre’s hotel in Huis Clos, No Exit.
“Eh bien, continuons.” says Sartre. It’s is so dark and bleak and sardonic.
The old folks here will remember Simon and Garfunkel.
How could so many collude with this one mad vision? How could a nation and its democratic systems be so subverted as to allow the death of hope?
Alison @ 26
New, not bew. Sorry.
TeddySanFran @ 20
Coincidentally, she would also help the lives of Americans at a time when everything was slipping.
Absent that, I’m not sure she’s got legacy worth protecting.
Tom Tomorrow hit on the same plan, Teddy:
Watch an ad, admire the cartoon.
Baker of 2008 Florida presidential election infamy. Baker is a typical Bush family, wheeler-dealer disgrace. Carlyle Group. Big time yuk. I’m so sick of this s’t.
who asked for the iraq study group, anyway? i’m with catfood. baker and the supreme court are the ultimate enablers in this tragic fiasco. the entire bunch should be run out of town on a rail. how blatant can the kabuki get? we are living hunter s. thompson’s most surreal hallucination. he could make it funny. in living color it’s simply reprehensible. neocons! raus! get thee to a paraguay! and take that shill, baker, with you!
Alison … sadly this is not “one mad vision” but a continuing approach to foreign policy by our government over the last 50 years or so. We have consistently backed horrific policies and “adventures” in the Middle East, using the people there as our lab rats for chemical weapons (with Lt Col Rick Francona as one of the US observers in Iraq), as surrogates for our old cold war, as “collateral damage” for our thirst for cheap oil and on it goes. The same players (Baker, Cheney, Gates, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr and Jr, Powell, et al) playing the same games … we never win and for sure the people of the Middle East always lose.
Along with Christy’s essay in the prior thread, this post, and the Glenn Greenwald post she links to, are well worth SPOTLIGHTING, because the trad media are still missing the point. Glenn has been arguing for months that those who got everything wrong should not now be asked what to do. But I’ve yet to hear that point made explicitly on any of the talk/news shows. It’s time for the hosts to be asking this question and to stop asking the McCains and Liebermans their opinions about how to get out of this mess.
At most, if they must appear, they should be asked, “didn’t you support/advocate/vote for all the policies that got us into this mess?” I also like what Jane is doing with the “McCain/Lieberman” war theme, because Bush is already labeled, and it’s their turn for accountability.
How could GW Clusterfuck behave so criminally- and make so many stupid mistakes- how can he be so NIXONIAN- so many years after Tricky Dicky bit the dust?
Cheney is the conduit through which Nixon’s disregard for law and justice and his grandiose vision of his own entitlement- his tone of high hubris–have trickled across the many years and now find themselves in Washington again- in the White House once again..
We got him once- can he be stopped yet again?
When ya look into Clusterfuck’s beady eyes- yer seein NIXON!
Well, we’re going to need more than one time machine, I guess….
rwcole @ 33
But with Warren Harding’s brains and competence!
rw:
at least nixon achieved the rapprochment with china, and some of his domestic policies were even liberal. and he signed some decent environmental legislation. he was a nasty, paranoid piece of work but he wasn’t a complete loser.
TeddySanFran @
34
And a pony!
OT (via think progress):
Trent Lott throws Rove under the bus.
Maliki’ll be axing to hitch a ride on AF1. Not home.
This presumes he’ll get to Amman, altho Sadr threatens to suspend participation in the Iraq “government” if Maliki goes. Of course, the Baghdad airport ain’t secure enough today for Maliki to leave….
scarecrow,
Wright’s article describes the study group itself as “centrist,” which is inaccurate. But a look at the list of civilians on the ISG Working Groups is a tour into neo-con think tanks and earlier American and other countrys’ problem “study groups.”
http://www.usip.org/isg/workin.....ml#economy
TeddySanFran @ 38
Does it at least have a fresh coat of paint?
Renee in Ohio:
You should communicate with others of us from Ohio!
jeffreyw @ 28
Tom Tomorrow hit on the same plan, Teddy:
Watch an ad, admire the cartoon.
You can also give Salon ads a miss altogether and still admire the cartoon.
Seems that the word “neocon” gets used so loosely that it has become largely useless for identifying a certain sub group of pro war conservatives.
If it compleatly blows up,the world economy,and america as we know it does too.General war between sunni and shia will spill into all the neighbors…and the oil terminals and nodes will be the first targets
jeffreyw @ 37
One bad turn deserves another, I suppose. But they’re both scum.
fahr
Yeah- Nixon was bright- criminal and paranoid- but bright.
EvilDrPuma @ 45
Many long knives out for karl,I think
karen allen @ 41
Happy to–have I missed something? It’s possible, what with the multitasking. And kids home all weekend for a *long* weekend.
karen allen @ 41
Easily done. {meta}: Those of us commenters whose commenter names are underlined have webpages that link-up when our names are clicked upon. Commenters may manage their own logins by placing their webpage name in their login profile.
jeffreyw at 37 — well, that’s only fair, I suppose, since it was Rove who initially tried to throw Lott under the bus the last time around. Payback is a bitch…
Damn bus doesn’t do a very good job- people getting thrown under it daily magically arise on the other side.
Fighting then over there, so we can reap grotesque profits over here.
Any one know of any member of the “Iraq Study Group” not holding a financial interest in the Military Wepons Industry?
It’s getting pretty crowded under that bus with all those repubs throwing each other under it.
rwcole @ 51
I think Hastert broke it.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 50
Just so. It’s as fair as anything gets among the “the rules we make are made to be broken” class.
This is very scary stuff:
Jordan King: 3 Mideast Civil Wars Possible in 2007
http://www.abcnews.go.com/This.....amp;page=1
ET thanks for link to the working groups. I don’t recognize any of these people, but I’ve seen earlier posts (kos?) that tries to dissect the composition. My guess is that there are no magic solutions out there, so the composition of the groups who get to state the obvious is almost irrelevant. But maybe they’ll surprise us.
I find it interesting that the WH found it politically useful to start their own study group; the Joint Chiefs thought they needed their own; and the Dems want to hold hearings starting tomorrow. Then there’s Lieberman’s proposal for a “bipartisan” group (he, McCain and Cheney meet in a phone booth). What this all says to me is that none of these groups — the WH, the military, the Dems, or the neocons — thinks that their preferred outcomes or perspectives will be represented by the ISG report. Either these competing efforts undermine the importance of the ISG — OR — as I fear, will provide cover for Baker to fashion something in between — and he’s the only guy talking to all the parties, including the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Iranians. Everyone else looks like amateurs (and they are).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 56
That was earlier reading this cold grey morning…gives a chill…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 56
And naturally, Der Shrubbenfuhrer has a hand in all three, whether directly or through his favorite Middle Eastern proxy. The man is an agent of pure chaos.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 50
Do bus drivers get special training for dodging all the bodies?
scarecrow @ 60
In DC, they’re taught to aim at them….
Add another chapter… six years later
“Once upon a time, a rich and powerful father gathered his four young sons and urged them to become rich and powerful, too. Take risks. Push yourselves. Influence others, he ordered in a bold voice.
Then he whispered, “And if you muck things up, a fairy godfather will always appear to make things better.”
Those may not have been the precise words spoken, but this is no tall tale. It’s the business model adopted long ago by George and Barbara Bush to propel sons George W., Jeb, Marvin and Neil into the high ranks of industry and, at least for two boys, politics.”
Robert Trigaux, October 29, 2000
1,340 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Patriots:
“…what does motivate the ISG?”
Priority number one: setting the internal politics to support the splitting of Iraq and the establishment of 14 bases in and around the oil fields of central Iraq.
Priority number two: getting American forces committed to “protecting” the rump Sunni state with Chalabi in charge.
Priority number three: getting a McCain/Lieberman government of national unity elected in the USA (see number two).
Priority number four: consolidating the police state in the US thru the Patriot Act and the NSA (see number three).
KEEP THE FAITH, THESE BASTARDS ARE RICH AND POWERFUL BUT THEY AIN’T SMART…BUT THAT’S WHY WE’RE IN THIS MESS AIN’T IT??!!!
“Do bus drivers get special training for dodging all the bodies?”
I think the training is more aligned with the notion of top score. I wonder what the prize is? Stuffed neocon?
If the Bush family thinks they see the handwriting on the wall and will escape to a foreign land, they are mistaken.
Not really OT, as this applies to pretty much everything:
The article tries to make the problem “bipartisan” by throwing in a reference to “choice” vs. “abortion”–never mind that choice is exactly the point. Nevertheless, it becomes hard to avoid the conclusion that the real and endemic problem is with Washington insiders in general and Republican Washington insiders in particular.
scarecrow @
57
I agree. Yeah, Kos dissected the working groups early last week. I can’t find the link.
No matter what the ISG or its study groups come up with, Juan Cole could come up with better ideas about what MUST BE DONE than could these guys - in 48 hours. But, either way, it appears events are spinning wildly (”swimmingly?” - as in gasping for air in a turbulent stream?) out of control in and around Bagdhad.
Meanwhile, OJ’s favorite surviving attorney is taking a whuppin’ over at HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....34702.html
More than anything, the Baker Boys want stability. They don’t want war overflowing into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and they don’t want continuing fighting in Iraq to further interfere with ExxonMobil’s plans to profit on Iraqi oil.
The ties of Baker and the elder Bush to Saudi Arabia mean that whatever comes out of this is going to be what they and the Saudi royals think best. At this point, there’s so much sectarian violence against Sunnis in Iraq that the Sunni Saudis must be feeling more than a little nervous.
Amazing how fast Rubin spotted that tactic - stacking the debate to reach a predetermined outcome. Almost as if he had
participated inbeen exposed to it before.I don’t understand the concept of a “centrist” position on Iraq, or extremist positions either. When someone is holding a stock that tanks, do they seek to find a “centrist” position (I won’t hold on when it gets really beyond redemption, but another 6 mos, or another, or another - just, ya know, until you can tell, and then maybe another, and …) or do they figure out why losers are losers and an actual reason to hold or fold?
Holding with the intent of folding when things get “enough worse” to convince you even MORE, but with a starry eyed inner certainty that if you are the ONLY one who holds on and you hold on long enough, that stock will make you the next Warren Buffet — that’s not centrism, its a gambling addiction prettied up as a market investment.
So many irrelevant questions keep being trotted out as the “new” important question. First it was “were there WMDs” and when that was answered, still we stayed and next up was “well what about regime change” and then “shouldn’t we be committed to spreading democracy” and now “as long as it’s not a civil war, we can stay” etc.
The question is do we have a militarily achievable goal in Iraq and if not, get our buts out of there. We don’t, we need to leave. Every time things get particularly chaotic - the first thing that happens is that they have to pull US troops in some to keep things from getting WORSE.
To Trent Lott and all the stay the coursers, I have listened to you and I can reconcile your conundrum. As you all state; a)you are fighting “them’ over there so you don’t have to fight “them” over here (”them” I guess, being folks like Richard Reid and the Brits currently facing charges in England and … never mind, back to winger talking points); and b)we can’t leave bc then “they” would all kill each other.
Hmmmm
Think those talking points through buddy. If you believe yourself, then why not leave and let “them” fight “them” over “there” so we don’t fight “them” over here — or there?
No, I don’t really want some version of “them” all killing each other, but I’m willing to fight moronic talking points with more-onic talking points.
The issue is what is our military doing there and the analysis has to also involve the fact that an invasion/occupation force in Iraq is a never ceasing call to j*had on the GWOT side; and a failure as an effective policing force (one which doesn’t speak the language, doesn’t know the religion, doesn’t know the culture, one which has learned to hate most of the community and one which has been trained to kill without civilian concerns in the community and one which is being operated by very young (many too young to ever be allowed to serve as police in communities where they do speak the language, know the people, culture, etc) and very tired and overused “police” who have watched the “community” commit atrocities against their brothers as well.
It wouldn’t matter whether or not there was a civil war. We have no militarily accomplishable goal from occupation and as others have noted, when the military “we” have spent 3 years training stands by and watches Iraqis exiting their mosque be burned alive - let’s just say, we can train for aptitude, but not for attitude.
We are training soldiers to fight against us and to kill their own civilian populations.
Where is the “center” position on how long we should keep at it?
I want Bush and Cheney under the bus. But who’s to throw them under?
Norsky,thats what scares me is that they are not smart,they are motivated by greed,and their advisaries are motivated by nationalism,and religious zeloty…the worse kind of advisary is one who will cheerfullly die for his cause…because he/she KNOWS that god is on their side,and they are dieing “For the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods.”
rwcole @ 51
We need a more magical bus. With a granny at the wheel.
Great opinion over at Huff in case you missed it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....34855.html
montag @ 68
So whose bidding is BigTime doing today in Riyadh?
From the inimitable Mary:
Where is the “center” position on how long we should keep at it?
Bingo.
James Baker’s presence in the ISG is self-explanatory as is Lee (I’m a tame Democrat) Hamilton. The other 8 “bipartisan” principals are drawn from both the Bush I and Clinton Administrations. Only about half have any real foreign policy or national security experience. Their main function seems to be to lend gravitas to the proceedings.
A while ago I did the bios of the members of the 4 working groups. Each group has 11 members plus one from the US Institute of Peace which is the umbrella organization for the ISG. Most of these members are conservatives with some moderates and almost no liberals or neocons. Many have connections to the National Defense University and a handful of think tanks, like the USIG, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (conservative), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (pro-Israel), RAND (military-industrial complex), Heritage Foundation(conservative), the Middle East Institute (Pro-business), Council of Foreign Relations, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As far as I know, neither Bush I nor Clinton were interviewed. Members of the Iraqi government and parties and State Department and Defense Department officials, past and present, were. Uniformed military and an oddball, or possibily screwball, bunch of pundits, including Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman, Fred Kagan, and George Will also were. Few or no academics outside of those drawn from the think tanks were consulted. Few or no non-American experts were interviewed either, if my memory serves.
The conclusion that I drew from this framework was that it represented a mainly conservative Establishment institutional response under the aegis of both Bush I and Clinton to the looser cannons of the Dubya’s Administration. It’s much ballyhooed and awaited conclusions were originally to come out next year, then January, and now December.
This did not stop Baker and Hamilton from making pre-election appearances where their primary goal seemed to be to defuse Iraq as a campaign issue. Given the context, this could only be seen as a pro-Republican gesture. They made vague utterances to the effect that there would be big changes, which they could not state before the elections (being non partisan and all and so that voters might have something to judge) because they had, in fact, oddly, and even contradicting themselves, drawn no conclusions yet.
Events, however, have conspired against the ISG. Iraq is spiralling increasingly fast out of control. Bush and the Pentagon have set up their own groups, and even that Sad Sap Joe Lieberman has suggested that there should be yet another “bipartisan” group as well.
What I expect from the ISG is not to call the events in Iraq a civil war, to propose a redeployment without calling it a withdrawal, and to avoid talking about schedules in favor of some other euphemism. They will also likely call for accelerated training of the non-existent Iraqi army, an international conference made up of countries who have already bailed on Iraq, a turnover to the Iraqi
militiasgovernment of more provinces. In short, I don’t expect much from the ISG. The only thing now that is important and would be useful is a plan for an orderly withdrawal of American and coalition forces out of Iraq, but not out of the region. I don’t see the ISG coming out and advocating this.blah @ 73
Sweet jesus,I pray this guy is wrong…’cause the bloodletting will make Rwanda look like a drive-by
Oklahoma kiddo @ 70
Is this the bus tour?
Roll up, roll up for the mystery tour.
Roll up, roll up for the mystery tour.
Roll up AND THAT’S AN INVITATION, roll up for the mystery tour.
Roll up TO MAKE A RESERVATION, roll up for the mystery tour.
The magical mystery tour is waiting to take Bush and Cheney away,
Waiting to take them away
TeddySanFran @ 74
My guess is his own. As I mentioned in a previous thread, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was trying to convince the royals to put US troops back on Saudi soil permanently as a means of keeping US troops in the region, because the likelihood of them staying in Iraq was rapidly diminishing.
They don’t want to lose the capability of attacking Iran. I don’t think Toad-In-The-Hole would tell the royals that in precisely that way, but, that would be a motivation for Cheney to be acting on his own.
Cheers.
FWIW and per JanisSanFran in the comments over at TNH, the GREEN ZONE in Baghdad is the new Dienbienphu.
Mary — I’ve always found in interesting that the folks we call our “enemy” in Iraq — which ever group that happens to be this week — never seems to need much training, more logistics, better arms or more motivation. They don’t seem to need another Friedman or two before things start moving their way. It doesn’t seem to have sunk in among our various study groups that we have nothing to offer that really matters.
Yes, montag — DeadEye’s gotta have a place “over-the-horizon” for our troops; probably our old bases in SA. Only the SA king can permit that, and only with promises from the US wrt how we will allow SA to deal with its dissenters at home and (obl) abroad.
What ungodly acts against Earthlings are being entertained in SA this Thanksgiving weekend?
Undoing obl’s accomplishment of 9/11/01 (US troops out of SA) surely invites something over here, though.
We put the same people in positions of power that have led this government/nation for the last quarter century and somehow expect a change of course or new ideas. Changing Rumsfield for Gates is a perfect example but hardly unique.
So a bunch of ex-cold warriors are getting together to figure out whay so many of them were wrong about Iraq and what to do next and we are waiting in eager anticipation???
It would also be interesting but unmentionable to know what influence AIPAC is weilding over the geritol fueled study group.
Personally I am waiting for someone– hey Mr. Clark– that knows something about the military to advocate a new direction for our military and foreign policy. We can’t afford nor should we want a 500B defense budget. We just shouldn’t have that many enemies nor is our country really secure without a strong educational system, health care, renewable energy, etc.
Is anyone else embarrassed and outraged that the U.S. is the leading suppier of weapons world-wide? Isn’t that a great fact! Our military industrial complex has to be brought into check. Arming the world with sophisticated weaponry is not in our national interests.
So the Iraqi Study Group holds no interest for me. It is more of the same from the same people that have led us astray for the last quarter century.
If some leader would recommend a “Manhattan” style project to rid us of dependence on foreign energy,it would go much further than anything this group will offer.
I can post here the members of the working groups with my bios of them if anyone is interested. Otherwise I have done this a couple times before and don’t want take up the pixels or the bandwidth.
[[[[Mary]]]] at 11:41 am, thanks, great to see you on an FDL thread.
OT (via Talk Left):
Mike Isikoff with the latest Pelosi rumors re Intel chair. From a Newsweek article.
Jeralyn
scarecrow @
81
Comment of the day.
1,340 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Firepup Patriots:
Everyone go to the link “blah” set up to the Huffington Post at #73.
This thing is over, done, caput, finished and Uncle James Baker and the ISG toadies can’t fix it. The only thing they can hope ta fix is our internal politics to get our existing government to commit more troops to holding Baghdad and forcing a 3-way partition in Iraq which would mean a permanent occupation of at least 300,000 troops to protect the Chalabi and the oil.
If we allow even a meager 20,000 man increase in troop committment we’ve doomed our kids to that hell-hole until the Israelis bail us out with a nuke on Tehran.
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T ARGUE ABOUT HISTORY OR STRATEGY, JEST GET OUR KIDS OUTTA THERE RIGHT NOW!!!
iirc, Ambassador Joe Wilson commented during a recenet Book Salon that he had been interviewed by an ISG Working Group panel.
Thanks Hugh, my guess is, underneath the surface
bullshit, which you unveiled so accurately, Baker is completely aware of the real negotiations going on among Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and others. That’s where the fate of the Region is. Baker to me appears to be erecting an artifice that hides from the complicit, access adoring, American media, what a relatively minor player we have become relative to our troop strength in the region.TeddySanFran @ 82
On the latter, I doubt Cheney is much concerned–after all, it was those attacks which enabled the power grab. Another would reinforce presidential power and at least present the opportunity to manipulate public sentiment toward the `pugs in 2008.
But, if that’s what’s going on in SA at the moment, Cheney’s likely argument would be that whatever internal problems US bases would create for SA, those would be negligible compared to having hundreds of thousands of enraged Iraqi Shia attacking Saudi Sunnis across SA’s borders. Or, so the argument might go….
These guys only think one step ahead, and then only with the aim of somehow, some way, accomplishing at least part of what they originally intended, and Cheney, I’m quite sure, is still focused on Iran.
LMAO.
TeddySanFran @ 82
Reading Clarke’s Against All Enemies. He notes the Saudi’s extreme reluctance to allow US presence in Saudi Arabia — foreign forces are not permitted near the sites of the great Islam icons — and the argument during Gulf I was that this was temporary to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and to protect the Saudi oil fields from further Saddam incursion. What would the argument be now?
OBL possibly regards US troop presence in his holy land to be justification for overthrowing the Saudi regime. So what can Cheney say to the king? “Let us redeploy from iraq, where we’ve been kicked out/defeated, and we will protect you from OBL.” If I were the Saudi King, I might ask Cheney to redeploy to New Jersey, and see if he can defend the refineries there.
scarecrow @81
Bee
Eye
In
Gee
Oh
*g*
Nothing to offer that matters while we are there. And now the guy in Iran has seen the fun in having us stay and has done just the kind of thing that makes Bush nuts and more stubborn by kindly offering to “help” the hapless US with Iraq, but “only” if we do what he says and pull out.
That’s would be Iran, pulling another string.
BTW - there as an article about one of the trilogy of Fitzgerald/Miller cases in NYT today but my favorite story today has been discovering that the arch-propagandists took stealth to such an extreme that their ads were too unmemorable and they had to hire a PR firm to pump up the recruiting efforts. You can go take an online quiz but what The Firm is really looking for is anyone with ADD.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ecruitment
Was the TV series based on your real life scarecrow?
But you know, law enforcment consults with criminals all the time, and Joseph Kennedy wrote the orignial SEC rules.
scarecrow,
I agree we will not be going back to Saudi Arabia. Part of the neocon philosophy was that Saudi Arabia was too unstable to keep troops there on a permanent basis no matter how far out in the desert they were. Overthrowing Saddam and establishing permanent bases in Iraq was supposed to be a solution to that problem.
John Casper,
I don’t know how successful all those intra-regional negotiations are likely to be but you’re right that the simple fact that they are going on is an indication of our diminished influence there.
Last night our alt PBS station (K-BDI) ran Frontline’s The Lost Year –
It was shocking to see how badly Bremer screwed up. His order # 1 purged anyone who was a Baathist — no matter how insignificant their status.
His order # 2 dissolved the Iraqi Army, to the shock and dismay of the White House. Up until that time, the Iraqi Army Officer Corps were in negotiations with the US Army, standing ready to secure the country and provide a smooth transition of power. Within days of the dissolution, the insurgency began, and our cause was irretrievably lost.
Hi JC!
Mark @ 83 - not only the leading supplier, but also apparently the leading “loser” of “I had those plane loads of AK-47s just a few hours ago, where’d I put them” weapons too.
Training AND arming them to kill our 19 and 20 yos and grandmothers called back. And then paying for it all with the tax monies of the citizens who trusted we had a reason to be there and never would have supported the war to start with if told the truth.
Centrist position there? Hey, why don’t you just keep paying for us to make the war industry a few more bucks and kill a few more soldiers and quite a few more Iraqis and —- uh, we’ll promise to lie to you more in the future so you’ll feel better about it all?
Off to get day to day stuff done - should I take the CIA test on or off my ritalin? Decisions decisions.
Mary at 97 — I say on. But that’s just me. *g*
For the last quarter century our foreign policy has been driven by the same people–mostly ex-cold warriors. The study group is made up of these same people, why would we expect a good result? Why would exchanging Rumsfield for Gates lead to change?
It is our dependence on foreign oil and the heavy influence of AIPAC that is distorting our foreign policy and chewing up 500B a year in military expenditure when we l