Originally Posted By ecdc The bipartisan Iraq panel led by James Baker is recommending a gradual pullout from Iraq. They are also recommending that the President make it clear that he will begin the withdrawal "relatively soon." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11 /30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn My guess: He will ignore them. We will have to be there two more years until we get someone else not personally vested in this thing to do the proper thing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My guess: He will ignore them.>> Yes, of course he will. His presidency has accomplished absolutely nothing. Important domestic issues he set out to resolve have gone by the wayside... Social Security and Income Tax Reform among them. At this point Dubya realizes that his entire presidency will be judged on Iraq and he cannot stand the thought that it will be judged a failure. So Bush, like Don Quixote, will fight the impossible fight and dream the impossible dream in a futile attempt to secure a favorable position in U.S. history. The very sad truth is that in the end he will not even be as well thought of as Quixote, a misguided by honorable man with noble intentions. He will be seen as the 21st century version of Jimmy Carter, with the acknowledgement that he is nowhere near as intelligent as Carter was. In sum... the biggest loser president in the past 100 years. When I spend any time thinking about it I am truly sickened by the loss of prestige America has suffered over the past 6 years. Monica Lewinsky would have been a better president.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think he's much worse than Carter. He's done far far more damage than Carter ever did. I have to agree with you about being sickened by it. He probably will go down as if not the single worst, then in the bottom couple. The ones at the bottom will be the scandal holders. Like Nixon, Harding, Grant. Then you get the failures and incompetents. Buchanan and Bush are going to fall into that category. Buchanan was such a failure and so damaging to our nation that we ended up in a civil war following his Presidency. Bush isn't that bad, but with the divisiveness he has created, he comes pretty close.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think comparing Bush to Don Quixote is an insult to Don Quixote. I see nothing honorable or noble in the intentions of this administration. Misguided, for sure. I don't think the administration will ignore the Iraq panel's recommendation, though. The panel is giving the administration an exit strategy. Expect a lot of rhetoric to accompany the shift in policy as the administration tries to rewrite history to put this whole debacle in a favorable light.
Originally Posted By DAR I still think what we tried to do was noble, nobody should have had to live under the conditions that Saddam Hussein imposed, some have said it's worse, personally I wouldn't want to take that chance. However our biggest mistake was not realizing that this is just a society that is so backwards in it's thinking, that acting like animals is their only mo.
Originally Posted By DAR Does this panel include any soldiers? Not just the commanders but perhaps those in the field?
Originally Posted By jonvn "I still think what we tried to do was noble" Then we should have invaded Iran. They are the seat of conflict in the entire region. And when we invaded, we should have gone in with the intention of utterly destroying their society. Saddam was no better or worse than tyrants all over the world. What we did there was an error of historically colossal nature.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Saddam was no better or worse than tyrants all over the world. What we did there was an error of historically colossal nature.>> And if we did nothing, the entire world would be all over us. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And if we did nothing, the entire world would be all over us" Actually, I think if we simply followed along with what the rest of the world wanted, we'd not be the subject of such hatred around the world. People would still be on our side, we would not have had to see thousands of our soldiers die, and we would not have radically destablized the mideast, which is now about to suffer from 3 civil wars in the area. We also would not have made Iran and Syria power brokers in the region. So, no. It wasn't damned if we do damned if we don't. It was just a stupid, thoughtless mistake made by people who put ideology over common sense.
Originally Posted By mele <<I think if we simply followed along with what the rest of the world wanted, we'd not be the subject of such hatred around the world>> Of course but we wouldn't be a powerful country either.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think we would have been more powerful AND more respected. Oh god, this has been such a disaster. Bush couldn't have played into the terrorists hands better if he was one of them.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Actually, I think if we simply followed along with what the rest of the world wanted, we'd not be the subject of such hatred around the world. People would still be on our side, we would not have had to see thousands of our soldiers die, and we would not have radically destablized the mideast, which is now about to suffer from 3 civil wars in the area. We also would not have made Iran and Syria power brokers in the region.<< Bull the U.N. would have been all over us for NOT doing anything.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj What were we not doing anything about? No one was making an issue about non-existant WMDs except for GWB. On that note, why don't we do something about the repressive regime in Cuba? We've been allowing a dictatorship there for half a century -- and it's only 50 miles aways? Is the U.N. all over us on that one?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No one was making an issue about non-existant WMDs except for GWB.> Do we need to pull all the quotes from Democrat Senators about Saddam's WMD's again? All the quotes saying what a menace Saddam was?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Sure, and let's tally up how many of those quoted were advocating a full blown war in Iraq at the time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sure, and let's tally up how many of those quoted were advocating a full blown war in Iraq at the time.> What else were they expecting? If they wanted to maintain the status quo, why speak up?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Bull the U.N. would have been all over us for NOT doing anything." The UN wanted us to wait. To then go ahead and suggest they would have berated us because we did as they asked is rather unsupportable. "Do we need to pull all the quotes from Democrat Senators about Saddam's WMD's again?" No, because they are meaningless. They were making statements based on what the Administration was telling them. They were making statements on the faulty and false intelligence briefings given them. So what they had to say at the time is of little consequence. I too, given the information about Iraq felt it was not unwarranted to go in there. But the truth is, that there was nothing to support the allegations. And in fact, information was suppressed that indicated there were no WMD. We went in there prematurely, and for no reason. Congressmen were lied to about why we needed to go to war, and because of that, made statements that later turned out to be incorrect. It is not their doing that they were backed into supporting these activities, given what they thought would be valid information.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>President Bush said Thursday the United States will speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces but assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Washington is not looking for a "graceful exit" from a war well into its fourth violent year. Under intensifying political pressure at home, the American and Iraqi leaders came together for a hastily arranged summit to explore how to stop escalating violence that is tearing Iraq apart and eroding support for Bush's war strategy.<< <a href="http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/30/531611.html" target="_blank">http://www.comcast.net/news/in dex.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/30/531611.html</a> So, maybe this means the end of the war is near?
Originally Posted By DAR <<No, because they are meaningless. They were making statements based on what the Administration was telling them. They were making statements on the faulty and false intelligence briefings given them. So what they had to say at the time is of little consequence.>> Then they're just as stupid.
