It was evident Bush was not about to change when he did a press conference with Blair. Those who still think Bush will follow any of the 79 recommendations of the Hamilton-Baker Report are pissing in the wind.
That leaves congress with the job of getting us out of Iraq. Congress did that job in Nam.
Back to Story - Help
Iran offers to help U.S. exit from Iraq By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
26 minutes ago
Iran's foreign minister delivered a blunt challenge to the United States on Saturday, saying Tehran is willing to help U.S. troops withdraw from neighboring Iraq but only if Washington makes some tough policy changes.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claimed U.S. troops were responsible for at least half the violence tearing apart Iraq and that their departure would pay security dividends for the entire region.
"If the United States changes its attitude, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help with the withdrawal from Iraq," Mottaki told the International Institute of Strategic Studies conference here. "Fifty percent of the problem of insecurity in Iraq is the presence of foreign troops."
Mottaki echoed calls made last week by Iran's top national security official, Ali Larijani, for Gulf Arab countries to eject American bases in their countries and establish a regional security pact with Iran. Mottaki went further and offered deeper cooperation with the six Gulf Arab states on energy, tourism, business and counter-narcotics.
Iran's offers do not seem to have tempted Gulf neighbors who are apparently more worried about the dangers of living near Iran's nuclear facilities, especially amid threats by Washington and Israel to use military force to destroy them.
Mottaki's forceful speech was a challenge to U.S. interests in the Gulf and a strong display of the country's rising assertiveness in the face of U.S failures in the region.
At one point, Mottaki addressed an international audience that included U.S. Vice Adm. David Nichols, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, and said the regional chaos sparked by the Bush administration's twin wars demonstrated that U.S. military force was no longer a realistic policy option in the Middle East.
"Today the time of threats is over. The period of unilateralism is over," Mottaki said. "Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. That gives us a very important lesson."
Iran's proposal for a Gulf security alliance shows no sign of gaining traction among the region's Arab leaders. Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said security of the energy-rich region depends on the United States, the European Union and other major oil-importing countries.
Much of the discussion at this security conference centered on the U.S. Iraq Study Group report, and its recommendation that Washington seek Iran's help in steering Iraq away from civil war.
William Cohen, defense secretary under President Clinton, urged Iran to push for talks with Washington.
"If you forgo aspirations for nuclear weapons and cut off funding for radical elements and support the Mideast peace process, then yes, you'd be welcomed into the international community. We'd have billions of dollars going into your economy," Cohen told the Iranians among 250 delegates from 22 countries.
"If Iran is simply interested in pursuing a nuclear energy program and not weapons, that's something the U.S. wouldn't object to and would support."
It occurs to me that we are just around the corner from winning the war on terrorism just like we are winning the war on drugs evidenced by the past 99 years of fighting the good battle.
People have missed or are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, from the so called 'Iraq Study Group's Report'
Quote:It's still about oil in Iraq
A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields
WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.
The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil.
LATimes
So there we have it: making sure that the oil flows in a specific direction, no matter how many people die to make that happen.
If that's what constitutes "victory", then every thing else is made crystal clear.
This is exactly what many people had suspected from day one.
The contrast between the Iraq Study Group and the group of "Wise Men" appointed by President Johnson could hardly be starker. The latter was nonpartisan and comprised of experienced old hands - hardly an ideologue among them: Clifford, Harriman, Acheson, Generals Omar Bradley and Maxwell Taylor, McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Douglas Dillon, Rusk, and Justice Abe Fortas. Equally important, they were supported not by a cast of thousands but a small group of military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials dripping with expertise and courageous enough to speak truth to that powerful president.
The result? In less than a month (March 1968), Johnson was persuaded the war was lost and so was his presidency. He curtailed the bombing of North Vietnam, chose the path of negotiations (yes, direct negotiations with the "insurgents"), and announced that he would not run again for president.
dys, You're not expecting some kind of miracle from the current occupant of the white house, are you (no matter who makes up the commitee)?
woiyo, what would constitute solutions (the kinds you found missing from the Baker/Hamilton report) in your opinion?
Dys, so the ISG is taking us back to the reasons that Bush first took us into the war: oil. I am sure that the Iraqis will love this and suddenly refrain from blowing up the pipelines. Not!
There must be something more than Saddam's WMDs, security for the American People, and bringing democracy to the Middle East to Bush's "plan." It's hard to believe one man can be so stubborn as to allow all this carnage and continue on the same course without some higher goals. He's thus far ignored all the "experts," and continues to aim toward some goal none of us seem privy. I do not believe "oil" is in the mix.
There are two intersesting articles in today's San Jose Merc about Bush's legacy. The first one says we have had other presidents who have gone to war on "false" pretenses, but ended up looking good in hiotory. The other says we should not jump to conclusions about Bush's legacy, because some "miracle" might happen during his last two years that might change everybody's opinion.
I think they're both dreaming cornflakes.
cicerone imposter wrote:The problem is that only Bush is unawares there is no success to be had in Iraq.
There is success to be had in Iraq, but to achieve it the Iraqi's have to want it and fight for it themselves. At this time it doesn't look as if that will happen.
As far as Bush, Barney is waiting for him to toss the ball for him to chase.
Mopping Up wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:The problem is that only Bush is unawares there is no success to be had in Iraq.
There is success to be had in Iraq, but to achieve it the Iraqi's have to want it and fight for it themselves. At this time it doesn't look as if that will happen.
Can you please show me where/when the US gov had asked the Iraqi people, in the first place, (before the war) If they actually wanted democracy/freedom/success, with the cost of 500,000 lives and their country bombed back to the stone age ? (not to mention the torture bit)
Oh, welcome to AK2, Mopping Up.
Zippo wrote:Mopping Up wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:The problem is that only Bush is unawares there is no success to be had in Iraq.
There is success to be had in Iraq, but to achieve it the Iraqi's have to want it and fight for it themselves. At this time it doesn't look as if that will happen.
Can you please show me where/when the US gov had asked the Iraqi people, in the first place, (before the war) If they actually wanted democracy/freedom/success, with the cost of 500,000 lives and their country bombed back to the stone age ? (not to mention the torture bit)
Oh, welcome to AK2, Mopping Up.
Thank you.................... Your right about whether Iraq wanted freedom, and I not implying that. But we can't go back in time and turn things around.
Iraq should have never happened. There were other ways of controlling Saddam, war sure wasn't one of them.
Mopping Up wrote:Zippo wrote:Mopping Up wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:The problem is that only Bush is unawares there is no success to be had in Iraq.
There is success to be had in Iraq, but to achieve it the Iraqi's have to want it and fight for it themselves. At this time it doesn't look as if that will happen.
Can you please show me where/when the US gov had asked the Iraqi people, in the first place, (before the war) If they actually wanted democracy/freedom/success, with the cost of 500,000 lives and their country bombed back to the stone age ? (not to mention the torture bit)
Oh, welcome to AK2, Mopping Up.
Thank you.................... Your right about whether Iraq wanted freedom, and I not implying that. But we can't go back in time and turn things around.
Iraq should have never happened. There were other ways of controlling Saddam, war sure wasn't one of them.
Ah, its always good to hear some honest opinion. I'm in agreement with you. Now we just have to work out how to get out of Iraq with minimum US/Iraqi casualty, whilst at the same time claiming 'victory'.
Here's an
interesting perspective that helps explain why I feel that after the report was published America stopped being as angry about the war.
squinney wrote:Here's an
interesting perspective that helps explain why I feel that after the report was published America stopped being as angry about the war.
And here's an article that exemplifies just how useful it will be to "talk" with Iran:
Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'
Quote:"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.
cicerone imposter wrote:There must be something more than Saddam's WMDs, security for the American People, and bringing democracy to the Middle East to Bush's "plan." It's hard to believe one man can be so stubborn as to allow all this carnage and continue on the same course without some higher goals. He's thus far ignored all the "experts," and continues to aim toward some goal none of us seem privy. I do not believe "oil" is in the mix.
There are two intersesting articles in today's San Jose Merc about Bush's legacy. The first one says we have had other presidents who have gone to war on "false" pretenses, but ended up looking good in hiotory. The other says we should not jump to conclusions about Bush's legacy, because some "miracle" might happen during his last two years that might change everybody's opinion.
I think they're both dreaming cornflakes.
You might have said that about Harry S. Truman, also, if you had lived in his day.
squinney wrote:Thanks, Deb.
I found this interesting, from the first article: And it would probably do no harm for Mr Bush to restate, as the report suggests, that "the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil."
And yet:
Quote:While the Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign companies.
The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.
It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign companies.
Link
This must then be post to advance the argument that it would therefore be a really great idea for Iran to control Iraq's oil and rule the mideast?
cicerone imposter wrote:Back to Story - Help
Iran offers to help U.S. exit from Iraq By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
26 minutes ago
Iran's foreign minister delivered a blunt challenge to the United States on Saturday, saying Tehran is willing to help U.S. troops withdraw from neighboring Iraq but only if Washington makes some tough policy changes.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claimed U.S. troops were responsible for at least half the violence tearing apart Iraq and that their departure would pay security dividends for the entire region.
"If the United States changes its attitude, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help with the withdrawal from Iraq," Mottaki told the International Institute of Strategic Studies conference here. "Fifty percent of the problem of insecurity in Iraq is the presence of foreign troops."
Mottaki echoed calls made last week by Iran's top national security official, Ali Larijani, for Gulf Arab countries to eject American bases in their countries and establish a regional security pact with Iran. Mottaki went further and offered deeper cooperation with the six Gulf Arab states on energy, tourism, business and counter-narcotics.
Iran's offers do not seem to have tempted Gulf neighbors who are apparently more worried about the dangers of living near Iran's nuclear facilities, especially amid threats by Washington and Israel to use military force to destroy them.
Mottaki's forceful speech was a challenge to U.S. interests in the Gulf and a strong display of the country's rising assertiveness in the face of U.S failures in the region.
At one point, Mottaki addressed an international audience that included U.S. Vice Adm. David Nichols, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, and said the regional chaos sparked by the Bush administration's twin wars demonstrated that U.S. military force was no longer a realistic policy option in the Middle East.
"Today the time of threats is over. The period of unilateralism is over," Mottaki said. "Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. That gives us a very important lesson."
Iran's proposal for a Gulf security alliance shows no sign of gaining traction among the region's Arab leaders. Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said security of the energy-rich region depends on the United States, the European Union and other major oil-importing countries.
Much of the discussion at this security conference centered on the U.S. Iraq Study Group report, and its recommendation that Washington seek Iran's help in steering Iraq away from civil war.
William Cohen, defense secretary under President Clinton, urged Iran to push for talks with Washington.
"If you forgo aspirations for nuclear weapons and cut off funding for radical elements and support the Mideast peace process, then yes, you'd be welcomed into the international community. We'd have billions of dollars going into your economy," Cohen told the Iranians among 250 delegates from 22 countries.
"If Iran is simply interested in pursuing a nuclear energy program and not weapons, that's something the U.S. wouldn't object to and would support."
This is twisted.
Iran will
help the U.S. withdraw from Iraq if Washington makes some tough policy decisions?
Translation: We will help you more quickly exit the Iraq war if you surrender to us first.
It would be foolhardy to entertain this offer. This offer is so transparently audacious as not to even bother including Iran's reciprocal concession of withdrawing all of
their terrorist surrogates that are fighting as Shiite terrorists.
If Iran is simply interested in pursuing a nuclear energy program and not weapons, that's something the U.S. wouldn't object to and would support?
What planet is Cohen on?
In every other speech, Ahmadinejad threatens complete annihilation of Israel. To anyone who has watched Ahmadinejad's footsteps for the past year, this raises red flags with respect to the wisdom of such a naive philosophy. This line about peaceful nuclear energy...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, when Kim Jong-Il said the same thing to Jimmy Carter. Recall that while Carter was polishing his Nobel Peace Prize and patting himself on the back for being such a brilliant foreign diplomat, Kim Jong-Il was happily building nukes.
Monte Cargo wrote:squinney wrote:Here's an
interesting perspective that helps explain why I feel that after the report was published America stopped being as angry about the war.
And here's an article that exemplifies just how useful it will be to "talk" with Iran:
Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'
Quote:"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.
Is "the Zionist regime" synonymous with "Israel?"
