Bush awaiting more input before picking Iraq course
President Bush said on Thursday a new strategy was required in Iraq that could include contacts with Iran and Syria and U.S. troop cuts, but he would await further reviews beyond the scathing Iraq Study Group report before determining a new way forward.
"I believe we need a new approach," Bush said during a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his closest ally on the Iraq war.
"And that's why I've tasked the Pentagon to analyze a way forward."
The Study Group report on Wednesday advised Bush to push the Iraqi government toward independence and avoid "a slide toward chaos" by launching a diplomatic drive to include Iran and Syria and a sustained commitment to Arab-Israeli peace.
Bush was predictably cool to direct talks with Iran and Syria, which he considers regional bullies. Blair, shortly headed to the Middle East to talk to the Israelis and Palestinians, was not as unwilling to accept the recommendation to engage directly with Tehran and Damascus.
While Bush welcomed the report as "very constructive," he made clear he was still waiting for separate Pentagon and State Department reviews. "We've got to get the right way forward, this is where Baker-Hamilton helps," Bush said.
"Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is," Bush said. "It's bad in Iraq," he said.
Read on...
8 comments:
Could be wrong, but I think Bush feels he has to make a show of wanting to hang tough, but intends to (after a bit) implement most of the study group's suggestions.
I think the only possible route to any kind of lasting stability in the ME is to include Syria, Iran, Saudi, and the Palestinians in talks, a ME summit. The US needs to set it up, and then listen. Of course, some of the talks will be just talk or posturing, but some good ideas may also emerge. It's certainly worth a try.
Oh I don’t think you’re wrong at all as far as Bush needing to appear as the hang tough, manly, Texas cowboy. Nothing short of death would be worse than appearing week…his death, not 3000 others’ deaths.
But I’m not so sure he can back down now without appearing weak in his mind. Maybe he will include Iran and Syria in talks, but I think it would be an exercise in futility on both parts. You have two groups who loathe each other. Both convinced they’re absolutely right and have God on their side. Both so busy posturing so as to appear big and bad that they’ve lost sight of the issues. Both willing to kill innocent people so as further their agenda of power and control.
Wow, the comparisons are kind of numerous, which is kind of scary. This is a huge Mexican standoff. Whoever blinks first loses. I think the only way Bush will blink first is if someone pepper sprays him.
All kidding aside, I’m really beginning to see Bush in a different light. He’s no longer just a doofus playing cowboy. I really believe he has some deep mental issues and all the stress of all the failures is beginning to take a toll. I think he has snapped, and the only thing between him and a complete breakdown are the people around him.
I asked in another comment if we’d ever had a president who’d cracked up while in office but I don’t think I ever got an answer and I didn’t follow up. Bush was weak-minded going in. Now he’s just plain delusional. This is a cluster and there is no way out. At least no good way.
Bush is still clinging to the delusion that not only is there a way out, but that we will be victorious also. He can’t seem to get his Napoleonic mind around anything less. I believe he will make it necessary to remove him from office. And then Satan, I mean Cheney will be running the show.
Wow, which is the lesser of two evils?
I'm in favor of having the Democrats start impeachment in January and and removal proceedings ASAP. There's still two years left for this knucklehead to do even worse damage. I think they should also bar any future Tejas residents from becoming president (unless of course it's Molly I, Jim H, or Kinky F).
Another perspective on the ISG report...
Iraq Study Group or Saudi Protection League? by Greg Palast
I don't think we have anything to lose by trying to engage Iran and Syria in promoting peace in the Middle East. It might be they have new perspectives or fresh ideas. Or maybe just talking to them could dispel some misconceptions held by all sides.
The fly in the ointment is going to be Israel, who have already indicated they are not keen on this concept. God knows I am way pro-Israeli, but even I think they need to sit down and shut up on this one.
GWB has given the ME countries enough reasons to hate the US for many lifetimes. He brought a war that's perceived in the ME as christians vs muslims. That reason alone has compromised the safety and security of the US. People can use hate to get really creative against another.
Israel doesn't help matters at all with the perception in the ME is that it can do anything it likes with the US backing it. It's nicknamed USrael.
Ben Gurion, the father of Israel, had some telling remarks relevant to the situation today about what Israel should do regarding peace with its neighbors.
It'd be better if the US got itself out of this completely, and let the either the ME countries, like Jordan who can be considered neutral, to referee this, or let the UN do what it's mandate is...resolve disputes and bring peace.
Remember this.
Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine
by Jimmy Carter
I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
I also agree that Israel should stay out of this one. I’d think they have enough problems of their own, and this is such a huge quagmire. But it needs to be between the players who are directly involved. Oh heck, I guess at this point the whole world is directly involved huh?
I think Cait’s point about the possibility of a meeting dispelling some misconceptions is a good one. But that will only work if people come with open minds, and that’s a big if.
Alex, calling Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite is like calling Mother Teresa a nazi. I haven’t read his book, but I’ve heard enough about the content to know that it’s a book that focuses on Palestine. Period. What the hell is the big deal? He’s not pro-Palestine/anti-Israel just because he focuses a book on one faction or the other.
God forbid we should be educated on the causes of major wars. I love JC and I think he’s a wonderful man. His character alone should be enough to grant him the right to write about Palestine without being called a racist.
Post a Comment