Comments on: U.S. Denies Nixed Summit Is Snub

Conflicting Explanations Surround Cancellation Of Bush's High-Stakes Meeting With Iraqi Prime Minister

[firststate]

One basic post, nearly infinite variations. It saves a lot of time on original thought. I recall radiob's words, he's harmless, let him go. With the variations, one can almost make a game of guessing when and with what variations it will next appear.
radiob, does being the calm reasonable one get to be an awful chore? Thanks, at least. Your view of free speech proves you're no Newt Gingritch.

[bellal-2009]

"Simple answers do not exist in a world of great complexity. We must sacrifice our instinctive desire for the quick and easy to instead embrace the enduring and efficacious, or we, as a species, will not survive."
SearingTruth

So very eloquently said, SearingTruth

[frankly6]

firststate

Good stuff.

[mrthornman]

Would I send my dog to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? You might even ask if I am a nutcase. Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your dog to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my dog to go to war. Hell, I can't even teach him to fetch. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to write dumb posts about Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Yes! I'm not equivocating, only saying that if I am really wacked out on drugs. And I have nightmares of battle (from my past life in the nuthouse). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Depressed that they are going to be blown to pieces for no reason. But I do strongly believe that a country, ummm, sorry, lost my train of thought there. Oh yeah! There is no failure in Iraq, unless we leave before the job is done. Then we would lose, which I think may be the opposite of win. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a really bad idea, that's why I greatly laugh at those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been desolute, something I have also been in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. Yes the traitors... or was I thinking potaters? Yes, that's it!! I am really hungry, gotta go. We're still in Iraq? Why?... I'm waiting.

[j-whitman]

Radio,, I hope we hold those accountable for thier actions that got us into this mess, but, so far that seems a bit out of reach... We'll see

[firststate]

As the leader of the lie and deny team arrived in Jordan, he found out that he had rushed for nothing. When the administration (Bush) said that al-Maliki's skipping the evening summit meeting is not a snub, was the anouncement made with a straight face? If a member of the administration tells the truth, they develope a facial tic.

How often has another national leader told him, " F? You. I'm too busy for you today, hope you had a good flight. I'll pencil you in for brunch tomorrow, your treat. Have your secretary call my secretary's assistant for the details. It will have to be brief, I'm doing lunch with someone important."

A picture of fearless leader's blank expression when he was told would have been priceless? Can you imagine trying to esplain what a jackass al-Maliki made of him? Then, watching as that vacuous smile of his appeared when he was told he would have more time to craft military strategy with Gen. Joe, G. I.

[radiob-2009]

J-Whitman unlike before when the 9/11 commission made it's recomendations, the republican congress have left town(for the most part)which leaves a democratic majority to vote on the Iraq Study group.Sen. Reid said just yesterday that the congress will be working 7 days a week and long hours to address the nations problems until at least the new congress is sworn in.Do not give up hope.I know from personel experience that it is better to have hope and fight for a better tommorrow than it is to surrender to the bleak world that constantly invades us personal lives.

[j-whitman]

Radio,, Watch the Bush people start attacking Hamilton & the others for wanting to lose the war.. LOL

[alphaa10-2009]

pakaal said, "Add Alphaa10 to the list of bushrocks1 pseudonyms.... I suppose if he posts under enough different names he can effectively push all other comments off the boards. Someone was saying something about 'free speech'? Shouting down other voices is about as unAmerican as you get. I wonder if he realizes that? He certainly doesn't seem to care, if indeed he does realize it at all."
---
Pakaal, without characterizing your own understanding, your friendly fire is completely off the mark. You easily can find my other posts on any given day under my own name, and I never have owned more than one posting account at CBS.

The post to which you may object is a parody of the hourly posts of one aptly-named "bushrock1". His somewhat meandering original remarks were intended as a John Wayneish "from the high ground" monologue about the American flag. I have to admit, even parody rags some blue types on this blog.

[grazinggoat]

Would I send my wife to this war? You might ask would I send her to WW-II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your wife to fight in them. But that question is directed in a very important way: I cannot command my wife, she does me. I have no choice. So the better question would be: would I, BushDucks21, volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer BushDucks21 to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. To a hypothetical question, I can answer, NO. And I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Hamburgerbite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those women is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is a failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish theocracy in the Middle East is a poor, ailing, dispecable effort, for sure a failure. That's why I greatly disrespect and shame those who have made the attempt--the Walkig-Liar administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons within their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now we traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting, and for longtime.
bushducks1

[grazinggoat]

nynative1340, very nice job, but our rat is rat-poison-resistant. He just posted another insipid text.

[radiob-2009]

J-Whitman I used to know Lee Hamilton on a semi personel basis and I know his character,integrity are geniune.He would never compromise it for anyone.He has an impressive background than a simple google will give you.He is not going to make recomendations that he personally feels are not attainable.I cannot speak for other members of the group.I do know that he will not bow down to pressure from other members if he sincerely feels that his positions are correct.

[j-whitman]

Radio,, Yes, it really doesn't take a mental giant to understand all these parties have to be brought in & should have been from the start.. I wonder what next week will bring?

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[radiob-2009]

J-Whitman a quote from the N.Y. times more or less stating what I have been.
As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might take place as part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.

[alphaa10-2009]

Partitioning Iraq--
The best hope for all concerned--- having indicated in blood their irreconcilable differences-- is simply to partition the country and end the civil warfare. Iraq is an outstanding example of regional rivalries at play, but no model at all for constructive outcomes. Iraq is the convergence of a number of political faultlines, and only ignorance of what Saddam did to hold Iraq together would persuade anybody Iraq has a native cohesion or future.

Partitioning the country is likely, simply because (1) Iraq is not a nation, but a political amalgam crafted by Europeans after WWI (2) partitioning Iraq allows all sides to win something, since the violence stops, and there is no longer the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq, because there is no Iraq. The Sunnis join Syria, the Shia join Iran and the poor Kurds have no sponsor but us and a lot of diplomacy-- for example, letting Turkish Kurds migrate safely to the south to join the Kurds in North Iraq. The Turks might buy in, because that would depopulate the Kurdish rebellion in south Turkey.

Most parties to Iraq would welcome a comparatively honest broker, one not identified with the US or UK or regional players like Syria, Iran and even Turkey. Until one is found, the current tragedy will continue at great cost to the people of Iraq, and threaten the security of all parties. After invading the country, how ironic Bush might find the UN has great utility, after all.

[alphaa10-2009]

Partitioning Iraq-- 2
Sometimes, the UN does work. In his better days, Kissinger observed the best agreements, even with enemies, can be relied upon to work when they express mutual interest. In the same sense of mutual interest, successful resettling followed the vicious civil war which issued India and Pakistan. The Balkans demonstrate comparative stability after several bloody years without the UN presence, and there are multiple other examples of the ability of an international or regional body to defuse tensions in a way that allows real healing to occur. Of course, the UN itself does not do the healing, but promotes conditions to allow healing to occur.

In the British model for partitioning, lines are drawn and refugees allowed to pass to their home sector. In the case of India, there was no effective officialdom to safeguard passage, and groups of refugees of opposite faiths set upon each other with massive carnage. Obviously, the way to avoid that is to have the US forces-- already in place, and under auspices of the UN-- shepherd the respective groups. There is no other means to keep each side from attacking refugees of the other.

Yes, Iran would get something out of it, but so would the Saudis in secured protection for the Shia. The end point being, regional resolution of a regional problem. More than one diplomat has counseled an end to unilateralism from Bush, because he obviously does not have the attention of anybody-- least of all, those who count most.

[alphaa10-2009]

Al-Maliki and the Al-Sadr Army--

patriotic9 had commented--

1. "{al-Maliki] is not under the boot of sadr army..."
Al-Sadr and his thugs own the interior ministry, and everyone, including the Sunnis, knows it-- yet al-Maliki is powerless to remove them. Al-Maliki made noises against the Sadr terrorization of much of Baghdad and timidly accused "private armies" of contributing to the cycle of violent retaliation-- yet was unable to do more than ask the US Army to position itself strategically (and temporarily) around Baghdad, his "iron fist" campaign a failure.

Al-Sadr yesterday publicly humiliated al-Maliki by withdrawing its support of his government after al-Maliki agreed to meet with Bush (before the Hadley memo surfaced). This was intended as a warning, since Al-Maliki, himself, draws heavily from Sadr areas for his political base. If al-Maliki must ask permission for his guest and diplomacy list, how independent does that make him from al-Sadr?

[alphaa10-2009]

Al-Maliki and the Al-Sadr Army-- 2
Meanwhile, Iraqi violence intensifies with each month. Terror squads of Sunnis and Shia trade assaults across Baghdad daily, and in such a dramatic failure of civil authority, even Hadley was driven to comment about it. The only areas where order exists, after a fashion, are those controlled by the Sadr army, not Iraqi government units. One of these government units actually refused to intervene as Sunni worshippers were burned to death in retaliation for suspected Sunni car bombings (which killed over 150). Since al-Sadr refused to proscribe retaliation for the car-bomb massacre, in effect, he blessed the retaliation while al-Maliki, figuratively, was forced to watch.

2. "Do you think USA which herself had claimed to support democracy in the region can control Maliki...(?) "
Bush is actually weaker in Iraq than al-Maliki, if that were possible. Not only has a lame-duck president no political power to make wholesale changes in American posture to stem the bloodbath, Bush did claim, after all, the Iraqi election was the voice of Iraq. Hoist by his own prevarication, so to speak.

[alphaa10-2009]

Al-Maliki and the Al-Sadr Army-- 3
Al-Maliki is much more his own man in recent months because he understands the importance of surviving beyond the American occupation. But al-Maliki clings to a desperate and vain hope that somehow, he and Iraq will surivive. The real players in Iraq are Iran and Syria, and Iran has no use for a relic of the American occupation trying to keep Sunnis and Shia in the same city, in some fragile semblance of what was once Iraq.

[see next post-- Partitioning Iraq]