Bush And Blair Agree On 'New Approach'

Both Say New Iraq Strategy Needed; Blair Tells CBS News He Can See Role For Iran And Syria

(CBS/AP)  President Bush gave a chilly response to the Iraq Study Group's proposals for reshaping his policy Thursday, objecting to talks with Iran and Syria, refusing to endorse a major troop withdrawal and vowing no retreat from embattled U.S. goals in the Mideast.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an unflagging ally in the unpopular war, stood with Mr. Bush and wholeheartedly supported his determination to fight to victory in Iraq and spread democracy across the Middle East.

"The vision is absolutely correct," Blair said at a news conference where the two leaders agreed, nevertheless, on a need for new approaches in Iraq.

"I thought we would succeed quicker than we did," Mr. Bush said. "And I am disappointed by the pace of success." When a reporter suggested that the president was denying even to himself how bad things are, he tartly replied, "It's bad in Iraq. That help?"

President Bush has ruled out talks with Iran unless it steps away from a suspected nuclear weapons program. And Mr. Bush said Syria should "stop allowing money and arms to cross your border into Iraq. Don't provide safe haven for terrorist groups."

But in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, Blair said that he thought engaging Iran and Syria was a possibility.

"I think that provided Iran and Syria come in order to help, I think people would want them as part of this group," Blair told Couric.

"I think have got to divide these two things up," he continued. "I think in respect to the nuclear weapons issue, as Baker-Hamilton says, I think it's important that is dealt with within the Security Council mechanism."

The president and prime minister met a day after a bipartisan commission warned that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating" and recommended fundamentally different U.S. policies. Its key recommendations call for direct engagement with Iran and Syria as part of a new diplomatic initiative and a pullback of all American combat brigades by early 2008, barring unexpected developments.

While calling the report constructive, Bush and Blair took an unapologetic, almost defiant tone about their decisions and their resolve to keep up the struggle against extremists. The two leaders did not appear to agree with the commission's conclusion that America's ability to shape outcomes was diminishing and time was running out.

"We're going to succeed," the president said. "I believe we'll prevail."

Mr. Bush is now awaiting two in-house reviews that he hopes will let him craft his own plan — rather than seeming to simply adopt the Baker proposals wholesale, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

"I don't think they expect us to accept every recommendation," Mr. Bush said at the news conference.

Testifying earlier in the day on Capitol Hill, study group co-chair and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III did not appear to agree.

"I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this but I don't like that,'" he said. "This is a comprehensive strategy."

Blair defined the challenge as "a struggle between freedom and democracy on the one hand and terrorism and sectarianism on the other. And it's a noble mission, and it's the right mission."

The leaders of the Iraq Study Group — Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. — defended the panel's recommendations during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took issue with the commission's call for phasing out the U.S. combat role over the next 15 months and focusing instead on training and advising the Iraqi army. He rejected the idea that the Army and Marines cannot spare more combat forces for Iraq duty.

"There's only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps," said McCain, a Vietnam veteran and a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful. "I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat sooner or later in Iraq."

Under intense pressure to take a new direction, Bush is expected to make a major speech about Iraq before Christmas. He said his decisions will be based on the recommendations of separate studies from the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council as well as the Baker-Hamilton group.

The administration agreed with the commission's call for a new round of Middle East diplomacy to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to the Middle East early next year, the State Department said. "I would expect in the days, weeks, months and years ahead that you are going to see her devote a tremendous amount of energy" to the Mideast, spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Blair said he would go to the Middle East next week, too, and Mr. Bush endorsed his mission.

Battered in the polls, President Bush and Blair have paid a heavy price for the war. The Democratic takeover of Congress was attributed in large measure to voters' unhappiness with Bush and his Iraq policy. But the two leaders said it was essential to support moderates and reformers across the Middle East and to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at a time of increasing sectarian violence.

Mr. Bush was lukewarm about the commission's call for withdrawal of all combat brigades by 2008 as the role of U.S. troops shifts from combat to training Iraqi soldiers and police.

"I've always said we'd like our troops out as fast as possible," the president said. He said any troop plans have to be "flexible and realistic" and depend on conditions on the ground. He said he would be guided by the recommendations of military commanders "based upon whether or not we're achieving our stated objective."

Mr. Bush was unwavering about Iraq. "We will stand firm again in this first war of the 21st century. We will defeat the extremists and the radicals. We will help a young democracy prevail in Iraq."

[aeasus]

And Dubya's answer for final jeopardy is.....???

Find New Course? How about "full throttle, full astern?"

[juliehg-2009]

Look at the above picture. He doesn't look like a happy camper -- of course, this is the way he usually looks -- when being told something he doesn't really want to hear.

He requested input and now he has the answers. I really don't think he'll LISTEN and will do only the minimum to appease the public.

Shrub really screwed this one up! The disheartening thing is that he doesn't have the character or integrity to admit it.

[doctordonut-2009]

The recent weeks have sure taken their toll on the President. Just look at him:

http://www.theweeklydonut.org/

[jeffk1623]

"There's some very good ideas in there," Mr. Bush said about the report after meeting Wednesday afternoon with lawmakers. "Not all of us around the table agree with every idea, but we do agree that it shows that bipartisan consensus on important issues is possible."


Dubya speak for I do not care, I am staying the course.....the heck with what everyone else in the world thinks or wants....

I just hope America and the world can last through 2 more years of this idiot and his band of merry men....

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 6
More ominously, the Baker-Hamilton report notes an acute need for more money, more time and more effort by the US-- all with a simultaneous and graphic downturn in US congressional support. Even in the fantasy that price were no object, and rebuilding Iraqi might somehow be accomplished, congress has served notice it has American domestic crises and cities to rebuild. As if in confirmation, the American treasury has been found plundered by foreign misadventures and irresponsbilities. In the 2006 election, congress declares Bush folly, deceit and ineptitude no longer need burden the American taxpayer or the American soldier.

When all the money and vain ambition is exhausted, the realists enter, and Iraq may change radically at their hands. Every neighbor of Iraq has a stake in the outcome, with Iran mattering most of all. As the Baker-Hamilton report admits, the outcome of Iraq leans heavily on support from even people Bush does not like. If Bush cannot create an Iraq in his own image, let the respective nations of Iraq recover their own.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 5
The Baker-Hamilton report recognizes every sect and national group has a claim and counterclaim, some favoring a nominal national union, but only to the extent it realizes sectarian agenda. Shia and Kurdish groups display no common sense of an Iraq beyond their respective borders. Sunni want a federal state, but only provided they share in oil income from Kurdish or Shia territory. There is no national sense of what it means to be Iraqi, nor great willingness to compromise for that vision. While extreme dictatorial pressure from Saddam terrorized restive Kurds and Shia into obedience for decades, the concept of Iraq probably will not survive Saddam.

Today, some 1.6 million Iraqis are displaced, and 1.8 million Iraqis already have emigrated to Jordan, Syria, Iran and other areas. Effectively, the self-partitioning of 18 million Iraqis already has begun. The Baker-Hamilton report nods to all the familiar nostrums-- better and stronger police and army functions, better training, building up the social infrastructure, but these cannot build a nation where no national bonds and no Iraqi national identity exist, in the first place.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 4
The Baker-Hamilton report brings a disturbing assessment of Iraq because it begins with a fallacy-- the Bush presumption Iraq is one nation, and that America must not leave Iraq until it can defend and govern itself. That fallacy ignores the fact Iraq never has been a nation. More than ever, people living in Iraq show their sectarian allegiances, proving Iraq is a fragile political composite made for the convenience of Europeans after WWI.

Meanwhile, Iraqi self-government, order and stability will not wait for Iraqis to sort out sectarian differences. The Baker-Hamilton report notes collapse of even basic government services. Again and again, the report cites sectarianism or its collateral effects-- corruption at every level and weak judiciary and police functions.

Iraqi government is paralyzed with sectarian turf battles involving the very people supposed to provide stability. Ministries lack equipment, training and even a clear sense of mission. Besides the Iraqi army, some 205,000 uniformed, armed Iraqi ministry police, local police and national police are suspected of working with sectarian elements. As one frightening indicator, six Sunnis were recently burned to death in public by Sadr elements, while Iraqi army units nearby gazed impassively.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 3
In the same sense of mutual interest, partitioning resolved successfully the vicious civil war which issued India and Pakistan. In that model, lines are drawn and refugees allowed to pass to their home sector. In 1947, there was no effective officialdom to safeguard passage, and groups of refugees of opposite religions set upon each other with massive carnage. Obviously, US forces-- already in place, and under auspices of the UN-- might shepherd the respective groups.

The UN has successful experience with this work. Effective UN partition of the Balkans also demonstrates comparative stability after several bloody years without the UN presence, and there are other examples showing an international or regional body can defuse tensions in a way that allows lasting healing to occur. Of course, the UN itself does not do the healing, but promotes conditions to allow healing to occur.

Yes, Iran and its Iraqi Shia would get something out of it, but so would the Saudis and their Sunnis in secured protection. The end point being, regional resolution of a regional problem. As more than one diplomat has counseled, regional resolution is not only the most logical but most lasting.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 2
Partitioning the country is plausible, simply because partitioning Iraq allows all sides to win something. Partitioning is also stable, since warring factions are not forced to compete for power in the same territory. The violence stops, and there is no longer the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq, because there is no Iraq. The Sunnis join Jordan and/or Syria, the Shia join Iran and the Kurds have no sponsor but us and a lot of diplomacy-- for example, letting Turkish Kurds migrate safely to the south to join Kurds in North Iraq (the Turks might buy in, if only to depopulate the Kurdish rebellion in south Turkey).

But the process demands a comparatively honest broker, one not identified with the US or UK or regional players like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran or Turkey. After his unilateralist invasion, how ironic Bush might find the UN useful, after all. Kissinger observed the best agreements, even with enemies, can be relied upon to work when they express mutual interest.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 1
With his only hope political damage control, Bush now plays to negotiate a receivership to the war he began. This, in fact, is a fire-sale, as Iranian elements sense Bush is more than eager to do business, provided sufficient political assurances.

In marked contrast to the politician who wanted to "stay the course", Bush now will pay almost any cost. While Bush once may have wished to stay on in Iraq, Alamo-style, and entrench Americans indefinitely (if only to avoid the appearance of defeat), Baker and almost everyone else pulling levers have served notice the game is virtually over.

However, even as the Iranians see regional dominance in their grasp, we would do well to reconsider how we end the American misadventure in Iraq. A lasting solution to Iraq is not merely to substitute the Iranians for the British and other great powers after WWI. If Iraq is not truly a nation, but a political amalgam of warring and disparate political and religious factions, there is the viable alternative of partitioning Iraq.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq----

Days ago, Bush met with Iraqi Shiite Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, intimately associated with the Iranian-supported Badr Brigade, who flew to Washington to marginalize his rival in Iraq, PM Nouri al-Maliki. Bush, by meeting with al-Hakim, leaves unsaid that al-Hakim also may open proxy negotiations with Iran over the future of Iraq, and the manner of US withdrawal.

Beyond another snub to al-Maliki, the Bush-al-Hakim meeting legitimizes al-Maliki rivals who want US troops to leave Iraq now. In effect, Bush, having opposed a measured pullout, opened talks with those who want a total and
immediate pullout. The end game, of course, leaves Iran substantially in control of Iraq-- a situation far worse and more destabilizing than when Saddam was in power.

[marshhendrix]

We have known for days that the recommendations were going to state that it is time to make a measured withdraw...unfortunately, we have known for years now and thousands of lives later, that Bush has absolutely NO intention of listening to anyone but the little voices in his pea sized brain.

They are like the voices that people like Charles Manson must hear...extept unmeasurably louder in a much smaller and more evil mind.

[observantx]

I would urge everyone to watch a session of Tony Blair meeting with Parliament. You can catch it on C-Span. He answers questions directly from members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. No canned blather from a Press Secretary. No %u201Cunidentified administration source%u201D, etc.

Members of Parliament stand and ask the Prime Minster very specific and pointed questions that are relevant to their constituencies. Occasionally Mr. Blair flips open a binder on the table, glances at his notes and then directly and succinctly answers the question. No spin, no BS. He does this in detail, in logical coherent sentences for up 10 minutes nonstop.

Let us contrast Mr. Blair with our own Clueless Leader. He stumbles through his answers, drags out grade school grammar soundbites, pauses, says %u201Cuh, er, um, uh, repeats the soundbite, and then stalls. Chances are he has not even remotely addressed the question. That is why we have the dog and pony shows ala Tony Snowjob.

The mystery is why and how Tony Blair got himself tangled up with boy George and the disaster in Iraq. He is definitely more savvy than that. Perhaps he has been mopping Clueless Leader%u2019s fevered brow and soothing him so that he can%u2019t do more damage than he already has. I guess we just all have to bear this lamentable farce until it plays out in 2008.

Please people, next time, if a candidate for office can%u2019t master a simple sentence; don%u2019t vote for him.

[grumpas]

I hope American's remember this fiasco when Bush want's to start another war (Iran or North Korea)! When you start a war in an irresponsible manner like he did, it's murder when you don't acheive your object's and have to think about backing out of it gracefully! War is serious business that was taken far to lightly by these neocon's and a lot of hard right American's! I think American's are only starting to realize that after almost 4 years! It's a whole lot easier if it's never started until necessary! But, the bottom line is it's a mess Bush created! I don't think he has the intelligence to come up with a solution! I think he will stall for 2 more years and hand it off to another President! So, don't expect any solutions to the mess!

[consciousnes]

Just out of curiosity, who started this %u201CStudy Group%u201D and who paid them to set around all this time to come up with some arbitrary decision about what our country should do?
Let me see, didn%u2019t we vote for someone to represent us in the government?
Aren%u2019t they getting paid to make the decisions for us?
Are our government representatives not smart enough to make decisions on their own for us?
Maybe we should go back to the monarchy so we don%u2019t have a choice as to what we do like it was in Iraq before we did something about it.
Are we a world power country or are we a country of mice, that when ever something gets a little tough we turn tail and run home to Momma?
Maybe we should just sit here and let another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 happen again and curl up into a little ball, stick our heads in the sand and hope all the evil people in this world will just go away and not bother use any more.
Wake up people, our forefathers didn%u2019t die at Valley Forge for nothing! We didn%u2019t send thousands of men into battle in WW I or WW II because it was the easy thing to do.
The only way to remedy the situation is to have a big enough stick, to make people who disagree on something enough to move them to violence, to make them sit down and talk out their differences. If we are the people to do that, then so be it.

[frankly6]

Is this whole thing just meant to provide cover for Bush to cut-n-run?

[kcstan11]

When Tony Blair originally supported DUMBYA's invasion of Iraq, his ONLY request was that George do something about the Palastine mess. As we all know ole George has done absolutely NOTHING about that topic. He allowed the Jews "kill at will" in Gaza, the West Bank and, literally destroy Lebonon. I wonder if Tony is going to shove this topic down Georges throat today? I hope that he does, after yesteray's ISG report, Tony should keep DUMBYA on the defensive.

[angryliberal-2009]

Bush will do the right thing (i hope) and defy the Iraq Surrender group that wants to reward terrorism by talking with Islamolunatics in Iran who have created and funded most of this terrorism and they (Iraq Surrender Group) punish the only democracy in the Middle east (Israel, for all of you that only view CBS media) by making them give uo more. In case you libs didnt know the terrorists see the Iraq surrender group's decision as a huge success for the furtherence of Islam read this article

"Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan' Reaction to Study Group: 'Allah and his angels' responsible, 'era of Islam and of jihad' declared"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53269

Another thing that I found interesting was that only one member of the Surrender Group left the green zone while in Iraq, the other cowards just viewed powerpoint slides inside a bunkered building. That means they didnt talk to any of the regular soldiers who interact with Iraqi citizens and fight the battles for the US (by the way, the U.S. has not lost a single battle in Iraq).


Here is article on the great peace loving nation of Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235062,00.html

[huskerarmy]

"In case you libs didnt know the terrorists see the Iraq surrender group's decision as a huge success for the furtherence of Islam"

In case you neo-nuts don't know, Iraq has become a cause celeb for recruiting terrorists. The only real purpose in Iraq was to chalk up an "easy" victory against an islamic nation, any islamic nation since GOPers lump people into ethnic and racial categories, and a phony victory against terrorism. Well, it wasn't so easy after all. Your neat little war, has back fired.

[marcodele]

Diplomacy: Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not speaking to so many countries that that is not an option. In his entire spoiled brat existence of a life, he has never had to do anything he didn't want to do. I don't expect any changes now. Although it would not surprise me if he just shouted "I'm invisible now!" and hid until 2008.
It is disconcerting that we have to "outsource" our foreign policy to a group of fossils who are apparently more qualified than our president, his executive branch, and the U.S. congress. But at least it is a bi-partisan effort to explain to Junior that his "shock and awe" and "smoke 'em out of the foxhole" brand of diplomacy has failed - at the expense of our soldiers lives, Iraqi civilians lives, and a giant debt to U.S. taxpayers.
It would be shame if Iran ends up in control of Iraq. But either way the centuries old tradition of muslim sectarian bloodshed will continue, no matter who is in control of Iraq. It will take muslims to control muslims. The middle east will never allow the U.S. to control Iraq. If there is a power vaccuum there, it is because our genius administration created it. It will be filled by muslims, one way or the other.
More troops, bigger sticks, deadlier weapons, will not solve this situation. It will only result in more deaths, and more resentment toward the U.S., more muslims willing to become terrorists, more revenge aimed at the U.S.

[angryliberal-2009]

Does anyone find it strange that it took the Surrender group 8 months to come up with some ridiculously elementary decisions (shallow)....Is there any military strategy in the report? Is there any workable solution? We know the IRan and Syria *** is a joke, that wont work + Bush isnt dumb enough to accept that ridiculous proposal. The whole idea that Iran who wants to wipe out the jews, the IRan who is trying to cause chaos to bring on 12th imamm, The IRan who defied the world on its nuclear program, the Iran who has called for the destruction of America, THe Iran who funded HEzbollah, The Iran who opresses it's people, The Iran who gets rid of college professors who disagree with the government, the IRan THAT IS CAUSING MOST OF THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, THe IRan that said to the president of IRaq at the begining of the war that they would not do anything to cause chaos in IRaq (lol), and the Iran that is intolerant to every religion except a Islamonazism will help us fight terrorism is an obsurd ridiculous notion..... Sponge Bob Square pants could have come up with a better more realistic idea than that. If we adopt the Surrender groups proposals than we might as well prepare for the next 9/11.

[huskerarmy]

Very well said, Marcodele.

[angryliberal-2009]

continued....

The terrorists are so emboldened by SURRENDER group decision and the way CBS and the rest of "mainstream" media has covered it that they are declaring this study group decision a victory sent from allah, but their goal remains the same DESTROY AMERICA and the libs and the IRaq surrender group DONT get it.

[marcodele]

For those of you who post hotlinks to Fox News articles, most intelligent folks realize that Fox is a radical right wing neocon nutjob conglomerate of ignorance, misinformation, bias and bigotry. Go preach to your own choir and save your cut and paste skills for later. If we wanted to read Fox diahrea, we'd go to their site and read it, or log on to Limbaugh.

[huskerarmy]

"...is a joke, that wont work + Bush isnt dumb enough to accept that ridiculous proposal."

Becasue Bush is so smart and his plan is working so well?

[huskerarmy]

"We'd be silly not to have direct talks with Iran."

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[rsoxfan1123]

It's scary that McCain is running for president. The guy is on a track with his thinking to get us so mired in Iraq we wouldn't et out until the body count and tax dollars spent become astronomical. Thank God the panel is rejecting him and his ideas like the moron he is proving himself to be.

[diamtool]

well it's come down to Barney, Laura and angryliberal, so i guess junior is stayin in Iraq.
poppy and friends got him outta Nam but this one is not so easy.
Meanwhile the Army and the country are practically broke, and anyone who seriously thinks we should attack Iran better have solar power and an ethanol still in the backyard.

Some numbers that don't lie:
10 ---US Troops killed yesterday

100--- Iraqi parliament members voting yesterday to DEMAND a timetable for withdrawal of US Troops. (this story got NO coverage)

400 ---Billion --US price tag for Iraq so far.
Do you think Bin Laden is enjoying his retirement in Pakistan?
Heckuva job junior- Bring 'em on, Mission Accomplished!
God Bless our Troops
God forgive George Bush

[teddebare]

To Consciousnes: The answer to your inquirey, "Who started the Study Group?" It was Junebug's Daddy. He called together some of his former cabinet members, most notably James Baker,a co-chairman of the ISG to try and provide a solution to the dilemma Junebug found himself in. Voila.

As a veteran and frustrated citizen I decry the mess we are in but especially the methodical manner that both parties have waited for this groups recommendations. Meanwhile what do you tell the loved ones of those who are now withouot hteir mate, daughter,son or friend.
Sorry bad war,but thanks for the life.

We have deliberatly waited until after the election now we are waiting until Bates finishes up commitments at Texas AM and for Junebug and his crew, and Congress to review it before making meaningful decisions.

Meanwhile troops are dying - Twelve yesterday. Who will be the last to die in this meaningless misdiredted, unecessary, and illegal war?

It won't be any love one of the above mentioned bodies..

[alphaa10-2009]

His Near-Excellency, King George and PM Blair-- 3
The heavy-handedness of the Baker intervention is sheer humiliation to a Bush who believed himself politically charmed, a leader and irresistible force in American politics, always catching his opponents off-guard with faithful boy genius, Karl Rove.
Thwarted ambition is a dangerous quality in an American lame duck presidency, with titanic forces of self-justification and self-doubt driving Bush to prove something about himself to... himself.

Providence, that watches over children, drunks and fools
with silent miracles and other esoterica
continue to suspend the ordinary rules
and preserve the United States of America.
(Harry Emerson Fosdick)

[rsoxfan1123]

ANGRYliberal-you do realize that your way of thinking was what kept us mired in Viet Nam for so long. Collectively, as a nation, we swore never to get oruselves in a mess like that again, yet here we are. Sooner or later we will have to let Iraq deal with its own problems and stop sacrificing the lives and limbs of American kids for the better good of Iraq, which doesn't want us there anyway.

[alphaa10-2009]

His Near-Excellency, King George and PM Blair-- 2
Despite a clear difference in abilities, Bush is naturally the one Fate assigns the buttons of mass destruction and the world's largest offensive military machine. Bush is the one who must respond ad lib to nattering nabobs of negativism with persuasive argument on the indefensible, and plausible denials on a moving list of scandals. Bush is the one who imagined being POTUS was the Golden Ring of Opportunity (isn't that what they told him?) All his life, Bush had known the presidency was within reach, with what you might say is a familial contempt.

And now, all this utter loss and reversal-- almost as though a movie script were being written suddenly against him. Could a man like Bush become not only defensive, but paranoid? A method-centered man like Nixon draws up enemies lists, but what does a reckless, intuitive schemer like Bush want to try? How does his circle of advisers contribute to his sanity? How far can they influence him-- and how far would Bush go on his own, if only to prove a point?

[alphaa10-2009]

observantX comments, "The mystery is why and how Tony Blair got himself tangled up with boy George and the disaster in Iraq. He is definitely more savvy than that..."
---
Very close to the question all of us have asked-- Bush, the petulant, roughhewn front man for Neocon, Inc., ally to Tony Blair ("Tony Bleh" to the Brits), the liberal apostle of an English state with very strange countercurrents of Orwellian or (if you prefer) utopian directions. There must be a common link, but the traditional Anglo-American alliance is not enough to explain it.

Bush and Blair seem complementary, Blair the ideologue and Bush the ethics-blind opportunist. In practice, Bush has his position papers handed to him, while Blair and his peers write his own. That makes Blair the more rationally consistent, while Bush risks being another Ronald Reagan spokesman for whomever pays for his microphone and ideaspace (for rent). Yet, while Blair might see problems coming at him and dodge issues artfully, Bush is the one who prides himself on artful bobbing and waving, though he never can escape (eventually) being boxed into a corner

[rsoxfan1123]

Blair followed Bush's lead like Robin to Batman because he is aware that Britain needs a close tie to the US for economic reasons, among others. It's sad that Bush exploited Britain's loyalty to us and dragged that country into the mess he made in Iraq. Britain has been our most faithful ally and this may permanently damage the relationship between our nations.

[grazinggoat]

Bushrots1 must be $ucking his thumb. We're at peace, aren't we? Since he hasn't manifested yet, you guys have to rejoyce at leat before he's back and showers us with his inspirational junk.

alphaa10, good analysis... keep up the good work.

[chitown639]

Bushrocks1...is busy meeting with Tony Blair. Once he finishes his meeting, he'll be back in the Oval Office and back online with us, posting that same old tired materail, over and over. Hopefully his boss, *** Cheney, won't catch him playing on the computer again!!!

[bluestardad]

We the American electorate have not expected too much from the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Group because this commission was put together to buy time and political cover for this failed Iraq policy and those who support it and who have to deal with it. By the formation of this commission and the touting of its results up to their release, it gives politicians cover to do nothing for nine more months prior to the release of the commission findings. After the findings are released it provides political cover and time to analyze the results which could take another ninety days to six months before any politician is required to recommend policy to take action. These recommended actions will then take time to get approval, funding and implement. Buy the time all is said and done two years will have passed with no substantial movement in policy in Iraq except the movement of money and the deaths and wounding of our soldiers. We the American people are paying two billion dollars a week and three soldier%u2019s lives a day for this political cover. It is buying us nothing but costing us greatly.

[tejasdemo]

Yea, now they want bipartisanship ? Republicans arrogantly created this mess. I say send every *** one of them over to Baghdad with a weapon and bring our troops home now.

Sending to Bahgdad includes all the fools who voted for these clowns in the first place, and, also, Rush Limpbaugh, Bill the gambler Bennett, the entire group of losers at Fox News, George Will, Ralph Reed, Bill dont forget to buy my book O' Reilly, and all the rest of these absolute zeros.

[notblue]

The war is unecessary, illegal, meaningless, misdirected, started with lies, Bush's private war, An idiots follie, etc. etc. etc.. The mantra of the left. So let's pull out immediately and let genocide run it's course and then what? We will all sit around and wait for the next attack , then take action? Better yet lets just blame the action taken by our idiot leaders. Or maybe if we just leave the terrorists alone and ignore what's happening in the world it will all be OK. We should probably free Sadam while we are at it since it was all a big mistake from the very begining. Since none of the Muslim countries in the world hated us prior to invading Iraq I'm sure Hezbola, Himas, Al Queda, And any one of a dozen different terror organizations would see our sincerity and just forgive and forget. The liberals should have been running the country all along and none of this bad stuff wiould have happened, oh well hinsight is 20-20.

[Syndicate]

Good point Notblue.

[chitown639]

This business of not talking with other countries because we don't like their form of government or policies is silly. As a world leader and the most powerful nation in the world, we should have open communication with all nations, whether they be friend or foe. Over time our communication with other nations will give us greater influese over these nations policies. But, I believe that the biggest reason why we talk to some nation that we disagree with and others we do not, is money. If there's a chance we can make money or save money by having a open relationship with a foe, then we'll talk to them. For example, what's the difference between Communist Red China and Communist Cuba? Well, with China and it's large population, there's a chance to make a lot of money and the retailers love their cheap goods. Cuba, on the other hand, has a much smaller market, so we'll say we don't agree with their government and policies.

[arthurcl1]

Mr. Bush said a day after a bipartisan commission said his war policies have failed and called for a change in strategy.
So What's New? Bush has got another lashing for being an Ostrich with his head in the ground for the last 4 years. Now he lost House and Senate, now the Official Commission on Irag has given him a lashing again about it. He went over the U.N. to go it alone in Irag like a Cowboy with no weapons of mass destruction found. A lie to the American People. Now Civil War Reigns in Iraq and still 2900 of our brave men are dying for what? For Bush!

[mrthornman]

tejasdemo:

Yes!

All the folks supporting this war should be required by law to serve. Bush & Cheney should be patrolling in Bagdad, along with all those neocon warhawks in Congress.

And for all the right-wing windbags like Limbaugh & Hannity, special duty. They would be the Bomb Squad, responsible for disabling explosive devices and old munitions.

[news3497]

YeeHaw is NOT a foreign policy, George!!

[drinuk]

America please don't be fooled by the meeting of the Muppets, Blair needed an excuse to do some Christmas shopping on Fifth Avenue because he cannot show his face down Oxford Street. On behalf of the majority of us Brits I can only apologise for this "*** Head" He is a jumped up little ponce. As far as Iraq is concerned, Sadam warned both of them that they would have, and I quote "The Mother Od All Wars". Well they have got it, at the expense of our young men and women. If these pair of Muppets had any sense at all they would give the man his keys back.

[tejasdemo]

mrthornman,

Thanks for reminding me about Hannity. What an absolute idiot that moron is !

jh6379,

An IQ test is one heckuva an idea. Let's get a petition going.

[jebediah76]

Okay - I happened to see O'Reilly the other day yammering on about how Islam and Iran are on the march, and that confrontation is inevitable.

This is probably true. I can't refute that. But I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but any confrontation we have needs to be on KNOWN FREINDLY SOIL.

It is painfully clear from both Vietnam and this quagmire of a war that other countries have figured out how to beat the U.S. in a war - Make sure they can't tlel who the enemy is. Hell, we wrote the book on it when we fought of the British monarchy!

I realize we don't need to let Iran get too big too quick, and a unified Middle east would be a superpower with a ruthless agenda. But don't have a chance on this, and Bush backed us into a corner we can't get out of.

Not looking for a graceful exit my left foot. Bush is SCRAMBLING for a graceful exit. And he doesn't care how many U.S. troops he kills to get it.

[jebediah76]

DrinUK -

Can't give Saddam his keys back - my guess is Muqtada A Sadr will be the next Saddam. Trade one maniac in for another.

Nice Going, George n' Tony!! Doing a heckuva Job!

[scouser345-2009]

Two weeks ago according to Bush we were winning. Now all of a sudden "It's bad in Iraq" Does this mean we're not winning anymore. If you're gonna BS, let's make it steady consistent BS. Is it any wonder that the poor, slow witted fools who voted for him are so confused.