the Silence is Deafening...the Iraq Study Group report

Copernicus · #1 12-06-2006, 04:45 PM

I guess the recommendations aren't far enough from what the adminstration has been saying all along to bring out the Bush bashers.

Reading the 79 recommendations, then only big split with the admin. is on including Iran and Syria in the diplomatic process, and the admin softened on that stance pre-elections.

Mickey Brausch · #2 12-07-2006, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the recommendations aren't far enough from what the adminstration has been saying all along to bring out the Bush bashers.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Reading the 79 recommendations, the only big split with the admin. is on including Iran and Syria in the diplomatic process, and the admin softened on that stance pre-elections.

[/ QUOTE ]This has already been commented on. Three basic objectives outlined in the Plan have been fiercely opposed so far by Bush and the rest of the neo-cons. So why the glee?

1. Re-start the dialogue between Palestinians (currently ruled by "terrorist Hamas") and Israel, with the aim of quickly bringing about statehood for the former.

2. Engage Syria and Iran in diplomacy ("international conference") for stabilisation.

3. Set a phased timeline for leaving Iraq, linked to "stronger performance" objectives for the local government.

Hah. I'll be watching how this is spinned into outer space.

Mickey Braussch

Copernicus · #3 12-07-2006, 12:24 AM

1 has not been opposed by Bush
2 i already said
3 is totally consistent with the GWB position, he has always said withdrawal when the locals are able to handle it themselves and thats the performance benchmark in the report

sam h · #4 12-07-2006, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1 has not been opposed by Bush
2 i already said
3 is totally consistent with the GWB position, he has always said withdrawal when the locals are able to handle it themselves and thats the performance benchmark in the report

[/ QUOTE ]

1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.

2. Bush softened only slightly on this point before the elctions, and actually became more hawkish in the last couple weeks. The report also goes quite far in talking about this, even basically telling the Bush administration to leave the issue of a nuclear Iran to international bodies. If you read the whole report through, its pretty clear that they are quite far apart from the administration on how to deal with Iran and Syria.

3. Since Bush has essentially just said all options are on the table, then the 15-month phased withdrawal plan is "consistent" with his position. But that's because he doesn't really have a position other than wait and see. We have known for over a month now that the group would not support immediate withdrawal, so that is no big surprise. I think it kind of contradicts itself in a couple places, but at times the report also implies that if the Iraqi's don't "stand up as we stand down" in the next 15-months then we should just leave, rather than the more Bush-associated position that if the Iraqis don't stand up we should stay the course until they do.

Overall, the report is obviously also a boon to the democrats not so much because of the recommendations but because of the first half, which can be distilled to a simple message - "This is an enormous foreign policy failure that we have on our hands that is getting worse and worse."

Mickey Brausch · #5 12-07-2006, 04:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Re-start the dialogue between Palestinians and Israel, with the aim of quickly bringing about statehood for the former.

[/ QUOTE ] [This] has not been opposed by Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]Precisely.

American allies, such as Musharaf, the Jordanian KJing or the Iraqi PM, have been openly saying this for months, if not years. That at the core of the whole tension in the region is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Dubya once proclaimed (to an audience of mostly secular and quite astonished Palestinians) that God has told him to get the Palestinians a state of their own. Afterwards, it seems, the Almighty changed course.

Mickey Brausch

Mickey Brausch · #6 12-07-2006, 07:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
At the core of the whole tension in the region is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]Of course, I could be wrong :

"TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) -- Olmert rejects link between Iraq crisis and Mideast conflict

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday he had no intentions of opening peace talks with Syria, despite the recommendations of a U.S. advisory group, but said Israel wants "with all our might" to restart peace talks with the Palestinians."

CNN

anatta · #7 12-07-2006, 07:57 AM

I got pissed at Bush when he said that the Iraq study group shows that bipartisianship and blah blah working together blah blah as memebers of the Republican Party and DEMOCRAT party can...Does this SOB ever just drop the politics for one second? Another 11 dead soldiers today. What a f-in mess, yet he's got to get his digs in.

From Wiki: Democrat Party

Main article: Democrat Party

A term used in the United States by some Republicans since the 1920s to imply that the Democratic Party is not democratic. It has been more frequently used in the last decade, and is employed, almost exclusively, by President George W. Bush and other high ranking Republicans. See the "Use of the term "Democrat Party" section of the article History of the Republican Party for more information.

Copernicus · #8 12-07-2006, 11:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

sam h · #9 12-07-2006, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They say that a "renewed and sustained commitment" is necessary on all fronts, including "President Bush's 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

They are saying what everybody who has followed US policy toward Israel remotely closely in the last five years knows: That Bush made a verbal commitment to being involved in pushing for a solution and then backed off and adopted a completely laissez-faire approach. And then they are critiquing that approach. Referencing Bush's "commitment" in this context is a nice way of saying that he dropped the ball.

Then of course they go on to offer a serious of recommendations concerning how to achieve that solution that have been opposed, at least tacitly, by the administration. Yet you still don't think its a critique?

Copernicus · #10 12-07-2006, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They say that a "renewed and sustained commitment" is necessary on all fronts, including "President Bush's 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

They are saying what everybody who has followed US policy toward Israel remotely closely in the last five years knows: That Bush made a verbal commitment to being involved in pushing for a solution and then backed off and adopted a completely laissez-faire approach. And then they are critiquing that approach. Referencing Bush's "commitment" in this context is a nice way of saying that he dropped the ball.

Then of course they go on to offer a serious of recommendations concerning how to achieve that solution that have been opposed, at least tacitly, by the administration. Yet you still don't think its a critique?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a critique of tactics and timing, not a critique of strategy. Bush made it very clear in the 2002 policy statement that a prerequisite for meaningful discussions was a repudiation of terror and a change in Palestinian leadership. the tactics have been laissez-faire because those things havent happened, and he's had some minor distractions in the ME like Afghanistan and Iraq.

There will be a "renewed and sustained commitment" when the time is appropriate. The recommendation says "as soon as possible"...as more open ended time line than Bush's:

"The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine. " That puts "as soon as possible" in the hands of the Palestinians, and is the correct timeline, imo.

There is no inconsistency between the report and Bush's strategies, other than inclusion of Syria and Iran, which, under current circumstances is a mistake that I dont think GWB will make.