Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

There is an interesting development in the World of Bush Politics.

But first, let's recap to get our bearings.
George W. Bush: Defending our Nation ~ Dec. 29, 2000 ~ Rumsfeld Seen As a Team Player


~@~

OK, so we know how that appointment turned out. Now today ....... Profile of Proposed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Quote: "President Bush nominated Gates after announcing the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
~snip~
"During his time as Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld was seen by some as pugnacious, and confrontational.
Gates, on the other hand, is "totally different,"

Robert Gates is reported to be in favor of negotiating with Iran in an effort to both stabilize Iraq and lesson tensions regarding the Nuclear issue stand-off.

Yet just today while watching CNN, I was presented with TWO diametrically opposed views on Iran by President Bush.

Bush: Iran must face isolation over nuclear program ~ November 13, 2006
Quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, responding to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the White House, called on Monday for worldwide isolation of Iran until it "gives up its nuclear ambitions."

That coming on the heels of early morning meetings between
the President and James Baker's Iraq Study Group and the Israeli Prime Minister.
Baker Iraq Study Group to Invite Damascus - Tehran
Quote: Reports from the study group indicate they will actually recommend Damascus-Tehran enter the negotiations in Baghdad to help stabilize the country. It is even suspected the ISG will call for Syria-Iran to commit troops.

There has been much talk regarding the President bringing in top advisors from his Fathers Presidential team as talk
of a NEW Direction swirls 'round Democrats heads.
If the President is reaching out for advice, why then does he cut off that advice at the knees with proclaimations such as International isolationism today?

We are familar with past utterances and there effectiveness, such as:
Bush tells Syria and Iran not to meddle in Iraq
Quote: “We will continue to make it clear to both Syria and Iran that ... meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq is not in their interests,” Bush told reporters

Iran and the US exit strategy in Iraq
Quote: Iran may be a member of the "axis of evil" according to the Bush administration, but increasingly it has become clear that it also holds a key to the riddle of a working strategy for US troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Bush criticizes Syria and Iran, promises to support Israel

US bill to call for international isolation of Iran ~ January 20, 2006
Quote: LONDON, January 20 (IranMania) - A US senator said he plans to introduce a bill calling on President George W Bush's administration to press governments around the world to shun Iran over its nuclear program, AFP reported.

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, speaking on US television, said he plans to introduce his resolution Friday, calling for Iran to be excluded from international forums and events and asking the administration to urge other governments to sever economic relations with Tehran.

"I just came back from the region, and it is increasingly clear that Iran presents a real menace not only to the national security interests of the United States but to the rest of the civilized world, as well. They are the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world," Bayh told the Fox News cable television network.

"Now they are seeking nuclear weapons, and that is an outcome we cannot allow to happen," he said.

White House: Iran Deepens International Isolation With Threats Against US By VOA News ~ 08 March 2006
Quote: The United States wants the Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for allegedly violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iranians hope change in U.S. means change for them ~ November 13, 2006
Quote: TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- In the Iranian capital, the results of the U.S. midterms and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld are viewed as moments too good to ignore.

The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking to huge crowds in a province outside the capital, recently said. "The winning [of Democrats in the U.S. elections] is not solely a domestic event of America. It means the failure of the pro-war and aggressive policies of the present president of America."

Is there 'An Iran Trap' as speculated by the libertarian Cato Institute ?
Quote: This analysis piece from the libertarian Cato Institute discusses how Iran’s apparently rising defiance and belligerence may be part of a deliberate strategy to draw the U.S. into a greater war in the Middle East. One “benefit” to Iran in doing so would include the possibility of eliminating Israel during the conflict, and should the Arab states prevail in such a war (which would be a very long and burdensome one, if recent history is any indicator), Iran might end up being the triumphant lead-nation in a rejuvenated Pan-Arab alliance against the West.

At least that’s what they might be thinking.

Our next entry will feature one of the most recent moves Iran has made which seems to bolster this theory.

~snip~

November 13, 2006
• President Bush meets Monday with Iraq Study Group
• Democrats, allies call for talks on Iraq to include Iran, Syria, other nations in region
• Democrats call for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in four to six months
• White House says fixed timetable for withdrawal could be "disaster"

LATEST IRAN NEWS & IRANIAN CULTURE JOURNAL ~ November 13, 2006

~@~

After having read the above entry, do you feel confident of beneficial changes on the horizon due to the anticipated Baker commission report and the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense ?
What are the ramifications for this President, this Nation if after receiving the Iraq Study Groups report and a successful nomination of Robert Gates, the President does not heed their expert advice?
It certainly does not appear that he is prone to taking advice from anyone, including George Herbert Walker Bush (41).

[Tetracide]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: After having read the above entry, do you feel confident of beneficial changes on the horizon due to the anticipated Baker commission report and the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
Yes. Although, stringently depending on the content of the report, I'm not going to place much weight or importance on the Baker Commission's recommendations. We need a fresh pair of eyes on the Iraq situation, not a timetable, not a retreat, but a new MO.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: What are the ramifications for this President, this Nation if after receiving the Iraq Study Groups report and a successful nomination of Robert Gates, the President does not heed their expert advice?
I'm glad you think Gates is an expert, but before we pass judgment, let's review him before the Senate and ask him some tough questions. Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground. It was Rumsfeld's idea of only allowing a limited number of troops into the theater, a grave tactical mistake in my opinion. I only hope that Gates looks at the situation with a realistic point of view, and keeps in mind the true power of the United States military.

President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals. Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

[Mr. Sunshine]

It is nice to see team C.I.A. stepping up to the plate. The military support infrastructure in Iraq has been completed for 3 months. The bases are built to last a life time. Look for a coup attempt in Iran within 5 years and an Israeli complex air strike against Iran's peaceful nuclear power program that we will veto forgiveness from the U.N. for. 8:)

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: It is nice to see team C.I.A. stepping up to the plate.
The military support infrastructure in Iraq has been completed for 3 months.
The bases are built to last a life time. Look for a coup attempt in Iran within 5 years and an Israeli complex air strike against Iran's peaceful nuclear power program that we will veto forgiveness from the U.N. for. 8:)

The "Salvador option" and Iraq's "death squads".

Why does the US government want to export Salvadoran Death Squads to Iraq?

The Salvador option By Scott Ritter ~ 25 January 2005
Quote: According to press accounts, the Pentagon is considering the organisation, training and equipping of so-called death squads, teams of Iraqi assassins who would be used to infiltrate and eliminate the leadership of the Iraqi resistance.
Called the Salvador Option, in reference to similar US-backed death squads that terrorised the population of El Salvador during the 1980s, the proposed plan actually has as its roots the Phoenix assassination programme undertaken during the Vietnam war, where American-led assassins killed thousands of known or suspected Vietcong collaborators.

For Iraq, "The Salvador Option" Becomes Reality by Max Fuller

'Salvador Option' mooted for Iraq
Quote: With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

The US colonel in charge at the close of El Salvador's civil war was a tall man with a shaven head, which, as a colleague put it, "looked as if it would repel cannonballs".

I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.

He was, he said, going to write it all up in case of another such war.

So it has been with little surprise that I have read articles coming out of Washington in recent weeks, with US officials talking about a "Salvador Option" in Iraq, not only for democracy-building, but also for a more aggressive campaign to eliminate Iraqi insurgents and their supporters.


The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq
Quote: Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing."

~@~

Is this to become the legacy of America in the Middle East ?

Armed gangs breach security to kidnap 100 Iraqis
Quote: Scores of gunmen wearing police uniforms kidnapped 100 to 150 employees from Iraq's Higher Education Ministry in a brazen daylight raid today. Up to 80 insurgents went floor to floor, separating men from women, then forcing their hostages into a fleet of getaway vehicles, a minister said.

Given all the above information regarding the "Salvador option" and Iraq's "death squads", isn't it more likely this kidnapping of 100 to 150 employees is linked to America rather than a gang of crazed terrorists ?

Does that type of action, on your behalf, make you proud to be an American?

Returning to the point of my original post, how do you explain:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged Iran and Syria on Monday to help stabilize Iraq or face isolation as Washington and London review their strategy in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/13/uk.blair.speech.reut/index.html

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said on Monday talks should be held with Syria and Iran on ending the violence in Iraq, lending support to the British proposal to engage both nations despite U.S. criticism.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/13/australia.iraq.reut/index.html

Searching For a Strategy ~ Nov. 12, 2006
Quote: In the heady days after the first Gulf War, Robert Gates liked to tell a story about his boss, George Herbert Walker Bush. As Bush 41 was preparing to invade Kuwait in 1990 and free that nation from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, Pentagon generals came up with what they thought was a clever scheme that might prevent the President from going to war. Gates was in the Oval Office when the generals brought in maps, charts and pointers and told Bush that Kuwait could be liberated only if he was willing to spend six months deploying half a million troops halfway round the globe. The reluctant generals were betting, Gates explained, that no U.S. President would agree to such a crazy and expensive adventure. But what made Gates smile when he told the story was the cool and determined way Bush responded to the uniforms' rush job. "Sounds right," said the old Navy pilot. "Do it." The generals left the Oval Office looking pale and drawn. And the biggest and most successful U.S. military operation since World War II got under way.

Soon it will be Gates' job to go into the Oval Office with his own set of pointers, maps and charts, and run a very different briefing for a very different member of the Bush family about a very different conflict in Iraq. This time, Gates will be advising George W. Bush on how to get out of--not into--a war, even though the President still believes, in the face of a humbling electoral repudiation and a U.S. death toll approaching 3,000, that the invasion of Iraq was wise, worthy and well planned. Gates' task as the new Defense Secretary is to preach change to a leader who has stuck to his line--despite all kinds of evidence to the contrary--for years now.

The Greeks believed that the gods visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons. But when it comes to the Bush family and Iraq, the tragedy runs from stem to root. And so over the next few weeks, key members of Bush's father's vaunted foreign policy team--the real A-team of the Republican foreign policy establishment--will step in and conduct what amounts to a family intervention.
Led by former CIA Director Gates and former Secretary of State James Baker, who co-heads a commission on Iraq, Dad's former aides will present the son with a plan for saving his presidency and, with it, some remnant of the family's brand name. None of those involved will call it an intervention, but it's fair to say the nation's future is at stake. Although Gates and Baker will be out front, others who worked for the patriarch are helping behind the scenes. Dynasties don't get to be dynasties by neglecting the line.


The Cheney-Gates Cabal by Ray McGovern
(Full disclosure: Ray McGovern is indebted to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for TV notoriety on May 4, when McGovern's impromptu questioning after a Rumsfeld speech in Atlanta elicited denials later shown to be false after fact-checks by the TV networks. McGovern's acquaintance with Robert Gates, whom the president has picked to succeed Rumsfeld, goes back 36 years to when Gates was a journeyman analyst in the CIA's Soviet foreign policy branch led by McGovern.)
Quote: The "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" may now be down to one. But there is every sign that Cheney will continue to be the dominant force in the White House.
~snip~
Gates has been getting unduly positive press treatment since the announcement of his nomination. This is in part due to his participation in the realist-led Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel tasked with devising plans to stabilize Iraq. There's hope that Gates will help push through the group's recommendations.

It is always possible that Gates really will bring, in the president's words, "a fresh perspective and new ideas on how America can achieve our goals in Iraq," but to those of us who have watched Gates parrot and implement White House policies – not create new ones – this seems a long shot.
~snip~
Unless Gates' years outside the Beltway have wrought major behavioral change, Gates will bend to the wishes of Cheney and Bush and avoid taking stands on principle. While it is one thing to give him the benefit of the doubt; it is quite another to be oblivious to the considerable baggage he brings with him from past service.
~snip~
Those of us who had a front-row seat to watch Gates' handling of substantive intelligence can hardly forget the manner in which he cooked it to the recipe of whomever he reported to. A protégé of William Casey, President Ronald Reagan's CIA director, Gates learned well from his mentor. In 1995, Gates told the Washington Post 's Walter Pincus that he watched Casey on "issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued." Gates followed suit, cooking the analysis to justify policies favored by Casey and the White House. And the cooking was consequential.
~snip~


I must say, it looks more and more like the President is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Robert Gates’ Main Qualification for Secretary of Defense

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Tetracide wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: After having read the above entry, do you feel confident of beneficial changes on the horizon due to the anticipated Baker commission report and the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
Yes. Although, stringently depending on the content of the report, I'm not going to place much weight or importance on the Baker Commission's recommendations. We need a fresh pair of eyes on the Iraq situation, not a timetable, not a retreat, but a new MO.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: What are the ramifications for this President, this Nation if after receiving the Iraq Study Groups report and a successful nomination of Robert Gates, the President does not heed their expert advice?
I'm glad you think Gates is an expert, but before we pass judgment, let's review him before the Senate and ask him some tough questions. Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground. It was Rumsfeld's idea of only allowing a limited number of troops into the theater, a grave tactical mistake in my opinion. I only hope that Gates looks at the situation with a realistic point of view, and keeps in mind the true power of the United States military.

President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals. Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

Quote: Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground.
~snip~
President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals.
Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

What Proof exists that the President ever listened to his Generals?
Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq ~ 2006 Rolling Stone
Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
~
Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
~
Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
~
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
~
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
~
Gen. Wesley Clark
NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
~
Adm. William Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89

[Freemason]

Bump - good stuff

[Tetracide]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Tetracide wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: After having read the above entry, do you feel confident of beneficial changes on the horizon due to the anticipated Baker commission report and the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
Yes. Although, stringently depending on the content of the report, I'm not going to place much weight or importance on the Baker Commission's recommendations. We need a fresh pair of eyes on the Iraq situation, not a timetable, not a retreat, but a new MO.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: What are the ramifications for this President, this Nation if after receiving the Iraq Study Groups report and a successful nomination of Robert Gates, the President does not heed their expert advice?
I'm glad you think Gates is an expert, but before we pass judgment, let's review him before the Senate and ask him some tough questions. Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground. It was Rumsfeld's idea of only allowing a limited number of troops into the theater, a grave tactical mistake in my opinion. I only hope that Gates looks at the situation with a realistic point of view, and keeps in mind the true power of the United States military.

President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals. Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

Quote: Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground.
~snip~
President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals.
Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

What Proof exists that the President ever listened to his Generals?
Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq ~ 2006 Rolling Stone
Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
~
Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
~
Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
~
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
~
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
~
Gen. Wesley Clark
NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
~
Adm. William Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89


Did you miss the "retired" part? And after all I had to say all you could comment on is my last sentence?

Also, throwing pictures of graves at me is a classless and low act, even for you. Very disrespectful.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Tetracide wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Tetracide wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: After having read the above entry, do you feel confident of beneficial changes on the horizon due to the anticipated Baker commission report and the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
Yes. Although, stringently depending on the content of the report, I'm not going to place much weight or importance on the Baker Commission's recommendations. We need a fresh pair of eyes on the Iraq situation, not a timetable, not a retreat, but a new MO.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: What are the ramifications for this President, this Nation if after receiving the Iraq Study Groups report and a successful nomination of Robert Gates, the President does not heed their expert advice?
I'm glad you think Gates is an expert, but before we pass judgment, let's review him before the Senate and ask him some tough questions. Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground. It was Rumsfeld's idea of only allowing a limited number of troops into the theater, a grave tactical mistake in my opinion. I only hope that Gates looks at the situation with a realistic point of view, and keeps in mind the true power of the United States military.

President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals. Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

Quote: Moreover, I do not believe the President has ever refused military advice from those in the ground.
~snip~
President Bush will adhere to the advice of his Generals.
Doing otherwise would not be his MO.

What Proof exists that the President ever listened to his Generals?
Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq ~ 2006 Rolling Stone
Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
~
Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
~
Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
~
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
~
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
~
Gen. Wesley Clark
NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
~
Adm. William Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89


Did you miss the "retired" part? And after all I had to say all you could comment on is my last sentence?

Also, throwing pictures of graves at me is a classless and low act, even for you. Very disrespectful.

Those Retired Generals had spoken with and were expressing the sentiments of those on the ground in Iraq because they felt their voices and concerns were not being met by the Sec of Def.
I suppose I focused on the last point as it destroyed the faith you have placed in how the future might proceed.
Point being, why would the president commission the Baker-Hamilton Group when he has no intention of placing "much weight or importance on the Baker Commission's recommendations" ?
Likewise, why would he be nominating a man who espouses dialog between the USA and Iran then turn around and call for International Isolationism of Iran?
Look's like he doesn't place "much weight or importance on the Robert Gates recommendations" either.

Let's recap, the President didn't listen to the Generals in the field, he doesn't intend on following the advice of the Baker-Hamilton commission nor does it appear that he will be listening to any advice from the nominated Sec. of Def.

As far as the photo of the Graves is concerned, I placed it as a reminder of the cost incurred by this President not taking the advice from the professionals charged with formulating plans and executing them.

[Charlie Man]

This is interesting, but can we point out the dichotomy and the advantages/disadvantagees of each path without insulting anyone?

One is almost a rote response to military ambition, while the other is not, in fact, what the president has said to my knowledge. Both are legitimate when looking at different facets of a complex issue.

And nobody seems to have a clue on how to resolve them into one strategy for dimplomacy in the region. I think that setting up an inspecition program and using aid within, well, not exactly using the "tripartate Iraq" strategy, but, damn, I feel like we're dividing a cold war europe here, because I mean, we want a balance, and that means to me bringing in a sunni power as well and providing for "spheres of influence" that would minimize costs all around and generate a bit of stability at the expense of some sectarian friction (not necessarily the bloody kind though).


But can we do this without insulting people needlessly?

[flamboyant]

Quote: Given all the above information regarding the "Salvador option" and Iraq's "death squads", isn't it more likely this kidnapping of 100 to 150 employees is linked to America rather than a gang of crazed terrorists ?

Does that type of action, on your behalf, make you proud to be an American?

Um, from what I read, these employees were a working part of the Iraqi government, meaning that the motivation to kidnap them wouldn't come from us . . .

Also, a list of Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark and six other retired generals does not prove anything along the lines of Bush having ignored the advise of his generals (you know, the ones that are actually serving both here and in Iraq.)

The part that I don't get, however, is on Rumsfeld's resignation on Iranian involvement on Iraq and at least one other incident I remember, you say things aren't working, you criticize the President and say he needs to change tactics or change his cabinet, but as soon as he re-thinks his policy, then you criticize him for doing so. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't I guess, but I would think you'd at least applaud him for being able to rethink what we're doing and try to change what hasn't been working.