Bush has no cards to playJul 19th, 2008 - 18:33:13

Iran probably feels that it can just wait until Bush, Cheney, and the rest are gone, and then cut a better deal. We cannot afford to attack Iran, as we're too stretched for resources in Afghanistan. The U.S. is Iran's only potential threat, aside from Israel - that was the point of the missile tests, as supposedly an Iranian missile could now reach parts of Israel. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states don't want their oil revenues jeapardized by conflict, and Iran could potentially bottleneck Hormuz. The entire Mideast will celebrate Cheney's departure, in particular.

Unfortunately, Bush has not only played out his hand, but keeps borrowing from others such as China to keep us in Iraq; while China has energy deals with Iran, as do India and Russia.

Bush, like SP4, still thinks that he has accomplished something; imbeciles that they are:

www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/44730.html

WASHINGTON — The White House wants the American public to think it's on the rebound, scoring important triumphs in Iraq and North Korea and on domestic spying while taking tough stands on oil drilling and relief for homeowners.

The White House, the experts and the polls say, however, is wrong. President Bush hasn't begun a comeback.

'All this is pretty much a lot of noise. He's going out with a whimper,' said Erwin Hargrove, presidential scholar at Vanderbilt University and the author of 'The Effective President.'

Adam Warber, professor of political science at Clemson University, had similar thoughts.

'It's very difficult for him now. His public approval is so poor, he doesn't really have a lot of political capital,' Warber said. Congress is run by Democrats reluctant to give Bush any domestic victories, and his approval ratings have remained at or near a dismal 30 percent for about a year.

Report this comment

Too little, and too late, BushJul 19th, 2008 - 18:43:18

The time to make offers for peace is when you hold the sword of war in your hand. With our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no leverage against Iran, except perhaps economic. We need the pressure of other countries, and neither Russia not China are helpful here.

What powers the world now is energy, not military force. When Gore made his great speech about our going energy-independent, he realized what we faced. Boone Pickens, a veteran oilman, will be speaking more to the same point. He disagrees with Gore, as Gore is more interested in the global warming aspects, and Pickens wants a SHORTER term solution.

There are plenty of offshore oil leases open for drilling now; but it would take decades to get the ships and equipment needed, and get production going. Were not going to 'drill' our way out of this problem, or get there via oil shale.

www.marketwatch.com/news/story/t-boone-pickens-responds-al/story.aspx?g uid=%7BF636D10C-E2D8-4F43-86F5-E3D22FEFFB32%7D&dist=hppr

T. Boone Pickens Responds to Al Gore's Climate Speech

The following statement was issued today by Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens, who last week unveiled a comprehensive and practical plan to reduce foreign oil imports by more than 30%, or $300 billion, in the next 5 - 10 years.

'Today, former Vice President Al Gore put forward a framework of a plan that is focused on global warming and climate issues. My plan is aimed squarely at breaking the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country and the $700 billion annual impact it has on our economy. We import 70% of our oil and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem, it is clear that he and I have two different objectives and our plans should be viewed with that in mind.'

'I believe that elements of any realistic plan to reduce our deadly addiction to foreign oil should encompass the following:

-- Will it slash oil imports by at least 30% in 10 years?
-- Does it rely 100% on domestic energy resources?
-- Does it rely on existing and proven technologies?
-- Can it be on line within 10 years?
-- Can it be done by private investment?

Report this comment

SP4: Bush's cards...Jul 19th, 2008 - 19:01:11

..they were saying this during the surge, that Bush was a lame duck and that it would fail because they'd wait for the new guy.

How'd that turn out?

Well, he has accomplished 15 of the 18 criteria congress set forth on the surge. The Iraqi's are even asking us to leave, something they were not doing a year ago.

This Bush guy just does not quit.

The dems?

They wanted Bush to cave so they could pillory him for it.Too bad, huh? God, how many more times will they underestimate this guy?

Report this comment

Primary benchmarks and SP4's fantasiesJul 19th, 2008 - 19:46:46

Those that were met amount to laws passed with no action. De-Baathification is fiction, as the Shia won't be displaced in the jobs that they took from the Sunni/Baathists. Provincial autonomy is another joke, and the Sunni Parliament members had to walk out to gain recognition. There's no practical insurgent amnesty, as the grant process is logjammed with the usual ineptitude and corruption in the ministries.

Political power sharing is not a reality, and the Sunni are not getting jobs as a result. The oil revenues are still being fought over. They cannot even decide on how to hold elections.

This is more of the B.S.-type 'progress' modeled after Bush's post-Katrina program - zero accomplishments; and the trailers were making people sick. We cannot even keep our own troops in Iraq from being electrocuted from the faulty wiring in their barracks and outposts. Imagine how bad the situation will be in the new American Embassy, constructed essentially with slave labor imported from other countries.

Your own problem is your limited view when peering out Bush's asshole.

The only actual accomplishment is the buildup of Iraqi forces - and even there, they are split along sectarian lines. Shia groups will have to police Shia areas, and likewise Sunni and Kurds. Everything going forward divides the country further into distinct groups.

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/hazy_benchmarks.html

Hazy Iraq Benchmarks: Political Success Requires Implementation

General Petraeus claims the “surge” is also fostering Iraqi political reconciliation, yet even by his own benchmarks this is fiction.

By Brian Katulis, Peter Juul | April 8, 2008

Conservative supporters of the military “surge” strategy in Iraq hail these laws as proof the United States is now succeeding politically as well as militarily in Iraq. Yet these three legislative benchmarks paper over fundamental differences among Iraqi Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shi’a Arab factions regarding what their country is today and should become in the near future.

The benchmarks formulated by Congress were supposed to be signposts to broad political reconciliation, not unenforceable legislation passed to meet arbitrary U.S. political markers. Yet supporters of the surge are conflating procedural parliamentary movement with genuine political reconciliation—just as war supporters did during the Iraqi elections of 2005.

Americans should not confuse the ability of the Iraqi parliament to meet procedural benchmarks with the profound inability of the country’s many competing factions to make real political progress toward reconciliation. A reasonable look at the three pieces of legislation passed in Iraq recently—on de-Baathification, provincial autonomy, and amnesty for insurgents—exposes deep sectarian and secular fissures that the surge has done little to resolve.

Report this comment

Hey, schmuck, it's overJul 19th, 2008 - 19:49:44

They wanted Bush to cave so they could pillory him for it.Too bad, huh? God, how many more times will they underestimate this guy?

=============================

Even the GOP wants him the hell out, so they might even win a local election. Bush was an idiot in 2001, and now leaves as a stubborn idiot.

You have a head start - you were BORN a stubborn idiot. Bush had to learn it.

Report this comment

Sunni and Kurdish problems divide IraqJul 19th, 2008 - 19:52:00

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/hazy_benchmarks.html

(The Shia have no problem aside from Iran's and al-Sadr's influence - they're the majority)

Kurds see a highly federalized Iraq, with a significant degree of autonomy for their own region that includes the capacity to sign oil exploration and production contracts. Shi’a Arabs generally agree on using their electoral supremacy to ensure security for their long-oppressed religious sect, but the two main parties—the Sadrists and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq–have strong disagreements over federalism. ISCI is a strong proponent of highly autonomous super-regions, while the Sadrists favor a unified Iraqi state with a strong central government.

Sunni Arabs are even more fractured. The local tribes in the Sunni regions of the country seek increased autonomy within the current political structure, while the Sunni insurgency seeks the return of a Sunni-dominated national political system. The local tribes are the backbone of the so called sahwa movement, which has calmed much of Iraq’s west and center by attacking Al Qaeda in Iraq with American military and financial help. Many sahwamovement members are also members of insurgent groups such as the Islamic Army or 1920 Revolution Brigade, and have been using the resources and legitimacy conferred by cooperation with the United States to bolster their local power.

These various ethnic conflicts are embedded today in Iraq’s political structures and institutions, and it is these political structures and institutions that prevent further progress toward national reconciliation. The mechanism usually used to resolve national identity conflicts—a constitution—was precipitously adopted in Iraq in 2005 and has since served to exacerbate rather than ameliorate Iraq’s national identity conflict. In part this was a function of a poor American political strategy that pushed strongly for a constitution, but it ultimately reflected Iraq’s burgeoning ethno-sectarian conflicts.

Report this comment

lanceJul 19th, 2008 - 20:06:44

The U.S. is paranoid because if Iran got some nuke technology then that would be Iran's bigger bargaining chip for world domination. World domination is for Bush, not Iran; so Bush has to keep all the nukes for himself and keep Iran on their toes. Even if Iran never made a nuke, just having the chip would be painful for Bush because he would have to deal with 'filthy muslims' on a level playing field. That is something that would turn Bush's stomach, along with his friend the pope.

Report this comment

No immediate nuclear threatJul 19th, 2008 - 22:45:38

Thanks to 'Atoms for Peace' under Ike, we have nuclear proliferation - yet since Hiroshima and Nakasaki we have not seen a nuclear weapon in use.

It makes for a good bargining chip; but since under MAD both Russia and the U.S. saw the offsetting threat, neither side would move to use them.

Iran would face threats even from Russia if they got more strident. Russia has offered to provide them with peaceful nuclear energy, in order to deflect any greater threat.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Russia_urges_Iran_to_cooperate_with_I AEA_/articleshow/3252189.cms

MOSCOW: Reiterating the need for a diplomatic solution of the vexed Iranian nuclear problem, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Friday urged Tehran to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully (IAEA) thrash out all the remaining issues.

According to the Kremlin press office release, in his telephonic conversation with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoudy Ahmadinejad, Medvedev 'urged Iran to fully cooperate' with the UN nuclear watchdog to clarify all the remaining issues.'

'Medvedev once more expressed Russia's view that the dispute over the Islamic Republic's controversial uranium enrichment programme should be resolved through diplomacy,' the release said.

--------------------------------

All the U.S. has offered since the 'Axis of Evil' speech is threats; and no surprise that the Iranian people voted the way that they did. Bush's latest gesture should have been made years ago, quietly and diplomatically. Bush's idea of diplomacy is public chest-beating, which works a lot better for silverback gorillas than for politicians. Gorillas face extinction, and perhaps we can be as lucky with Cheney's bunch.

With Bush exiting (FINALLY), perhaps the adults will be in charge for a change. All McCain can bring to the table is military action, which makes him a continuation of Bush's policies, but with new lobbyists.

Report this comment

White House idiots send wrong e-mailJul 19th, 2008 - 22:50:09

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/white-house-tips-press-off-to-maliki -interview/

So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.

“Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,” the headline read over a story about an interview of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he expressed support for the senator’s plan to withdraw American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 16 months.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki told Der Spiegel, Reuters reported. “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration’s press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less.

The timing compounded the mistake. It came a day after the White House announced that President Bush, in a significant shift, had agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American forces, though not on the strict timetable Mr. Obama favors. Mr. Maliki’s remarks suggested a position not entirely in line with President Bush’s, despite Friday’s announcement.

Report this comment