Cozy up to Syria?
US panel ‘urges direct talks with Syria, Iran’
A draft report prepared for an influential panel considering US alternatives for Iraq urges direct talks with Iran and Syria, but sets no schedule for troop withdrawal, The New York Times reported on Monday.
The bipartisan commission, known as the Iraq Study Group, is likely to accept the report's diplomatic recommendations for US dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, the Times said, citing interviews with unidentified officials.
The draft will serve as a basis for discussions by the panel's 10 members, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, when they convene in Washington on Monday. The meeting could extend beyond its two scheduled days, the Times said.
Blah, blah, blah.
Are these people stupid?
Should we have cozied up to Hitler to end Nazi aggression in Poland?
After last weeks assassination of Lebanon's Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, the only thing that the United States should deal to Bashar al-Assad is a drone-launched missile. Syria knows nothing about 'keeping the peace' but instead is a master at keeping hostilities and political divisions on edge.
Assad and his master Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are killing not only anti-Syria/Hezbollah leaders but also American troops.
Iran and Syria are sponsoring the terrorism in Iraq...they don't want to it to stop.
And this is who the Iraq Study Group wants us to engage with?
Am I missing something?
posted by American Crusader @ 5:52 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
The bipartisan commission, known as the Iraq Study Group, is likely to accept the report's diplomatic recommendations for US dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria...
Are these people stupid?
I'd say that they are beyond stupid.
I get up earlier than my husband, so I heard about this story before he did. When I told him about the proposed dialogue, he couldn't believe it and shook his head in disgust. This from a man who rarely follows current events.
From Caroline Glick, as cited by Melanie Phillips:
The Democratic Party’s victory in the November 7 Congressional elections convinced Iran and Syria that they are on the verge of a great victory against the US in Iraq. Iranian and Syrian jubilation is well founded in light of the Democratic leadership’s near unanimous calls for the US to withdraw its forces in Iraq; Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointment of his father’s CIA director Robert Gates to replace him; and Bush’s praise for the Congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group charged with revisiting US strategy in Iraq, which is being co-chaired by his father’s secretary of state James Baker III. Although his committee has yet to formally submit its recommendations, Baker made clear that he will recommend that the administration negotiate a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq with Iran and Syria. That is, he is putting together a strategy not for victory, but for defeat.
Baker fervently believes that US foreign policy should revolve around being bad to its friends and good to its enemies. Consequently he thinks that the US can avoid the humiliation of the defeat he proposes by buying off Syria and Iran, the forces behind most of the violence, instability, subversion and terror in Iraq. If the US accepts their conditions, they will temporarily cease their attacks to enable a US retreat that will look only mildly humiliating to the television viewers back home.
…The most pressing question today then is whether Bush will give in to Baker and the Democrats and agree to capitulate to Iran and Syria in Iraq, Lebanon and indeed throughout the world. Unfortunately, things look bleak given that Bush relies most heavily on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been blocking US action against Syria and Iran for the past two years. She was the primary architect of UN Resolution 1701 this summer, has been pushing for dangerous Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and is known for her good relations with Baker.
And here is Mr. Phillips comment on the above:
Those who know President Bush say that alarm over Baker and Gates should not be overdone, since Bush is a man who means what he says and is unlikely to retreat from his stated positions over seeing it through in Iraq and not tolerating Iranian nuclear weapons. Against that, however, is the fact that he does rely on Condoleezza Rice; and no less disturbingly, that he requires his people to present him with a consensus for action. This means he does not hear rival proposals, and instead gets served with proposals which are forced to embody the lowest common denominator. This is not the leadership required for the defence of the free world.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My guess, too, would be beyond stupid.
What will it take for us to learn that Syria and their master, Iran are not interested in talking for anything except taqiya and delay?
Our enemies are using our own goodwill against us, and we are too dumb to realize it.
I first heard about this last night as we were cleaning up from my b-day party. I was stunned. By now, you'd think we'd have abandoned this apologetic, cold war/league of nations method of thought against the enemy. Diplomacy does not work with fascists like Ahmadinejad and Assad. When are they going to get this through their thick skulls?
Should we have cozied up to Hitler to end Nazi aggression in Poland?...exactly AC!!!...not to mention that Syria already wants the Golan Heights!
Happy birthday Steve!
AOW...recent comments made by President Bush lead me to believe that he is looking for an exit from Iraq.
The 2008 presidential elections are nearing and the Republican Party doesn't want Iraq still hanging over their heads.
I believe it would be disastrous for us to leave early and would severely damage our image oversees. This would make United States seem vulnerable and might encourage terrorist activity here. We need for Iraq to stand on its own but we need to stay until they are.
Happy Birthday Steve!
Happy Birthday, Steve!
They are so far beyond stupid, it's called willful blindness!
tmw
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AC,
One thing that no one quite understands is that Bush is a master at the political chess game.
Just months after France, Germany, the Vatican and many other govts were up in arms over the Iraqi liberation, Bush got them to write off a considerate amount of Iraqi debt.
In the wake of the recent Democratic victory he took the wind right out of their sails. He pre-empted them by getting Rumsfeld to resign, thereby taking a mountain of pressure off his back.
He held talks with the future Democratic majority leaders even while the results for the Senate had the Republicans in the lead. Bush proved that he is a leader. One who respects the will of the people. After all, this is a democracy.
The man took the initiative and crafted some amazing damage control.
He is saving his fight for when the Democrats fully take control next year.
What Bush does for the rest of his term depends on how much his base supports him.
I think we should be sending another message to Syria via the US Navy. A nice destruction of bridges and highways in Syria is lomg overdue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think Syria and Iran deserve a good spanking however; we will have enough trouble preventing the Democrats from abandoning the Iraqi people.
By targeting and killing innocent civilians somehow the Iraqi terrorists have gained the high moral ground.
Perhaps that reflects on the morals of our Leftist friends. It at least shows how gullible they are. When a hustler finds a mark they latch on to the sucker like a parasite. Iraqi terrorists have found an easy mark.
While the Democrats are afraid of confronting a weak foe that commits terrible crimes against civilians, they are not afraid to confront a President willing to fight those horrible bastards. Any attack on Syria will give the Democrats additional political power, the press will see to that.
As I told one person…
There are only three potential strategies for America.
1. Build up the Iraqi infrastructure and security forces until they can stand on their own. Then we will not have to put our troops at risk and they will only play a supportive role with little or no casualties. This will take a lot of time and patience, but we have achieved many accomplishments that point to the strong possibility that this strategy can succeed.
2. Jump off a bridge and give Iraq to self-destruction. This involves evacuating our troops and then watch the fighting spread to neighboring countries. The body count will dwarf anything happening now.
3. Attack Iran and/or Syria. Then watch the Iraqi government fall to pieces, as well as reinvigorate the "anti-war" movement and the Iraqi insurgency...
…Our Iraqi allies would not be able to maintain their cooperation with US forces in such a scenario, the pressure from within and other Arab countries would be too great. Over the last year the "anti-war" movement has not been able to sustain large public protests anymore, but new fighting in Iran or Syria will bring them back on the streets. This time they will be more confident and in larger numbers than ever. These results would be the path to the White House for Howard Dean.
So Choose Wisely. If you pick option number 2 give me your address and I will send you a bright orange life vest.
o.t. - linked to this at drudge, regarding sharia in the u.k.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai
n.jhtml;jsessionid=Y3UZA1RZGTHK5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml
Post a Comment
<< Home