riona
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 07:43 AM
Original message |
Do you think this "no talk" policy will land us in another war? |
|
This is part of an interview with Seymour Hersh.
"Bush doesn't talk to people he's mad at. He doesn't talk to the North Koreans. He didn't talk to the insurgency. When the history is done, there were incredible efforts by the insurgency leaders in the summer of 2003. I’m talking about the Iraqi insurgency, the former Sunni generals and Sunni and Baathist leaders who were happy to see Saddam go, but did not want America there. They wanted to talk to us. Bush wouldn't. Whether it got to Bush, I don’t know, it got in to four stars. Nobody wanted to talk to them. He doesn't talk to the president of Syria; in fact, specifically rejects overtures from al-Asad to us. And he doesn't talk to the Iranians. There's been no bilateral communication at all.
Iran has come hat-in-hand to us. A former National Security Council adviser who worked in the White House, Flynt Leverett, an ex-C.I.A. analyst who's now working at Brookings, wrote a piece a month or so ago, maybe six weeks ago, in the New York Times, describing specific offers by the Iranians to come and ‘let's deal.’ Let's deal on all issues. I’m even told they were willing to talk about recognizing Israel. And the White House doesn't talk. And it's not that he doesn't talk, it's that nobody pressures him to talk. There's no pressure from the media, no pressure from Congress. Here's a president who won't talk to people he's walking us into a confrontation with."
|
wtbymark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message |
1. because thats what he wants - period |
|
congress who? what a joke - oversight? yea right. Media? bwaahahahaha
"You say you want a revolution yea you know"
|
bdamomma
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. because he is the decider |
|
the arrogance and stubbornness of this maniac is very dangerous.
|
Donna Zen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 07:59 AM
Response to Original message |
|
...whoever the jerk was, maybe Hannity, pooh-poohed General Clark when he called for direct talks with Iran. The General said that he knew that there were factions within Iran that wanted to talk because: "they talk to me." Kinda shut-up the fauxer, but only for that segment. As soon as a credible voice was off the set, they returned to their usual anti-diplomacy blather.
Does any one of those jerks understand that their super-hero Ronny talked to the Evil Empire. If bush had been in office prior to its fall, the Berlin Wall would still standing.
Yes, if there are no direct talks, the Iranians will be pushed even harder to the wall, and that is a recipe for war.
|
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Nixon went to China and hugged Mao. China already had Nukes |
|
Edited on Thu Apr-20-06 09:31 AM by Tom Rinaldo
And China was the biggest supplier of weapons to the Vietnamese who fought and killed tens of thousands of American soldiers. And Reagan held summits with the leader of the "Evil Empire".
George W. Bush's unofficial doctrine of "we will not hold talks with our enemies until they stop being our enemy" is a prescription for war, nothing else.
|
Arkansas Granny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-20-06 08:27 AM
Response to Original message |
4. I believe that's what Bush is counting on. He thinks that another |
|
war with "terrorists" will boost his ratings and give him some more political capital. The man is a dangerous fool and tool of PNAC.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |