troublemaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-08-06 02:29 PM
Original message |
Gates = done deal of a punt on Iraq (to Baker) |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-08-06 02:45 PM by troublemaker
Gates is longtime Baker buddy and is on the Baker/Hamilton commission. Bush has already decided to accede to the more hawkish of the two main Baker/Hamilton scenarios and is preparing the playing field to make a graceful pivot. ("We've never been about Democracy in Iraq. This has never been nation building.")
Since Gates is on the Baker/Hamilton commission and probably agrees with Baker 100% his appt as SecDef is a complete acceptance of their (Gate's and Baker's) already existing Iraq policy.
So Gates isn't just an appointment, it is a specific Iraq policy shift in itself. We, the people, won't know the details of the new WH policy for a week but it's already baked in the cake.
On Edit: It occurs to me that Bush has to do this during the lame duck period so Dems don't get any of the credit.
|
Dhalgren
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-08-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message |
1. What do you think the new policy will be? Doubling the US troop |
|
strength to 300,000 and installing a Bathist dictatorship? Sounds like what the "old men" of the party would do...
|
troublemaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-08-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Abandon "democracy" as a goal and pull out of Bagdhad, remove |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-08-06 02:42 PM by troublemaker
some troops, broker oil revenue deal, special forces vs. foreign fighters in Anbar is supposed to be the Baker plan. (All I know is what I read in the papers.)
The less-hawkish of the two scenarios hasn't been discussed nearly as much, so I don't know what that enatils. (Is that going to be the Hamilton plan vs. the Baker plan?)
Either way, I expect this hot potato to be thrown in Baker's lap. He's the cleaner. (And perhaps the fall guy)
In one book Baker was quoted to the effect that: "The Bushes treat me like the goddamned butler."
|
Solly Mack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-08-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I agree. It 's a sign of an upcoming policy shift |
|
that they will spin as being the policy all along.
|
Dhalgren
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-09-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I'm afraid that they are going to escalate and increase the number |
|
of troops - it just sounds like where they would go. Several prominent Democrats have suggested troop level increases, so the murderers would have at least some "cover"...
|
Solly Mack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-09-06 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Kissinger said yesterday "they" wouldn't increase troops |
|
"They" being Bush, since Henry is advising Bush these days.
But "they" always lie, so....
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |