Gate-keeper to Cheney's War

[H2O Man]

President Bush’s attempt to claim that the war in Iraq is primarily a struggle against al Qaeda came as a surprise to many Americans. The November elections had given voice to the majority of citizens’ hopes that their elected leaders would find an honorable way to end the US occupation of Iraq. The corporate media has begun to report what we already know: that the conflict in Iraq is a civil war, and that the foreign force most responsible for the death and destruction is the United States.

Many people had hoped that the Baker Commission would offer the Bush Administration a way out of the mess it is fully responsible for creating. Reports have suggested this bipartisan group would outline four potential choices: (1) to "get out fast" by withdrawing all 150,000 US troops; (2) to "surge forward" by sending an additional force of 20,000 or more troops to occupy Baghdad; (3) to "train and retreat" in much the manner we did at the end of the Vietnam "conflict"; or (4) to "dig in" and stay the course.

More, the public had hoped that the firing of Donald Rumsfeld offered hope that the tragic "stay the course" option was being taken off the table. The media reported that VP Cheney had been opposed to getting rid of Rumsfeld, and was not in favor of replacing him with Robert Gates.

Most DUers recognize that: (a) the Baker Commission is no more interested in what is good for this former today, than Mr. Baker was when he helped place an un-elected George W. Bush into the White House, rather than the actual winner of the 2000 election, Al Gore; (b) and that Gates is an unindicted criminal from the Iran-Contra scandals, who has no business serving in our government. An article in the December 4, 2006 edition of TIME confirms this.

In "Mr. Gates’ Options" (pages 32 - 36), Michael Duffy notes that, "Sources say renewed pressure from both political flanks in the U.S. is making it difficult for the commission’s center to hold. ….While a Baker-led deal is still a good bet, several sources said, the odds that the commission will be unable to provide a clear users’ guide to cleaning up Iraq are narrowing."

Duffy makes clear "that means Gates may need to sort out the options on his own." Gates, of course, was considered a "key member" of the Baker Commission. A person associated with it told Duffy that Gates "not only will understand the proposals, he will know the origins of them."

The president’s ranting about al Qaeda in Iraq seemed quite the opposite of a step towards resolving the problems he caused. In fact, many people recognize this as Bush being a puppet for VP Dick Cheney, who continues to insist this war is about some connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Duffy also states that "present and former government officials say Vice President Cheney intends to oppose any proposal that would make regional talks with Iran or Syria a key part of the U.S.’s Iraq strategy, even though Baker favors such an opening."

What might we expect from Gates? In his second sentence, Duffy notes that "during the first Bush Administration (Gates) sided most often with a Defense Secretary named Dick Cheney."

[mom cat]

1. K&R.

[Annces]

2. A No Win situation

I don't see how we are going to stay there, no matter who wants to do that.

[H2O Man]

3. I believe that Baker

is going to propose training the Iraqi troops, and moving US troops out of the cities. They will then be closer to the oil supplies, though that is probably just a coincidence.

[cassiepriam]

16. Ever notice how Bush is the king of creating no win situations?

Or maybe not, the rich always get richer in
all of his "failed" deals.

[H2O Man]

17. It is so terrible

to watch the news and to see the horrors that this administration has caused, and to consider how there is no good answer on how to deal with it. More, to watch this lying snake rant about the need to stay there until we achieve "victory" -- a concept he is incapable of defining -- makes me sick. He is willing to remain stubborn, no matter how many Americans and Iraqis have to suffer and die, rather than admit he was wrong. His primary goal is to postpone taking any meaningful actions, and to leave the war for the next president. He is so selfish

This morning on Imus, republican Jay Severin called for Bush to be impeached, based upon his current behavior regarding Iraq.

[cassiepriam]

20. I continue to be haunted by the unending carnage, all caused

by BushCo. And to see them applaud themselves
over and over is revolting and despicable. And
as usual he will let others clean up his mess.

If Bush is not impeached then the Constitution
and all the safeguards in place are meaningless.

[H2O Man]

21. When I look

at the hell he created in Iraq, and all of the suffering and death of innocent human beings, and then look at him on tv, I wonder if it ever occures to him -- in all of his self-righteous religiosity -- that he is Herod?

[cassiepriam]

25. I have wondered the same thing, if he has any sense of remorse, shame or

guilt? Any sense of the horrific amount of blood
on his hands. The tremendous waste of US financial resources
that will adversely impact future generations.

If his public statements are an accurate reflection of his feelings
it looks like not. He has manufactured his own reality in which
he is the hero in a good vs bad scenario. He is fighting an enemy
and proceeding with s noble cause to liberate an opposed people. It certainly has the feel of a psychotic like sense of reality. The deaths he sees are only bolstering his view that the bad guys are bad and he is fighting the good fight. All incoming data in other words is distorted to fit his sense of reality. And he also makes sure no one is around him who might tell him the truth.

Typically sociopaths have no quilt, remorse or shame. None at all.
The only time they are uncomfortable is when they get caught and have
some unwanted consequences. Bush seems to feel totally above the law and any consequences so I would guess no, he is feeling minimal discomfort. Every now and then you see him getting really angry when challenged and that seems to be the only strong feeling he has. And it is also apparent he is drinking quite a bit, so that would further serve to medicate against any discomfort that perhaps creeps in from time to time. Also I suspect that he may be having blackouts, he lies with such impunity that it is possible he has no memory of some of the things he says and does.

[antigop]

23. It really is depressing

Sometimes I just sit and cry when I think about what they have done.

[KoKo]

28. Gates is a worry. Did you hear they moved up Iraq Report to Dec. 6th!

According to Blitzer it's to pre-empt Bush's own study group and study group is unanimous and will meet with Bush then with Democrats and then hold a press conference. Blitzer said the word was Baker will be the forceful lead of the group and that "the President" will need to listen to this unanimous decision. Blitzer said that reports of "infighting amongst the group" apparently were erroneous since the report is coming out on the 6th and being presented to both Bush and the Dems.

:shrug: What's really weird, too, is who decided to leak the intelligence report on Maliki while Bush is on the way to his Big Summit? Was it Hadley or someone else? And, who wanted Bush to appear the Fool for having Abdullah and Malliki say.."sorry we need to postpone the meeting" like they had better things to do.

Strange stuff going on the past few days and it's hard to wrap brain around it. I wonder if Gates will get through hearings. :shrug: My bet from past experience is that he will...at least that's what us Dems are used to seeing...but who knows. He has so much bad baggage.

[H2O Man]

29. It was not Hadley.

He couldn't do it, without the okay from one of either two people: Rice or Cheney. The two would have different reasons for telling him to "leak" it.

Nothing good can come from Gates being put into office. Only bad things.

[shance]

24. No win for who? The Bush Administration and friends win big,

very big, if they take over the Iraq, Iran and eventually the Middle East.

[cassiepriam]

26. Bingo

In the text of my message I point out that the no win situation
is for everyone else but themselves.

They always get very very rich and have no consequences in all their
"failed" schemes.

I agree that destabilizing the middle east is to their benefit.
They can go in and steal all the oil.

[shance]

27. It's not only Iraq. They are working to destabilize our country too.

Just more slowly and more covertly.

[H2O Man]

30. Right.

Thank goodness that wizard Newt Gingrich is looking out for our safety, and is advocating doing away with Amendment 1.

[cassiepriam]

31. Oh they have already destabilized the US.

We have been in a psychological civil war here in the US for some time now.
And the country has been turned into an oligarchy.
The Constitution, free press, free speech, free elections all gone.
And they stole the US treasury, and ran up the US credit card for generations.
Many got very wealthy with this theft.

Creating chaos is their MO. And disabling any and all institutions and
infrastructure. Once they do that, they can take over all the resources.

[Me.]

4. Well....

This is certainly food for thought. So which way do you think this will go? If Gates was once aligned with Cheney, is he still or is Baker his honey pot now? If it comes down to a Cheney/Baker face-off, who will win? Will junior completely ignore the Baker commission, and if he does where does that leave Poppy and Baker's reputation? Will Cheney, still pushing for an assault on Iran, get his way if junior remains adamant in his refusal to move out of denial? Is the whole thing a big farce, a distracting of the eye? Have they so totally misread the public mood?

By the by, it was nice to see Carter on Hardball say he believed Gore won the election.

[DemReadingDU]

5. I think there is to be a report from the pentagon?

a 2nd report, that will suggest whatever it is that Bush wants to do

[H2O Man]

14. Speculation ....

Cheney went to see the Saudi leaders, because he wants to create a conflict in Iran. Not an all-out war with ground troops, but anair attack to hit specific targets. This is part of the PNAC mentality: remember they were intent upon not allowing any regional power to rise to a position where it could challenge "American" interests. Iran meets that definition, as they are in charge of significant portions of Iraq today.

Baker is advocating a policy similar to what failed in Vietnam. He wants to have the US train Iraqi troops, and then be removed from the urban areas. This would not move them out of Iraq entirely; some would go to Kuwait, and others to the less-populated areas to guard the oil reserves.

Gates is hoping to re-establish stronger ties to those forces inside Iran that he did business with in the Rwagan-Bush1 era. This isn't exactly the Chalabi delusion that Cheney suffered from, nor is it quite as progressive as the democrats in the Baker Commission are pressing for.

[Me.]

18. Why Would The Saudis Cooperate With Creating Conflict In Iran?

Surely greater conflict in the middle east is not in their best interests?

[H2O Man]

19. The Saudi

"royal family" is not big on Iran. And, as someone said on MSNBC last night, we are seeing the water-way that allows export of oil being recognized as the Persian Gulf, not the Arab Gulf.

[spindrifter]

6. Bush's rant seems like the run-up

to a classic "blame the victim" scenario. His ridiculous questions for Al-Maliki are a shameless effort to make it look like the ball is in the Iraqi court, when it is not. Who will win? EvilDeadEye is in the driver's seat.

[bleever]

7. Would you please clarify

this phrase from the OP: "...the Baker Commission is no more interested in what is good for this former today..."

Was the word "former" intended to be "country"? That's my guess.

I'm also guessing that the Baker Commission is primarily interested in serving the interests of big oil and Republican rule (starting by salvaging W's legacy), rather than the troops, the institution of the armed forces, or the American people as a whole.

[Disturbed]

8. "Have they so totally misread the public mood?"

This Regime doesn't give a damn about the American Public. Cheney has already said this.

[Me.]

10. True Enough

But others who have a stake in the game do, and it is why they are so concerned, the party as well as his father and his father's gang. Junior's catastrophe has made them way too visible/vulnerable, and in a way has lifted the curtain on them and potentially, their dirty schemes. Things have come to quite a pass when the Vice President of the United States can be summoned by the Saudis.

[cassiepriam]

15. Remember, they don't make decisions by "focus group"

Translated: we don't give a good damn about what the
people want or need.

[H2O Man]

12. Yikes!

Sorry about that. I meant to write that Mr. Baker is not interested in the common good of this country, that he is representing the selfish interests of his former co-workers in the Bush Empire.

[rosesaylavee]

9. We can't have Gates confirmed.

We can't have another Cheney puppet. Please. No.

[Disturbed]

11. Rumsfailed should have been Impeached but the Congress

failed in it's Constitutional Oath. He should now be indicted for his crimes after he leaves office. The Dems should stall off voting for Gates until late Jan. then all vote no on him. Force Busholini bring forth another person that is not in bed with Bush 1.

[rosesaylavee]

13. I'm all for that.

January should be a very interesting month in our country's history.

[The_Mule]

22. A link to the Michael Duffy article in Time

that H2O Man mentions.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562949,00.html

Once again, H2O Man is doing a great job of summarizing, educating, and enlightening.