Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: freelyhovering who wrote (31333)	11/10/2006 6:16:55 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541622

Myron - I hadn't read that. Interesting stuff. It just occurred to me that what's going on in Iraq is not exactly a war at this point. It's more an occupation that is going very, very badly. This is from the Wikipedia article on George H.W. Bush: "In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States 'bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.' "Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have 'incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq'. "In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, 'Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.'" - Allen

To: freelyhovering who wrote (31333)	11/10/2006 8:10:51 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541622

On yesterday's Dowd column, I guess that's where I read that. It sounds about right. But it's giving Baker an awful lot of clout. If Bush can be believed (a definite stretch), he decided to replace Rumsfeld some time ago (runs counter to the several inside stories that Cheney fought it up to the day or two before the election). And if that's even close to true, it could well be that Rumsfeld has been living on the proverbial borrowed time for some time and that Baker seeded the final straw that broke the camel's back (just love mixing metaphors). It does make extremely good sense that Baker would not want Rumsfeld around if he (Baker) sensed his own commission's recommendations would be seriously different from the present strategy. My own misgivings is that it gives Baker a great deal of clout. With a president who has, quite notoriously, not given such to his father's advisors. But, just perhaps, Bush the son has given up on Iraq and needs only the slightest of fig leaves as cover to leave Dodge.