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: JohnM who wrote (32196)	11/30/2006 11:00:26 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541122

The New York Times' editorial board is very pointed in its criticism of Bush. Very pointed. ---- The New York Times December 1, 2006 Editorial Bush, Maliki and That Memo President Bush’s news conference yesterday with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq had an even greater than usual sense of unreality about it, with Mr. Bush insisting that Mr. Maliki is “the right guy for Iraq” and that American troops will stay “until the job is complete,” while Mr. Maliki asserted that his country is a democracy and he is not a captive of Shiite militias. But the disconnect seemed even more stunning once you realized that Mr. Bush’s national security adviser had sent him a memorandum three weeks ago describing how Iraq was being pulled apart by sectarian hatreds and warning that Mr. Maliki was either “ignorant of what is going on” or unwilling or unable to stop it. The memo, which was published by The Times this week, at least answers the question of whether Mr. Bush is being told what’s going on in Iraq. In it, his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, describes how Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government has deprived Sunnis of basic services, blocked military actions against Shiite targets and purged Iraq’s most effective military commanders to ensure Shiite dominance. The memo also warns that Mr. Maliki may not have “the political or security capabilities” to free himself from his narrow militia-dominated political base. But the president’s performance this week — his refusal to impose any deadlines on Mr. Maliki to start reconciliation talks and break with the militias, and his refusal to give the Pentagon a deadline to stand up an effective Iraqi Army — tells us once again that Mr. Bush does not listen. That does not bode well for James Baker and the Iraq Study Group, which, according to reports, is likely to call for some pullback of American combat troops along with more aggressive regional diplomacy. Yesterday, Mr. Bush seemed eager to preempt that advice, brushing off suggestions that he talk directly to Iran and insisting that there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq. Mr. Bush’s lack of curiosity was well known even before he became president, but as time has gone on and bad news has mounted, that disinterested quality has turned into a stubborn refusal to hear bad news. The country simply cannot afford it any longer. Three years of having Mr. Bush trust only his gut has plunged Iraq into bloody chaos and done untold damage to America. There needs to be an urgent change in policy. Mr. Hadley’s memo actually provides a clue to how Mr. Bush has managed to avoid facing hard facts. Despite the horrific situation it describes, the policy recommendations fail to convey any strong sense of urgency and seem to shrug off American responsibility for what has gone wrong. Either the president’s security adviser was afraid to be as blunt as the situation requires or he, too, has managed to convince himself that the disaster is really not all that disastrous. The president’s advisers need to tell him all the harsh truths about Iraq in the vivid terms they require; they need to tell him how little time he has left to act. This administration has been orchestrating a foreign policy disaster of epic proportions, and history will remember both that the president failed to hear the warning bells and that many others failed to ring them loudly enough. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (32196)	12/1/2006 3:09:04 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541122

>>The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American pullout would open the way to all-out civil war.<< JohnM - The Viet Nam parallels just continue to pile up. One of the main reasons given for not withdrawing our troops back then was that a "bloodbath" would ensue. The idea was that the Viet Cong would massacre anyone who had collaborated with the US as soon as our troops were gone. We got out, and the bloodbath didn't happen. Of course, it is true that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese avoided the possibilty of coming to harm at the hands of the VC by leaving the country. Anybody got a spare room for some Sunni refugees? There are plenty of smart people who believe that our withdrawal from Iraq would actually decrease the level of violence there, since it is the very presence of occupying troops that has many of the people riled up. Of course it's really impossible to say exactly what will happen if we leave now, next month, or next year. What we do know is what's happening now, with 140,000 US troops on the ground. It isn't good. - Allen