Since we are in the 4th month 120 days from now will be autumn-which is also when Petraeus predicts the phased redeployment will begin.
The article "Why I Declined To Serve" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500564.html?nav=hcmodule explains that W failed at crafting a coherent Middle East policy. He is labeling surge--which is a tactic, as a policy, because he is incompetent. It states "Today, because of the war in Iraq, this nation is in a crisis of confidence and is confused about its foreign policy direction, especially in the Middle East...
What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region."
Regarding W's failure to develop a Middle East policy it continues "The third strategy takes a larger view of the region and the desired end state. Simply put, where does Iraq fit in a larger regional context? The United States has and will continue to have strategic interests in the greater Middle East well after the Iraq crisis is resolved and, as a matter of national interest, will maintain forces in the region in some form. The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult. In the case of Iran, we have allowed Tehran to develop more policy options and tools than it had a few years ago. Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests.
Of the three strategies in play, the third is the most important but, unfortunately, is the least developed and articulated by this administration.... Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined."
W failed at his job-creating policy for the Middle East. Since he wanted to get votes he fired his colossal failure at Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, stole a role from the military--developing the surge operation and labeling it as a policy, and hunted far and wide to come up with someone, Petraeus, who would go along with the surge. Come the fall he will be lauding the success of his Iraq occupation-no matter how desperate the reality on the ground is, and overseeing the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq-at the request of Petraeus, without crediting the Democrats for their work.
The article "The Truth Congress Is Owed" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601409.html?nav=hcmodule explains it succinctly, in W's own team's word as "In response to Congress, for example, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said at a recent briefing: "We said, 'There's no need to authorize subpoenas, because we have-even though we don't have any responsibility to you, and you don't have any specific oversight over the White House, we are willing to have our four officials that you've asked for to go up and have an interview with members of Congress. . . .' "
No American president has ever attempted to make such a broad claim, and no precedent provides a legal justification to support that perspective.
W thinks he is king. Kings do what they want and don't have to answer to anyone. A king he is not--and he'll have his day before the US judicial system, probably without Gonzales to help him.
The article "Why I Declined To Serve" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500564.html?nav=hcmodule explains that W failed at crafting a coherent Middle East policy. He is labeling surge--which is a tactic, as a policy, because he is incompetent. It states "Today, because of the war in Iraq, this nation is in a crisis of confidence and is confused about its foreign policy direction, especially in the Middle East...
What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region."
Regarding W's failure to develop a Middle East policy it continues "The third strategy takes a larger view of the region and the desired end state. Simply put, where does Iraq fit in a larger regional context? The United States has and will continue to have strategic interests in the greater Middle East well after the Iraq crisis is resolved and, as a matter of national interest, will maintain forces in the region in some form. The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult. In the case of Iran, we have allowed Tehran to develop more policy options and tools than it had a few years ago. Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests.
Of the three strategies in play, the third is the most important but, unfortunately, is the least developed and articulated by this administration.... Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined."
W failed at his job-creating policy for the Middle East. Since he wanted to get votes he fired his colossal failure at Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, stole a role from the military--developing the surge operation and labeling it as a policy, and hunted far and wide to come up with someone, Petraeus, who would go along with the surge. Come the fall he will be lauding the success of his Iraq occupation-no matter how desperate the reality on the ground is, and overseeing the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq-at the request of Petraeus, without crediting the Democrats for their work.
The article "The Truth Congress Is Owed" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601409.html?nav=hcmodule explains it succinctly, in W's own team's word as "In response to Congress, for example, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said at a recent briefing: "We said, 'There's no need to authorize subpoenas, because we have-even though we don't have any responsibility to you, and you don't have any specific oversight over the White House, we are willing to have our four officials that you've asked for to go up and have an interview with members of Congress. . . .' "
No American president has ever attempted to make such a broad claim, and no precedent provides a legal justification to support that perspective.
W thinks he is king. Kings do what they want and don't have to answer to anyone. A king he is not--and he'll have his day before the US judicial system, probably without Gonzales to help him.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
