"A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son “are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice”—the Secretary of State—“a chance to perform.” The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, “tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can’t do it.” "

(emphasis mine)

url: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact

it's quite a long article, primarily assessing the winds wrt attacking Iran ... and how they plan to get around any "boland-type" restrictions congress may try to enact, a la Iran-Contra ....... however, that paragraph re Condi seemed worth sharing.

ARREST THEM ALL

WAR CRIMINALS

THAT THEY ARE.

sub sole sub umbra virens

is it Adolphs' Warsaw Ghetto, last Century

or

is it King Georges' Falligua NEW AMERICAN CENTURY?

Compassion?

Conservative?

MURDERER? by decree or by order?

The History Major of Yale, that Conneticut Yankee George Walker Bush will graduate without IMPEACHMENT!

Only if "WE THE PEOPLE" survive his war on the usa and terror of the planet!

...you can't distinguish the end from the beginning.

I don't expect perfection from Salon, but I expect more than this. If we wanted this level of analysis we could just consult the MSM. Even someone with an average memory and a half-hour to spend on the internet could dig up enough facts to set off alarms not just about Rice's supposed new-found vision, but the whole "study group" story.

This administration has been so opposed to anything smacking of independent thought that it began purging any "moderates" it had initially conceded to accept in advisory roles immediately after being handed the reigns of power. Even credentialled conservatives that questioned war cost estimates and projected troop level requirements were unceremoniously fired. In contrast, "mushroom cloud" Rice was considered to be such a team player that she was elevated to replace that unacceptable maveric [?!] Colin Powell, and she has been a pivotal figure in Shrub's second term team, which by all accounts has been an extreme, elite club of obsessive neocon yes-men and yes-women determined to exist outside of the "reality-based" world. The only sure lesson revealed by the recent elections is that Americans have decided to reject this type of imperial rule, and the media- especially Salon- needs to be holding this administration accountable until enough facts have accumulated to indicate there really has been a change of heart. Events so far have indicated no such thing, and this attempt to reframe Rice as a champion is weak at best. So what's with the free ride?

This brings me to my second point, and explains my circle reference. Anything that is revealed with as much fanfare, careful timing, and spin as Baker's bipartisan study group is an event that needs to be given a thorough check over. Why is Baker all of a sudden being elevated to the status of uber-diplomat? Our debacle with Iraq began with the invasion of Kuwait. Would the world be more stable if this had never happened? Probably, though we'll never know for sure. But we can be fairly sure the invasion would not have happened if one event had played out differently:

"As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02).

What if she had instead told Hussein- who at the time was our friend and ally despite having committed attrocities which were later used for justification of the 2003 invasion- that we and the rest of the world would kick his ass if he invaded Kuwait [in diplomatic terms, of course]. But instead she went on to quote her boss:

"James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

There are many possible reasons why G.H.W.B. and his "concierge" James Baker allowed things to play out like they did, but there's little doubt that they could also have stopped it from ever happening. We also have first hand knowledge of the end result of their chosen policy. Why now are we turning to these same people as the heroes that can fix it?

Oops!

The last word in my letter under this heading should obviously be: UNreleased

I don’t understand why (as manifested in the letters on this subject to date) there is such clamor and contentious demurring about who should get the credit for forming, or even permitting, a “study group” about the debacle that has developed in Iraq. What is abundantly clear, regardless of who initiated the idea or “facilitated” White House cooperation in its charter, is that it is more about whatever can be salvaged from the precipitously eroding perception of George W. Bush’s potential legacy. Sad to say, that fact is the unfortunate reality which makes this exercise (Iraq Study Group) so insulting to the American people. As insular as this president has been, it has also become increasingly obvious that he has a well-deserved and legitimate concern for the eventual historical assessment of his tenure in the White House.

The insult to the American people, is that Bush heretofore has used every other means at his disposal to “stay the course” for the duration of this unwarranted, and shameful waste of human life and material resources; while advancing multiple “straw man” arguments for continuing its prosecution. If that’s insufficient recognition to cause concern for his legacy, certainly squandering the obvious opportunity for elevation of this country’s stature and respect in the world after 9/11 should be. Think about it. Does anyone believe that the impetus for any kind of so-called “Study Group” was due to an epiphany moment about the ongoing costs of this calamity?

More likely, White House cooperation, regardless of who “facilitated” it, was driven by the same reality check that inspired Ronald Reagan to enlist the services of Mr. Abshire, amidst the tumult surrounding Iran Contra in his second term.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051121/21qa.htm

I agree that Frank Wolf was undoubtedly the key player in driving this. I also agree with Lloyd Little that Rice was simply doing her job as it relates to this issue. Rice’s performance as described here, despite Benjamin’s kudos for her acumen and her “maneuvering to sidestep…………Rumsfeld”, is entirely consistent with her manifest protectionist attitude toward this president. Her role could best be described, from what’s reported, as the facilitator. Please take note of the timing of the initial meeting (11/29/05) and the timing of the Abshire USnews article referenced above (11/21/05).

Before engaging in any polemics about who should or shouldn’t get credit for this, we should be aware of what the Rice State Department’s ISG position is:

“The department and the administration have embraced this effort from the beginning as a way to show and maintain public support for advancing our goals in Iraq.”

Given what this administration has, at various times, stated as “our goals”; who really thinks this is something now worth even considering for whom the credit should be given? It seems the people who voted on November 7th didn’t think much of that agenda.

Although the president has stated that “We were never about stay the course” during the run-up to the election, this “Study Group” looks suspiciously like a way to find replacement language and attendant tactical initiatives for “stay the course” before the baton for this catastrophe is passed by Bush to his successor. We should also be aware that Rice assuredly knows she has inextricably tied herself to the legacy of this president and this administration.

I think we should all be asking how many more lives are being lost and how much more this is costing us while these characters have been germinating this idea (ISG) and sitting in meetings. Presumably, these meetings and finesse development exercises are still ongoing while the carnage and malfeasance continues. In my opinion, these are more appropriate concerns than engagement in discussions about who gets credit for what amounts to a dubious report that today remains released.