Nice piece, Gary. I only hope you're right, because the Washington power-elite doesn't like change; make's 'em uncomfortable. Boy-george has really put their asses in the soup though, hasn't he?

I have to wonder: couldn't Baker, or someone like him, get an audience with King George, and then just chew him a new one? I mean really chew his ass out. Something like this:

"you FUCKING DUMB SHIT! We fucking put you in this office, and we can fucking take you down. Don't roll your eyes and smirk at me, you cocksucking moron. You started a war you KNEW was misbegotten, inspired by some dumbass shit from over in Cheney's office, and now your ass is in the highest, tightest sling you could make for it, and you want to keep doing what you're doing. Jesus, you are so fucking stupid. And no, you can't talk right now. You're going to listen to this: you're going to do what we tell you, when we tell you, and Cheney can go pound sand. His day is done. And your day will be done very soon now, if you don't get with the fucking program and do the right thing."

Not very imaginative, but you get my point. Isn't there anyone who can chew him out so hard he'll do the right thing?

Maybe not..as long as Cheney is hovering over boy-george like a goddamned buzzard, nothing will change. You know, it sure would be nice to know just who is pulling Cheney's strings, because you can bet your butt someone is.

It's hard for me to believe that the Current Asshole is functioning very well right now. If someone went in there and ripped him a new one, who knows?

To think that what is going on in the Middle East has a long fuse is to be in denial.

Folks, there are thousands of people dead (with many thousands of family and friends grieving---some (many?) seeking revenge, I'm sure. If anarchy is but seven meals away, begin hoarding your rations, because the Middle East could explode at any time. (Yeah, and our cushy American oil fiesta lives could change pronto.)

We may not have until Georgie leaves office to get this thing under "control".

Cheers

"Bush's remarks echoed his previous statements and gave no indication of any change of strategy.

He defined success in Iraq as "a country that governs, defends itself, that is a free society, that serves as an ally in this war on terror."

"And the reason why that's vital," he said, "is because Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States."

Bush spoke the truth: US foreign policy in the middle east is all about serving the needs of the US, not about what is good for the countries involved. And past practices that have kept those countries in line have become more and more non-functional. Shock and awe didn't work and neither will huffing puffing about the birth pangs of a new middle east.

And neither Republicans or Democrats will even breathe about the possibilty of forcing Isreal to accept the eventual painful compromises neccessary for a lasting peace.

"Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the authors are a gang of plodding, blue-chip, ultra-mainstream centrists."

Even Edwin Meese?

The part I don't get is these fools actually think Iran will be willing to sit down with them.

Boy George can't admit he has no cards so why the hell would Iran sit down with a moron holding a pair of deuces?

What's in it for them?

A piece of paper saying, "We won't bomb you."?

It is to laugh.

Iran can sit tight and wait for a long long time until Amerika exhausts itself and bugs out.

Never mind the fact that the Ship of State struck the iceberg almost 4 years ago and that such an effort might allow a few more souls to reach the lifeboats before she slips beneath the waves.

Sorry for the Titanic analogy but some clichés are irresistible, particularly given the futility and tragedy revealed by the Iraq Study Group report and Bush's predictable response. Now that there has been time to digest and analyze the observations and 79 recommendations offered by the ISG, all sides of the debate have been able to find the points that support their personal perspective.

A more or less random sampling of Administration sound bites leads me to conclude that GWB is building the case for a heavily disguised and just slightly modified "Stay the Course" strategy. The fight between the Republican hard right and the Republican establishment that is now growing in intensity will give him the cover this "way forward" needs for the time being. Don't be mistaken, this is solely about Republican electoral politics, as the various factions and "presidential hopefuls" jockey for position. For the purposes of this political wrestling match, US national security, the fate of Iraq and its citizens, and the lives and limbs of our troops are irrelevant to the contestants, though they will constantly and even tearfully demonstrate their feelings for the troops whenever a camera or microphone is turned on in their presence.

A quick and dirty analysis suggests that the Administrations refusal to make significant changes in strategy or tactics is itself a radical decision. Given the pace of refugee flows, both within Iraq and across the borders to Jordan, Syria, etc., staying the course is in fact an unambiguous endorsement of a divided Iraq. No one dares to openly endorse such a division because of the havoc it plays with the neighboring states and because of the conspicuous failure it represents relative to recently stated objectives. Clearly, the administration's concept is; screw the neighboring states. Look for those stated objectives to evolve in the coming weeks.

The whole propaganda in the lead-up to the 'liberation' of Iraq was relentlessly disciplined and on-message. It's aim was simple. Increase US control in the region. A quick and successful decapitation, a pliant country, bases, plug Iraq into the US financial network, oil etc...and you have a good springboard to terrorise Iran and Syria and the other so-called axis of evil powers.

It was this massive and ambitious desire for control by some fairly incompetent self-deceiving amateurs that has ironically resulted in a nightmare loss of control. Yes the ISG is an intervention, but some things really are best not started. It's impossible to unscramble the omelette.

The ISG is a fig-leaf for a president who is no way a competent or clear-sighted thinker, regardless of any rumour that he is smarter in private than he seems to be in public.

James Baker more so than Lee Hamilton always looks very pissed off to me when he tries to claim that Bush is listening to him. He's a proud man Baker, he is not happy about how jnr's petulance is making him look.

We now have to commit more blood and treasure to save jnr's face. Oh the folly of the human condition, twas ever thus, the vainglorious and the proud will commit any further crime to deflect from the gathering public gaze at their unmasked failure. It's by the same logic that when asked "knowing what you know now, would you still invade Iraq" that both Bush and Blair say "of course", when 'of course' is of course in this context the answer of an insane person.

It says something about the hollowness of public life, that we haven't run these two charlatans out of town instead of debating the finer points of troop levels being raised or moved around like so much shuffling of the remaining deckchairs on the proverbial....

Kamiya is right in my view, when Bush has been and gone, the lessons of this fiasco have been , are, and will be so painful, that if I was Olmert right now, I'd be very worried indeed. That's why he recently delivered an astonishing pean of overblown proportions to Bush and stated with a straight face that the Iraq war had brought stability to the Middle East. I ask you! I mean Really! Lying on this level is tantamount to mental illness.