May 23, 2008
Baker and Appeasement; My scoop on the 2006 Video!
cognitorex wrote:July 27, 2007
General Petraeus and More Dying to do in Iraq
The Sunni insurgents are a viable fighting force numbering in the tens of thousands. At no point in our lifetime will they be defeated.
Therefore political accommodations may be made to install peace in Iraq, but there is categorically no 'victory' available.
The enemy we set out to defeat, the forces of Saddam and the Baathists, are still viable and present on the battlefield. We have backed new governing forces, which already reek of Baathist misconduct and which also must accommodate the insurgents politically to survive. There is no victory ever to be had in Iraq.
That the dominant American political civilian overseers (Bush / Cheney / neocons) lack both desire for and any visible skill in negotiating makes the difficult simply impossible.
A sincere best of luck to Gen. Petraeus.
Labels: Iraq, negotiating, no victory in Iraq, Petraeus
The original reporting of the Baker Hannity discussion on negotiating and appeasement report is attributable to Craig Johnson aka cognitorex, that's me, right here, how fun to get a scoop, on Op-Ed News October 2006 and his blog cognitorex dot blogspot dot com (Baker flummoxes Hannity). It was also first ressurected/reported in this cycle in Talking Points Memo (TPM Cafe) on Monday May 18 at 7:00 am)See below original report:
TPM Cafe link, which went around net on various sites is:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/co...
October 6, 2006 at 09:03:14
BAKER FLUMMOXES HANNITY: RIPS BUSH FOREIGN POLICY
by (link=): http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_craig_j...)
craig johnson Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
James Baker, the globally accomplished diplomat and former GOP Secretary of State under Reagan totally flummoxed the cartoonish GOP bagman, Sean Hannity.
Point blank, Baker said that given the choice between waging a war or a foreign policy solely restricted to establishing a new democracy in the Mid-east or alternatively pursuing policies of stabilizing the region, policies of stabilization were preferable.
Hannity tried to parry this heretical bashing of Bush's core foreign policy talking point with the usual GOP gobbledygook propaganda such as "this is "World War III" and "this is a fight against Islamo Fascists." Baker seemed uninterested in Sean's offer of GOP red meat talking points and he continued.
Paraphrased as best I can, Baker said, "Given the choice between engaging America's forces based on a principle (i.e. 'democracy') or based on establishing stability, stability is, all things considered, the superior objective.
Not yet finished shredding the inept Bush, Rice, Cheney foreign policy, Baker continued by basically saying that not engaging in talks with America's enemies was nuts and sophomoric (my words). He recounted that he personally visited Syria almost twenty times and on his next visit Syria abandoned their twenty-year-old policy towards Israel and agreed to sit with Israel in negotiations, de facto recognizing their existence.
(The original reporting by me came from simply switching to Fox during "Brittany/Paris" gossip type reporting on MSNBC then me having my mouth drop open as Hannity was dosed and flummoxed with non GOP red meat talking points by Baker.)
Op-Ed news took it as an 'Article" and it received 40,000 hits world wide.)
PS This a sloppy post because my Mother is/was in critical condition and home is now a nursing home. I am biz-ee.