Tonight, Condoleezza Rice clarified the terms, trials, and tribulations. Secretary Rice spoke of a transformative energy. She discussed the questionable “Civil War” in Iraq. The Secretary of State noted the President’s continued “conviction” and “commitment.” Miss Rice was a featured speaker on the News Hour. Margaret Warner interviewed the honorable Secretary, Condoleezza Rice. This esteemed Cabinet member, known for being “closer to the President” than the rest of his staff declared
There is no doubt that the president went into this phase with the same conviction and the same commitment that he’s held throughout this war.
And that is that the decision to go into Iraq was because it was in the interest and the security interests of the United States to do so, and that failure in Iraq would have grave circumstances, grave consequences for American interests, for the interests of our friends and allies in the region, and, indeed, for global security.
Pray tell Miss Rice how secure are we as the violence escalates in Iraq and travels beyond Middle Eastern borders. Since the invasion of this Persian Gulf nation, terrorism has been on the rise. Occupying the country furthered the strife. Currently, throughout the world anti-American sentiments, thrive.
Globally, the United States is considered the enemy. Those in many countries, including our own, do not think we are truly working towards world peace. I ask, is this embattled endeavor in our best interest or in the best interest of our allies? I feel safe in saying, evidence shows we are not acting in the interest of Iraqis. Thousands of innocents are have lost their lives, limbs, and sight. More are maimed daily.
Miss Rice, you and your compassionate leader, our Commander-In-Chief say that we are moving “forward,” the strategy has changed; we will not stay the course. Yet, you profess
So that’s not going to change; that conviction, that commitment is not going to change.
The president has been very open to all kinds of suggestions as to how to meet the commitment to help an Iraqi government be able to sustain itself and defend itself and govern.
Open and closed to submissions that conflict with his steadfast dictums. According to an article in the Washington Post, the President “expressed little enthusiasm for the central ideas of a bipartisan commission.” Mr. Bush let it be known he has no desire to reduce military forces in Iraq; nor does he intend to introduce new avenues for a diplomatic approach in this region. He remains steadfast. Mr. Bush will not speak to those that do not do as he deems correct.
Secretary Rice, you state
And I would just note: It’s very interesting, when the Baker-Hamilton commission came out, that was the same conviction that that very illustrious group of Americans held, that we can’t afford to have a failure in Iraq.
Oh, Miss Rice I interpret the words of the Baker and Hamilton differently. Again, referring to a report published on December 7, 2006, in the Washington Post, I discern words of warning. Apparently, each of the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group declared “success in Iraq would not be guaranteed even if all their 79 recommendations were adopted by Congress and the administration.” The Baker-Hamilton Commission actually wrote in the final submission
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. Attacks on U.S. forces and U.S. casualties continue at an alarming rate. The Iraqi people are suffering great hardship.
The democratically-elected government that replaced Saddam Hussein is not adequately advancing the key issues of national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Economic development is hampered. The current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.
The United States has committed staggering resources. Our country has lost almost 2,900 Americans; 21,000 more have been wounded. The United States has spent an estimated $400 billion in Iraq, and costs could rise well over $1 trillion. Many Americans are, understandably, dissatisfied.
Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward. No course of action in Iraq is guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos.
It seems to me the Commission concludes that, thus far we have failed. Our actions have created a chaos that is unsurpassed and unimaginable. I agree; the Baker Hamilton report suggests there are other options that we may need to consider. However, it seems clear, Mr. Bush is not truly considering these; nor are you Secretary Rice,
The White House was yesterday considering an even deeper military commitment in Iraq, with a short-term deployment of 20,000 extra forces to Baghdad, a day after the US army chiefs warned that the force could break under the strain of the war.
Meanwhile, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, ruled out a diplomatic overture to Syria and Iran to enlist their support in stemming the chaos in Iraq.
The two developments reinforce reports that the White House is leaning towards a broad rejection of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for a withdrawal of US combat forces by early 2008, and for the opening of talks with Tehran and Damascus.
Surge is on the horizon.
Miss Rice, as you sat calmly addressing the nation or at least the Nightly News Hour audience the new Secretary of Defense was laying out the strategy, presenting an image of moving forward. Since the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many high-ranking military officials oppose the Bush strategy of “surge,’ justification needed to be found elsewhere. Support was sought and realized among the lowly service men and women. The Whitehouse turned to the humble, the hurt, those in need and asked, ‘would you welcome some help?’ .Solidiers tell Gates they want more troops.
Perhaps, misery loves company. There is lots of agony amongst our service persons.
I’ve noticed, Margaret [Warner of the News Hour] that, really, the Baker-Hamilton commission, but also since the elections, a renewed spirit by Americans, whatever their views of the decision to go to war, a renewed spirit in the Congress, among outside experts that the real issue is: How do we succeed under the circumstances?
Miss Rice the spirit is not “renewed” in defense of the war; people here want US [the United Sates] out of Iraq. The citizens of Iraq wanted us to leave “their” country long ago.
The recent midterm elections gave us, and them a sense of hope! Our countrymen imagined that our message would be heard. We, worldwide, those outside of the White House, want no war! If there was a spirit to be renewed it was in the direction of peace, not war. Citizens of Iraq and America want no surge!
Secretary Rice, you mention “commitment” and “conviction” in relationship to Iraq. I see that you and the President have a particular dedication to mass murder and mayhem. People around the globe, including many among the military brass, have another agenda. If there is a “win” to be had, and most of us believe this war is a lost cause. We hope the solution will be focused on achieving a peaceful, diplomatic, and deliberate end to this tragic situation. We want no more protracted and poorly planned missions.
Sources for a renewed spirit or surge!
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org or Be-Think
.
WASHINGTON D.C. (The Independent) Dec. 20 — A diplomatic effort involving all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council is the only way to stop Iraq falling apart in a religious, Sunni-Shia conflict that could spark a regional conflagration, an influential non-governmental organisation warned yesterday.
The Brussels-based International Crisis Group’s (ICG) findings will make even more grim reading for the White House than this month’s report from the American Iraq Study Group, as President George Bush struggles to come up with a strategy change.
Iraq, says the ICG’s report, faces “complete disintegration into failed-state chaos” and the solution does not lie in the transfer of responsibility to the fragile government of Nouri al-Maliki, as envisaged by the Bush administration and even by the study group led by the former secretary of state James Baker and the former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton.
To do that, argues After Baker-Hamilton: What to Do in Iraq, would mean “expanding forces that are complicit in the current dirty war and for speeding up the transfer of responsibility to a government that has done nothing to stop [that war].”
The ICG, whose mission is to prevent and resolve deadly conflicts, takes issue with advocates of a “surge” in US troop strength in Iraq and declares that there can be no military solution, only a political one. Instead the ICG wants the “big five” permanent members of the Security Council and Iraq’s six neighbours to form an “international support group” but not with the exclusive aim of propping up the Maliki government. “It must support Iraq which means pressing the government, along with all other Iraqi constituents, to make the necessary compromises.”
The latest Pentagon report on Iraq underscores the urgency sectarian and insurgent attacks rose to an average 959 per week in the three months to November. Presenting the figures, Marine General John Sattler said the violence had increased at “an unbelievably rapid pace”.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."A fine entry BLA.
But it’s difficult to take issue with heartless Condoleeza Rice who sees the death and destruction in Iraq as “worth the investment” – As Billmon notes of Condi, ” a lot has been invested. But just look at the dividends:
I recommend we not enhance the Bush stance to sugar coat. Unless we’re discussing restoration of electricity in Iraq, It’s not “surge” it’s an escalation in size of troops. We can understand bushCheney’s fear use of the escalation as they attempt to sell us on no draw down.
The Generals have now fallen in line and now sees the need for more troops as we fight ‘the Iraq War of Imagination’
Dear idredit . . .
I thank you for the accolades.
I too think a surge of electricity is fitting. We need to reinstate what the Iraqis once had, creature comforts. Since we were the ones that broke their sense of security, might we not wish to fix that? Instead, we prefer to bomb them into oblivion.
how creating a situation where our country becomes hated worldwide and inspiring thousands of young Muslims to want to attack us is “in the interest and the security interests of the United States”.
Personally I think it is “in the interest and the security interests of the United States” if Ms Rice goes back to taking bit parts in vampire movies.
Dear observer393 . . .
I too await a logical explanation from Miss Rice; however, if we want that we must turn to her liberal cousin Connie. It is good to know that neo-conservatism is not in the blood.
(Apologies)