Article

2006-01-04 Home Front: Politix

Bush calls back former defense, state department heads to discuss Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-01-04 03:03|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I hope they poison the soup...

Posted by .com 2006-01-04 03:36|| 2006-01-04 03:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Surely there is a typo in the title. It should say Iran, right? ;)

Posted by Jake-the-Peg 2006-01-04 04:35|| 2006-01-04 04:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Outbound spin, trying to get they guys to STFU, nicely, as we head into the Iran conflict.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-04 07:38|| 2006-01-04 07:38|| Front Page Top

#4 Several of the officials, mostly Democrats, said they were concerned about being used as props

Fine, RSVP and stay the fu** at home.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-04 09:21|| 2006-01-04 09:21|| Front Page Top

#5 I have no doubt that Iran will be discussed, probably primarily, even if the official deal is over Iraq.

I wonder if they will get some kind of secrecy oath out of this. A preventative shut up.

The article is also funny how it goes into detail how Bush never asked for outside help before, probably because a few of these jokers were quicker to attack than Bush was to invite. We'll never know.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-01-04 09:58|| 2006-01-04 09:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Just a meeting of The Boys....capiche?

Posted by john">john 2006-01-04 11:25|| 2006-01-04 11:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Bush calls back former defense, state department heads to discuss Iraq

I'd be inclined to take most, but not all, of the Democrats' views with a grain of salt, given how they handled the matter when it was they who were running things.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-04 12:06|| 2006-01-04 12:06|| Front Page Top

#8 All Secretaries of Defence have agreed to the security agreements before thier appointment approval they cant leak without being prosecuted.

I ran this article http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=138952&D=2006-01-04&HC=2
earlier I know my graphic was corny it was late blah blah excuse. It just made me remember that German article everyone just blew off so easily. Iran is a sereous threat and its leader is literally insane and proud of it. Syria is in choas with the rats jumping ship. If we telegraph our move on Iran they will strike first a first strike will be thier main chance to cause some damage, after our initial bombardment starts thier ability to strike outside Iran with anything other than thier terrorist assests will be sereously compromised and they know it. I just hope that the president makes it real clear to the other sides Secretaries that Iran is not small time we will need unity and this partisan crap will not be tolerated drop the "sedition" word and send them back to their leaders to pass the word. Iran cannot be allowed to achieve a nuclear bomb the risk are just too much the threat must be dealt with and it will be ugly and a hard slog with no room for partisan politics their nations interest must be put first.

Posted by C-Low 2006-01-04 12:25|| 2006-01-04 12:25|| Front Page Top

#9 This meeting is singularly about Iran. Not only that, but each and every one of them will be getting several top secret briefings prior to the meeting, asked to make presentations, and be given several major topics that will be round-tabled.

Then each of them will be in the pipeline for several days, getting follow-up questions answered and submitting relevant material to the entire group.

Afterwards, each of them will be tasked with giving detailed summaries to critical senators prior to them getting their briefings.

This is all leading up to war.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-04 13:11|| 2006-01-04 13:11|| Front Page Top

#10 I think Moose nails it.

This will put them on notice and let them fall to their preferred side of "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." divide.

Of course, from this little soirÃ©e Bush will better know who can be trusted with sensitive intel - a very timely topic of great concern - and who can't.

Posted by .com 2006-01-04 13:17|| 2006-01-04 13:17|| Front Page Top

#11 I'd love to see Albright pull a Slim Pickins and ride the first bomb in. Yee-haw!

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-01-04 13:23|| 2006-01-04 13:23|| Front Page Top

#12 My assumption is in agreance with Moose. All the signs are thier and its the right time of year the next few months are the window.

I think some prayers are in order for our soldgiers and airmen "may thier sight be clear thier aim direct may our enemies be clouded and off, god speed"

Posted by C-Low 2006-01-04 13:30|| 2006-01-04 13:30|| Front Page Top

#13 This is ominous, as Moose notes in #9. That, and it could indicate further work needed with Russia, China, India, or others as preferred. I wonder what Israel and Turkey have committed to?

OTOH, it would have been fun to have former AG's as well - Ramsey Clark's comments would have been - (what's the word?) - interesting?

Posted by Whager Thavimble9071 2006-01-04 13:32|| 2006-01-04 13:32|| Front Page Top

#14 It does appear that we've moved from contigency planning to action/consequence/response assessment. Could be a hot spring this year folks.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-01-04 13:45|| 2006-01-04 13:45|| Front Page Top

#15 Reading the comments I am now expecting the first presentation to be given by the DOJ.

I don't think this is Iran. Aside from our usual ranting about what we'd like to do about Iran, there's not a lot we can do.

I suspect it is leak related. I suspect there may be some big time prosecutions coming up and they want to make sure they are not seen as political. They want bi-partisan consensus that the crimes are serious and the internal threat needs to be taken seriously during wartime.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-04 14:04|| 2006-01-04 14:04|| Front Page Top

#16 I don't remember any previous President ever doing such a thing. Interesting that the New York Times doesn't mention that, or else name those previous Presidents who established the precedent of doing so.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-04 14:11|| 2006-01-04 14:11|| Front Page Top

#17 That's a good reading Nimble...makes sense and weould be a strong move to back up is argument. What has my radar up is the collection of former Sec's of State and Defense. This looks like the Bush team is mining for historical perspective on the Mullah regime, and gauge what reactions they might have to certain actions. He's gathered a lot of experience around him...and the times are indeed interesting.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-01-04 16:51|| 2006-01-04 16:51|| Front Page Top

#18 Nimble Spemble: Iran is not a case of what we *can* do, but what we *must* do. The WH has been extremely quiet for almost six months, time most likely spent in extraordinary planning and contingency preparations for a war with Iran.

It is not a question of assuming that the US, Israel or Iran will launch first. Those are just individual scenarios.

First and foremost, the WH must assure that any and every attack that Iran might launch is as neutralized as possible. That every weapon is countered. That every strategy is denied. That there is no possible way for them to succeed, even before the first shot is fired.

The WH must also make extraordinary efforts at diplomacy, optimally persuading the world to be neutral, if not friendly. Protocols with the major powers must be agreed to, to insure that any war does not spill over, territorially or by escalation.

The WH must take into account the economic ramifications of what could be the shutting down of ME oil to the world. We must persuade the world that Iran is so dangerous that there is no other option.

Congress must be on board. Money to support operations and resupply must be flowing. Each and every congressman and senior bureaucratic mandarin must know his role.

No, I do not think that this is a petty affair. Even if by some miracle diplomacy wins the day and the situation is defused, the previous six months leading up to now are the time and the place to prepare for war.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-04 17:35|| 2006-01-04 17:35|| Front Page Top

#19 war with Iran, either by us bombing or complicit work with Israel. Either way.....war. Iran's been asking for it. A lining up of domestic support is in order, and letting the Donks and Powell state their concerns and thoughts says: "Bush listened, then did what he thought was best for America and the world". It's time for Iranian Mullahsâ¢ to take the consequences they so richly deserve. Decapitate and let the Iranian people (good and intelligent people) rise up

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-04 21:06|| 2006-01-04 21:06|| Front Page Top

#20 Moose is right, but with a minor adjustment. This is a Axis of Evil +1 confab with the +1 being Syria.

With this collection of egos, don't expect much other than pr. First off, State and Defense don't get along. It's a nature conflict that rears its head in every serious meeting.

Secondly, you are not going to find agreement between a Halfbright and anyone mature of thought.

Bush and Cheney are smart enough not to give sway to an outsider from the 90s.

The agenda will be comprised of items that everyone agrees on before they venture in. Prepare for much moaning and groaning after the meeting, with Halfbright saying "it didn't accept my (stupid) ideas".

Go to bed you fat bitc@

Posted by Captain America 2006-01-04 21:29|| 2006-01-04 21:29|| Front Page Top

23:56 11A5S
23:56 11A5S
23:47 3dc
23:30 Frank G
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Ulotle Wholuse7269
23:15 11A5S
23:07 Snump Flaviper5941
23:04 Frank G
22:36 Alaska Paul
22:29 Alaska Paul
22:28 RWV
22:23 Sgt. Mom
22:14 Alaska Paul
22:09 .com
22:09 RWV
21:50 bigjim-ky
21:48 Frank G
21:42 Korora
21:42 bigjim-ky
21:42 Frank G
21:36 Frank G
21:32 Zenster
21:29 Frank G