Article

2003-12-17 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 Fred Pruitt 2003-12-17 00:02|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Lies! ALL LIES!

We saw the pictures, they're just kitchens.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2003-12-17 12:29:43 AM|| 2003-12-17 12:29:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Want to bet these come out after Dean has the nomination clinched by way of pandering to the anti-war moonbats and Streisand wing of the Democrat Party?

I'd save it until then, and refine it and develop it further until it was so obvious that the war was neccesary to everyone [except the Deanies and the fascists at Indymedia and moonbats at the Democratic Underground]

All those souther Demo senators retiring. Economy picking up. Saddam on trial and condemned by his own people. Proof of WMD capabilities and intentions. And Iraq settling in under their own self-governance with international investment ramping up (Letting Europe back in the door after they forgive the debt)

It could be a glorious autumn next year for the forces of liberty and freedom in this world.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-12-17 12:43:46 AM|| 2003-12-17 12:43:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 It could be a glorious autumn next year for the forces of liberty and freedom in this world.

Amen to that OldSpook, baby. 2004 will be a great year.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-17 12:48:41 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-17 12:48:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's drink to it, fellas! (toast!)
Oh, yeah!
Let Freedom Ring and let's keep rolling! USA! USA! Viva Bush!

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 12:57:10 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 12:57:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Chuck Spinney is not exactly friendly to the whole Iraq war, but he had some interesting things to say on the subject back in May.

Here and here.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2003-12-17 1:35:20 AM|| 2003-12-17 1:35:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Re: Chuck Spinney. Poor guy,if these samples are representative of him, he can see what's going on in the world, but rather than acknowledge it, he works and reworks what he sees until it somehow fits within his narrow and negative anti-american/capitalist/global pig framework. Someone let the poor soul out of his own paradigm prison.

In the first example, he can see what Sadaam does, then he victoriously claims that, "If this vision of autocratic "just-in-time" efficiency and flexibility can be transferred successfully to our corporations, the payoffs would be enormous. The growing disparity between wages on the factory floor and the 80th floor would not only be protected, it could be increased.

Chucky, chucky....get a grip.

Posted by B 2003-12-17 3:26:31 AM|| 2003-12-17 3:26:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Want to bet these come out after Dean has the nomination clinched by way of pandering to the anti-war moonbats and Streisand wing of the Democrat Party?"

Glad you said and not me, OS, or theyd call me a raving nut. But it DOES seem that Dr. No is the guy Karl Rove wants to run against, much more than Gephardt or Lieberman. And withholding evidence of WMD until after Dr. No has a lock on the nomination would be in Bush's partisan interest - though NOT in the US national interest. Grrrrrrr!

I hope that its not true - i really hope that Bush and his advisors arent that low. If it does turn out to be true expect much bitterness from the hawkish wing of the Dem party, directed against both the GOP and Dean-Gore wing of the Dems.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 9:41:35 AM|| 2003-12-17 9:41:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 LH -- I have no doubt most of that bitterness would be towards Bush, though in the real world Dean and his ilk deserve all of it. The Democrats let the issue be turned into a partisan matter; while I'd rather Bush not use it for political gain, he didn't pick the playing field. If you want to point fingers at who's being "low", I recommend you look on your side of the aisle.

And if, in the process, the Fifth Column currently running the Democrat party is destroyed or at least forced out of power for a few years, then I think it would be more than justified.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-17 9:59:54 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-12-17 9:59:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 RC it will be directed both ways - look at what Joe is saying about Dr. No - that bitterness is real - but if it turns out that Dr. No is Karl Rove's gift to the Dem party, it will be turned back to the GOP, and with reason.

2. as for partisan matter - how did Joe and Gephardt turn Iraq into a partisan matter - theyve been supporting change in Iraq for a long time. I point fingers at "lowness" on BOTH sides of the aisle.

3. Whos running the dem party? No one, as far as i can tell. Gore could have tried running it, but he went to ground after January 2001, not really emerging till now, and then as an ANTI-establishment figure. McAuliffe dont run things, hes just a fund raiser. The Clintons seem unable to run things - they pushed Clark, and it turned out the were pushing on a damp string.

Dem party isnt being "run" its up for grabs between the naive lefties and the muscular factions - it is of course in the GOP interests that the lefties win, so they can reap partisan advantage. Now thats all fair in politics I suppose - AS LONG AS IT DOESNT involve changing US policy in a way that hurts the US for partisan advantage.

Now its clear to me that IF we have clear evidence of WMD in Iraq its US interest to release it NOW - when international support would help, when we need to buck up US support, and improve troops morale, etc. There is NO US interest in holding back till June. There may be a GOP interest however - since such revelation NOW would help Joe, and they dont want to face Joe. Of course there are some folks who think defeating Dems IS a US interest as such, worth sacrificing other interests for. Such folks are barely above the Democratic Underground scum who root for the Baathists in order to defeat Bush.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 10:42:55 AM|| 2003-12-17 10:42:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Hey guys ... I think it's premature to be certain the Bush administration is sitting on proof of WMD labs.

Bush has said for some time that Kay would report his findings after a thorough evaluation of the tons of documents they keep uncovering. Blair is just restating what Kay said in his interim report to Congress.

Every one here knows the response at that time: nothing is proven, you're cherrypicking evidence, etc. etc. The case is probably made to the satisfaction of the intel community and the leadership, but that doesn't mean all the footnotes are in place for releasing it to the scrutiny of hostile eyes.

Finally, it's pretty likely that the Administration is hoping to fill in key facts gleaned from interrogations and from volunteered tips before pushing this issue again. Think about special ops people combing various interesting remote places in Syria, for instance ....

It would NOT be useful in our negotiations with allies to release partial information or to build a case that isn't overwhelmingly convincing to a hostile or at least uninformed public.

Posted by rkb 2003-12-17 10:48:43 AM|| 2003-12-17 10:48:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 What I find interesting is that the article linked to is from Al Jazeerah. I can't really figure their angle unless their simply trying to paint Bush as a liar for concealing the WMD.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-17 11:12:05 AM|| 2003-12-17 11:12:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 rkb fine - but what then is Tony upto?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 12:45:48 PM|| 2003-12-17 12:45:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 as for partisan matter - how did Joe and Gephardt turn Iraq into a partisan matter - theyve been supporting change in Iraq for a long time.

Where are those two in the running for the nomination? Which party appears to have "BUSH LIED" as part of its 2004 platform?

As for who's running the party -- look at the way the front-runner candidates are campaigning. They're doing that because that's where the votes and money are; THAT'S who's running the party. Official figureheads aside, it's clear which way the party activists want to go.

Listen, the previous Secretary of State from your party just said she thinks Bush is concealing Osama's capture for political gain; one of your party's Congressional reps just had a friendly meeting with a man who sent soldiers to fight our troops; your party's leading presidential candidates are racing each other to see who can make the most outrageous accusation against Bush; the "leaders" in your party are declaring a clear American victory to be a loss for partisan advantage: You can point out the motes in Republican eyes all you want, but if you don't work on the beams in your partys', you deserve whatever happens.

For what it's worth, I think the destruction of a fifth-column Democrat party IS in the interest of the US in general. We need a loyal opposition, and I don't think that's what we have now.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-17 1:18:02 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-12-17 1:18:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 "Where are those two in the running for the nomination? Which party appears to have "BUSH LIED" as part of its 2004 platform? "

Uh but thats just the point - if evidence of WMD were to come out NOW, before New Hampshire, either Dick or Joe probably WOULD be the front runner, NOT DEAN. Now if theres no WMD evidence that ready for prime time thats one thing. But IF (as OS, NOT me, suggested) and the Dem front runner is Dean and not Joe or Dick PRECISELY because of a dirty trick by Karl Rove, that is quite another thing.

Does this seem too paranoid? maybe. But think back to 1972, when a certain Ed Muskie was the Dem front runner. And when he was defeated in part due to GOP dirty tricks, giving us George McGovern.

Has Albright made an ass of herself over Iraq - yeah, but so have Zinni, Scowcroft, et al.

BTW - I think Dr. NO is a naive fool who is misguided on foreign policy, but fifth column is vile language, without evidence = i think he THINKS what he says is good for the US.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 3:23:51 PM|| 2003-12-17 3:23:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Amen, Robert...and to liberalhawk, furthermore, I don't think we really know the intimate thoughts of Karl Rove, do we?
We know what the WaPo tells us that Rove is supposedly thinking and we know they don't have an agenda.
I'm a big Bushie, yes, but I find the stance of the Dimocrat party APPALLING--that of its politicians like Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton and Jim McDermott, that of its officials like Terry McAwful, that of former Dim Administrations like Madame Notsobright and Jimmuh Peanut and that of its candidates almost to a man or woman except for Lieberman.
If the Dims had behaved during WWII the way they are doing now, America would most certainly have lost the war and lost it badly.
Now, their bellicose rhetoric is almost directly responsible for getting American soldiers hurt and killed and even American citizens here at home because, let's be clear, if Clinton (and Carter) had acted when they needed to, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be staring down a nuclear Iran or North Korea.
I will not only work to re-elect President Bush, but I will work against any Dimocrat that tries to occupy the Oval Office for what remains of my life.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 3:37:11 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 3:37:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 JT - no i dont know what karl rove is thinking- thats why all my posts above include the word IF - i certainly hope what i fear is not so.

There are plenty of GOP pols with appaling stances - including a batch of former officials, who apparently were working hand in glove with the current Sec of State to undermine admin policy on Iraq - and who may well still be doing so (do you REALLY trust Saudi friend Jim ("fuck the Jews") Baker to negotiate with France and Germany?)

Did Clinton fail to go after Osama or Saddam - yup. How many times do I need to remind people that during the time period leading up to 9/11 George W. Bush did so as well? In fact his admin was advocating further downsizing of the US army, and he ran on his opposition to nation-building.

Now I think Bush has done a pretty good job since 9/11 - but lets be under no doubt, that was a reaction to 9/11, NOT his original foreign policy orientation. Criticizing Clinton for failing to do what Dubya also failed to do pre-9/11 is a cheap shot - it may be good politics but is has nothing to do with strategy.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 3:55:18 PM|| 2003-12-17 3:55:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 oh, and can you say Grover Norquist?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 3:55:54 PM|| 2003-12-17 3:55:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "If the Dims had behaved during WWII the way they are doing now, America would most certainly have lost the war and lost it badly."

are you at all aware of what quite a number of leading Republicans did in the period before Pearl Harbor, opposing the draft, opposing lend lease aid to Britain etc? They ACTUALLY impeded the war, no hypothetical necessary. And even after Pearl, they played politics, pushing for shifting resources to the Pacific instead of Europe, and opposing lend lease to the USSR. Yet any decent democrats made a distinction between isolationist republicans and internationalists like Wendell Wilkie. (Doesnt mean they had to VOTE for Wilkie, just acknowlege that the GOP as a whole was NOT a fifth column) And today any decent Republicans must make similar distinctions among Democrats.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 4:01:03 PM|| 2003-12-17 4:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 BTW, you will notice i always call the Republicans just that - Republicans or GOP. Name calling, etc doesnt show maturity or political seriousness.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 4:02:16 PM|| 2003-12-17 4:02:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Grover Norquist isn't on my radar--don't really know who he is or what he's doing (is he the GOP's George Soros or something, reputedly?).
You guys on the Left have on your tin foil hats 24/7.
Clinton had the opportunity to get OBL no less than 12 times including the last attack event on the USS Cole when Clinton was too busy handing out pardons for cash.
The plan to deal with Osama and Al Queda hit President Bush's desk on September 10, 2001.
Are you telling me that Bush should have dealt with OBL in the 9 months before 9/11?
And before America was attacked on 9/11, no President would have considered an aggressive foreign policy such as we're pursuing now--there was no causus belli.
(Well there were--1993 WTC bombing, which Clintoon treated as a domestic crime, the Africa embassy bombings, the USS Cole--but not that the American people would support from a man who too many of the electorate considered "selected not elected," a reason they cite now for not supporting the war.)
I wouldn't think that Jim Baker is a horrible anti-Semite. Just the contrary, really.
Harry Truman had anti-Semitic feelings, yet he supported the independence of Israel in 1948.
As for Bush downsizing the Army, I've never heard that. How could he downsize something the 2 Clintons had already decimated?
And who was it that had the military votes thrown out in 2000? Clinton's boy Al Gore.
I will criticize Clinton and Carter both for failing to deal with Islamist terrorism. That is their legacy.
Suck it up, Dimocrats.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 4:12:07 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 4:12:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "And before America was attacked on 9/11, no President would have considered an aggressive foreign policy such as we're pursuing now--there was no causus belli."

My point exactly.

1. downsizing the army - the plan was to reduce it from 10 divisions to 8 divisions

2. Grover Norquist leading lobbyist for tax cuts - general GOP bigwig - also good pal of various terror apologists in CAIR, who brought them to the white house, etc. If hes not on your radar he should be.

Jim Baker - no Harry truman - a pal of the Saudi lobby, one of the men responsible for leaving Saddam in power in '91.

Clintons opportunities - despite not having a florida over his head, he had a monica at the time of the Cole, and IIRC the embassy bombings. You tell me which Republicans suggested invading Afghanistan in 1998.

Look I'll criticize dems when its called for, and praise bush when its called for - any one here can tell you that i do both regularly. But this dittohead crap aint strategic analysis, and dont have much to do with any facts.

You are spouting mainly rants and opinions, not facts.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 4:46:48 PM|| 2003-12-17 4:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 oops, i guess i hurt Jen, who on her blog says about Jim Baker "I personally think he is one of the sexiest senior men alive" I'll have to dig some more info on him though. I saw at least one source that suggested that Wolfie released the no French or German bidders statement to pre-empt Baker, afraid hed give away the store.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:06:33 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:06:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#23
"A fine illustration of this Washington tradition took place at the capital's Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Sept. 11, 2001. On that day, former Secretary of State James Baker, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci and a parade of other former government officials convened at those swank quarters to attend the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, a private investment company known for putting lucrative business deals together for the Saudi royal family (and also known for its roster of all-star advisers, including Baker and the elder George Bush).

Among those gathered to schmooze with Washington's power brokers was one Shafiq bin Laden, a Saudi captain of industry whose brother would slaughter thousands of Americans before the conferees broke for lunch. The meeting, notes Robert Baer, whose Sleeping With the Devil catalogs many others like it, "was the perfect metaphor for Washington's strange affair with Saudi Arabia." "

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:08:55 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:08:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 from a pbs interview with Jim Baker

"Q:And yet, they're our allies.

A:That's right. We have allies, particularly in this fight against terrorism, that don't embrace democracy, and that don't embrace free markets. We've had allies throughout our history that aren't necessarily of the same philosophy and persuasion that we are, regarding principles and values. Sometimes your realpolitik interests demand that.

Q:What I'm thinking about are interviews that we've done with people from the Iraqi National Congress. There are people who are opposed to Saddam Hussein -- [from] people in the street to intellectuals in the Islamic community -- who say that, because of this policy, the U.S. has become identified with the Saudi royal family, for example, who has a reputation for corruption.

A:I won't acknowledge that, because I don't know that that's true, that they are corrupt. I certainly have never seen any of that corruption. But I would ask those Islamic academics or thinkers that you refer to: How many Islamic regimes do they know that are democratic and free market? I can't think of one. I bet you can't.

Q: So our policy's based on the realities on the ground?

A: It's based on our national interest and our national security interests, you bet. And that's really what a nation's foreign policy ought to be primarily focused on, if I may say so. ..."

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:15:24 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Gee, thanks a lot, liberal hawk--reducing the Bush Doctrine, which has proved to be effective now for 2 years, to my "dittohead" cant.
The *facts* are too numerous to list here on Fred's dime.
I do have my own blog which has chronicled all of this and more and there are many books on this, but the 2 main ones on this subject I would recommend are Rich Lowry's Legacy and Richard Miniter's Losing Bin Laden.
I don't know about Bush downsizing the Army by 2 more divisions; if he stated as much before 9/11, it would have been on the Pentagon's recommendations and only fitting for a post-Cold War peacetime.
As for CAIR and the Muslims at the White House, President Bush wants to have a country (and a world) where moderate Muslims can co-exist peacefully with those of other faiths under secular government. Compassionate conservatism straight-up. He realizes those 1 billion people (1+ million in the USA ) aren't all going to be jihadis and/or be converted to Christianity.(On a political level, American-Muslims threw their vote behind Bush as a vote against Dim Joe Lieberman. I have a feeling that they will be voting for him again in 2004 for different reasons, now--i.e. his same reasons: that Islam can be about peace if they choose for it to be.)
Baker went along with President Bush 41 to leave Saddam in power in 1991 because that was the deal the U.S. struck with the international, internationalized UN-based Coalition then.
We all know now that was a big mistake, none more so than Presidents Bush 41 and 43.
This is what I think really cost Bush 41 his re-election, not the economy, stupid. (Political "genius" James Carville made that up.)
You can sling ad hominems all you want to but calling Rush and I names won't make us any less correct and calling me a "dittohead" is a compliment to me.
I would never had made it through the Clinton years without Rush.
Oh, and as for pals of the Sauds, look no farther than your current screaming Lefty idiot former Iraqi Ambassador Joe Wilson.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 5:15:53 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 5:15:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Yikes! Sorry Fred for the triple post!
I meant for my post to be emphatic, but....
Can you fix it, hon?

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 5:25:28 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 5:25:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I didnt reduce the bush doctrine to dittohead cant - i reduced YOUR POST to dittohead cant - I do hope you can tell the difference.

Uh the plan to reduce the army by two divisions was made by Bushs political appointees at the Pentagon - the Army was screaming bloody murder - you really should gather facts first.

I too think there are moderate muslims - I just dont think CAIR is among them. And apparently neither does the white house, anymore. Frank Gaffney, a columnist in the Washington Times (no leftie rag) has been taking on Norquist lately -you didnt know that either, did you?

All Bush had to do to toss Saddam in '91 was to keep the war going a couple of more days, while the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions began - nothing the french or Russians could have, or would have done about it. The UN didnt stop it - the admin did - theyve SAID SO - we didnt want to have deal with occupying Iraq, ethnic divisions, etc. They kept their Saudi friends happy.

Heres more for you from the Forward

'"Baker's tenure as secretary of state from 1989 to 1992 is remembered as a time of truculent relations between Washington and Jerusalem, when the top pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the senior Bush were at loggerheads over a number of issues, especially settlements.

At one point in 1991, American relations with Israel's Likud-led government were so strained that Baker declared Ariel Sharon, who was then Israel's housing minister, persona non grata in Washington. Despite his denials, Baker also is famous for allegedly remarking, in a private

conversation on Middle East policy, "Fâk the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway."

Baker's appointment, especially coming after the Bush administration quietly cut the loan guarantees on the eve of Thanksgiving, conjured fraught memories for some in the Jewish community â with both a prominent pro-Israel activist and a Jewish Democratic activist issuing warnings.

"The influence of James Baker is a factor in [George W.] Bush's pressure on Israel to reduce its military response to terror, in Bush's refusal to move the embassy to Jerusalem despite his campaign promise to do so, in his complaining about Israel's security fence, in his public demand for a Palestinian state and his public praise for the Geneva Accords," said the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein. A frequent critic of the Bush administration who opposes Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, Klein added: "You can be sure that his conversations with George Bush will not be limited to Iraq."

That assessment was seconded by the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman. "It's a bad sign for this administration to start relying on Jim Baker for foreign policy advice," he said. "For a consummate inside operator like Baker, you can be sure there's no firewall between his advice on Iraq and broader Middle East issues."

Others, however, said the appointment and cuts in loan guarantees have a different valence because President Bush's relations with Israel and American Jewry are so much warmer than those of his father.

Steve Grossman, a former president of Aipac who is national campaign co-chairman for former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, remembered that Baker gave a speech at an Aipac policy conference in 1989 that was "deeply disturbing to the pro-Israel community. I don't think his relations with the Jewish community ever improved." The current Bush administration, however, has no such "blanket hostility" to loan guarantees or "clear antipathy" to the leadership in Jerusalem, Grossman said. The cuts, he added, are not provoking a Jewish reaction because they have "no serious practical impact."

Jewish communal leaders for the most part were muted in their reactions to Bush's appointment of Baker to the Iraq post â and not a single Jewish communal organization issued a press release denouncing the cuts in loan guarantees.

"I wish [Baker] every success in Iraq," said the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, David Harris, adding, "I'd much rather have him dealing with Iraq than with Israeli-Palestinian issues."

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said, "If Jim Baker was designated emissary to make peace, I would be upset and demonstrate loudly. He has not. They're using him now in the service of an issue on which we all know he has abilities and skills."

Even so, several communal leaders went out of their way to blast Kerry.

"Senator Kerry has sent the wrong signal by recommending former President Carter and former Secretary of State Baker as possible nominees for the job," said the president of the American Jewish Congress, Jack Rosen, in one such statement. "Both Carter and Baker have demonstrated antipathy toward Israel, and neither has the confidence of the Jewish community."

The differences in reaction prompted one Democrat to accuse the communal leadership of partisanship.

"There's an extraordinary double standard among mainstream Jewish leaders with regard to President Bush," said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic media consultant and strategist. "Their silence on Jim Baker, loan guarantees and the Geneva Accords is deafening."

Yet Democratic presidential candidates appeared to be making a similar distinction, opting not to criticize Bush's choice of Baker, while hammering Kerry for considering him as a Middle East envoy.

In a statement to reporters, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut called Kerry's choice of Baker "a serious mistake," saying that any emissary must have "the respect and trust of both the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Similarly, Dean's Jewish affairs adviser, Matt Dorf, said that Dean believed that the "the most effective negotiators are trusted by both sides," and that because of Baker's "history with Israel and verbal attack on the American Jewish community, he would be a poor choice."

A spokesman for retired general Wesley Clark, meanwhile, called Kerry's suggestion "offensive."
"We liked it better when Senator Kerry was calling Baker's Florida
operation 'thuggism,'" said campaign communications director Matt Bennett in a statement.

One supporter of a rival campaign suggested privately that Kerry's campaign was hoping the move would improve its standing among Arab-American voters in Michigan.

That idea was pooh-poohed, however, by the president of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, who said that his polling shows that mentioning Baker as a possible envoy does not attract any more support than does one of the other names Kerry mentioned, former president Bill Clinton.

Kerry's campaign, for its part, did not back away from the choice.'

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:34:47 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:34:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 LibHawk, where do you get all this tin foil hat crap? Are you one of the Clinton operatives or something?
And if you wanna cite "black ops" type stuff like the Carlyle group meeting, you'd better provide some links, quotes, reseach, footnotes, etc.
Robert Baer is a bitter ex-CIA operative who was left out in the cold in Iraq by the Clintoon administration and Anthony Lake. He has an axe to grind and he does so, even if his heart is in the right place.
Our US policy of accomodation with the Sauds goes back as far as WWII, maybe even the 1930's with the drilling of the oil wells there. Dimocrat administrations, as well as Republican ones, saw fit to handhold with SA.
We wanted their oil, they wanted our cash.
Obviously, that relationship is being seriously "reevaluated," but nowhere is the love affair harder to end than in Foggy Bottom at the State Dept.

As for the alleged "Bilderburger meeting" in D.C., no good American was doing anything on 9/11/01 except staring at their television in shock.
James Baker is a patriot and I have a hard time seeing him sit down for lunch while the Pentagon was aflame.
And anyone named Bin Laden was looking for cover.
You Dims and your "Bush is the enemy" propaganda are going to be the end of this country.
But as too many on the Left want to set up a Socialist/Marxist state here and everywhere anyway, that's probably the plan.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 5:36:52 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 5:36:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Joe Wilson "Clinton appointee"

"In 1990 Joseph Wilson was the chargÃ© d'affaires in Baghdad, as such he was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf War. After Iraq he served as George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and SÃ£o TomÃ© and PrÃncipe. He then went on to serve the Clinton administration as a policy advisor on Africa for the National Security Council"

At what point is it polite to call this lady an idiot?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:38:44 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:38:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "James Baker is a patriot "

No evidence hes anymore a patriot than various people you call names.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:39:50 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:39:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "Bush is the enemy"

Please show where ive said any such thing.

Bush is a decent man, and if he keeps listening to Wolfie and not too much to James Baker we'll do ok.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:41:10 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:41:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 "Obviously, that relationship is being seriously "reevaluated," but nowhere is the love affair harder to end than in Foggy Bottom at the State Dept"

Yup, cause so many ex Foggy bottom types end up working for the Saudies, or for firms that rely on the Saudies - like, for example, Jim Baker.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 5:54:43 PM|| 2003-12-17 5:54:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Advent is a penitential season of fasting and I've given up drinking the Kool-Aid for the duration.
Suggest you do the same, hawk, honey.
Friends don't let friends vote or even think Dimocrat.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 5:59:40 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 5:59:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 "set up a Socialist/Marxist state here and everywhere anyway, that's probably the plan."

Only if its run by Tony Blair:)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 6:00:06 PM|| 2003-12-17 6:00:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 please point out what ive posted thats crazy.

Bush may yet emerge as one of our greatest presidents - IF he can continue to shake off the Powell-Scowcroft-Zinni-Baker Saudi lobby.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 6:02:35 PM|| 2003-12-17 6:02:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#36
More on Grover Norquist, from Frontpagemag (is that rightwing enough a source for you?)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 6:30:02 PM|| 2003-12-17 6:30:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 oops messed up the link

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-17 6:30:40 PM|| 2003-12-17 6:30:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 I'll see your Frontpage on Grover and raise you one.
Here's the incomparable Daniel Pipes writing in October '92 about James Baker and his "Fuck the Jews" comment, inter alia. (Citing this odious "quote" of Baker's seems to be a current talking point du jour of the Left; IOW, Baker's current appointment as enforcer is supposed to be emblematic that the whole Bush Administration secretly hates Jews.)
Bush, Clinton and the Jews

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-17 9:24:36 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-17 9:24:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Some fairly interesting comments...

On the WMD issue, I think GW & Co are smart enough to realize that witholding critical info for partisan gain will NOT be looked on with approval by anybody, and would end up screwing them royally. They might wait until there is real, hard proof that the French can't pooh-pooh, but that's as far as that can go.

When the spotlight is this bright, upright and honest is the only viable approach.

Posted by mojo 2003-12-17 11:13:05 PM|| 2003-12-17 11:13:05 PM|| Front Page Top

10:56 B
08:26 raptor
08:20 raptor
23:58 Lone Ranger
23:55 Rick
23:45 Bomb-a-rama
23:39 (lowercase) matt
23:37 Raj
23:35 OldSpook
23:29 Steve White
23:29 The Commissar
23:29 Raj Reagan
23:28 OldSpook
23:19 Steve White
23:13 mojo
23:08 Steve White
22:59 john
22:57 mojo
22:54 john
22:48 Sorge
22:47 Steve White
22:47 mojo
22:45 Dar
22:34 john