Year: 2006

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a compromise on Wednesday, and although the report isn’t supposed to be released until next Wednesday, the leakers are in full force. What we know so far:

• the report will call for a gradual pullback of troops
• there will be no timetable for their withdrawal

What’s not clear is the meaning of the term “pullback”.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

The devil’s in the details, more of which will be revealed in the coming days.

Senator Charles Schumer continues to live in an alternate state.

“We’re in better shape than [Republicans] are, because they don’t realize that Reaganomics is dead, that the Reagan philosophy is dead,” he said. “We realize that New Deal democracy, which is still our paradigm, which is sort of appeal to each group … that doesn’t work any more.”

He had said a bit earlier, “The old Reagan theory which dominated — which is, ‘Government is bad, it’s out of touch, chop off its hands as soon as it moves.’ — is over.”

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is to painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

LBJ said the same thing after Goldwater’s defeat. Wasn’t true then. Isn’t true now.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq suddenly, Saudi Arabia will step in to the country to prevent the slaughter of Sunnis at the hands of Iranian-backed Shiites.

Why wait? What’s preventing the Saudis from stepping in and helping the Iraqis now? If they’re really an ally of ours, why the posturing? Get to work! 

More from Dan Riehl.

A U.S.-Iraq summit planned for today was suddenly pushed back to Thursday after this classified memo was leaked by the New York Times. Bush administration officials deny any link between the story and the delay of the summit.

The New York Times published details from a classified memo on Wednesday which expresses doubts whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has the power to control sectarian violence in Iraq.

The Nov. 8 memo was prepared for Mr. Bush and his top deputies by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and senior aides on the staff of the National Security Council after a trip by Mr. Hadley to Baghdad.

The memo suggests that if Mr. Maliki fails to carry out a series of specified steps, it may ultimately be necessary to press him to reconfigure his parliamentary bloc, a step the United States could support by providing “monetary support to moderate groups,” and by sending thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad to make up for what the document suggests is a current shortage of Iraqi forces.

“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”

I’ve got no problem with the Bush administration questioning Maliki’s capacity to lead. In fact, I think we should have been watching him like a hawk since day one. I do have a problem with the New York Times pushing the criticism out into the public domain. It serves no purpose other than to damage Bush and drive his relationship with Maliki into the ground.

Is there anyone left on the planet who thinks Fidel Castro will rise again to be the leader he once was?

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday that he was not well enough to attend the opening of several days of events celebrating his 80th birthday.

“I’m not in medical condition to be there,” Castro said in a statement read by a presenter to thousands of supporters from dozens of countries at the start of a gala in Havana’s Karl Marx theater that was to mark the opening of the celebrations.

The Castro Era is over.

I’m not one to agree much with most of what Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says or does, but on North Korea, McCain’s got it right (even if he’s saying it for his own political advantage).

North Korea isn’t Bush’s failure. It’s Clinton’s.

Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop
North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

“I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration’s policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated was a failure,” McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.

“The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They’ve diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military,” he said.

A spokesman for Hillary spouted off the typical talking point rebuttal. And, apparently not wanting to be left out, John Kerry jumped in on the squabble.

“He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process,” said Kerry, who labeled McCain’s comments “flat politics and incorrect.”

“The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn’t have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the (nuclear fuel) rods were. This way, we don’t know where the rods are, the rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better,” Kerry said.

Yadda yadda yadda, John. With you Democrats, it’s never the results that matter, it’s good intentions.

McCain went on to say he rejects Pyongyang’s call for bilateral talks.

“The worst thing we could do is to accede to North Korea’s demand for bilateral talks,” McCain said. “When has rewarding North Korea’s bad behavior ever gotten us anything more than worse behavior?”

Exactly, and that’s what we should be focusing on now as sanctions are being deliberated.

China has agreed that North Korea must be punished for testing a nuclear bomb earlier this week, but they won’t go as far as a U.S and Japan suggested plan.

Why? Well, because it would hurt Pyongyang too much.

Boo fricken hoo.

China, which reacted to Monday’s blast with a strong condemnation but considers North Korea a useful buffer against U.S. forces stationed in South Korea, said it envisioned only a limited package of sanctions – not what the United States and especially Japan were demanding.

China and Russia object to plans to interdict shipments and block financial transactions. They also oppose a new suggestion that Japan proposed Tuesday – to include mention of the North’s abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and ’80s.

“We certainly understand that Japan is close to the country. But I think you cannot ask by this resolution to kill a country,” China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press. He said the Security Council must impose “punitive actions” but that they have to “be appropriate.”

Though far less than what the Americans and Japanese seek, even calling for some punishment was significant for China, which usually opposes sanctions, particularly against an ally such as North Korea.

The Bush administration asked the U.N. Security Council to impose a partial trade embargo including strict limits on Korea’s profitable weapons exports and freezing of related financial assets. All imports would be inspected too, to filter out materials that could be made into nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The United States reiterated that it would not talk with the North Koreans one-on-one, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured the North that the U.S. would not attack. 

Why the assurances? Why not keep the threat out there? Isn’t that the only thing Pyongyang fears? They obviously don’t worry about being starved to death, since they’re already doing that to their people today.

As I’ve said before, our reaction to North Korea is writing the playbook for Iran. They’re watching, with interest.

Via Cader Books:

Reuters editor Joe Maguire “no longer works” for the wire service after giving his boss a galley of his forthcoming book Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter, though “neither side in this dispute would say that he was fired,” according to the NYT.

Reuters did “confirm that Mr. Maguire was granted conditional approval to write his book on Ms. Coulter.” In a statement trying to explain why he doesn’t work there any more, the service cited their principles of “integrity, independence and freedom from bias.” An employee who worked under Maguire says that when colleagues were told he was no longer employed, it was made clear they “weren’t allowed to ask why.”

More: NYT

I shook my head in despair when I read the headline to this story.

The United Nations Security Council today began working on a resolution condemning North Korea’s announcement of the test, shortly after President Bush said the move requires an “immediate response.”

I guess there’s just no diplomatic blood running through my veins. I mean, I know we’re not just gonna start droppin’ bombs, but still, anytime the U.N. “crafts” a response, I imagine it will be the first of twenty-something resolutions condemning the DPRK. Pardon me while I yawn.

And then we have the Democrats, who would rather make yet another point of how Iraq is the reason for EVERYTHING going wrong in the world than stand united with Republicans (representing America) in their condemnation of Pyongyang.

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, a condemned North Korea for its “reckless and counterproductive actions.” But he asserted that the Bush administration has been in a “state of denial” about North Korea, in part because the administration has been “distracted by Iraq and parayzed by internal divisions.” A comprehensive review of American policy toward North Korea is essential, the senator said.

So typical.