Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

I love it when the absurd main message of the Republican Presidential campaign ends up being the opposite what the Bush Administration does.

There's huge divides in the right; the neo-cons and the war hawks and the Republicans and the Likudites and the "liberal" hawks etc etc. Their political fortunes depend not just on Iraq but on Afghanistan and beyond. I believe the pentagon put the brakes on a military solution for the "and beyond" part. Without that, the unilateralists might as well pack up and go home. they need an army to pursue their policies, and they don't have one.

Recently, secretary Gates said as much when he declared that the State Department needs to get more involved in the events and not leave things to the pentagon. That's a slap down of the neo-con's ambitions right there. He's saying it's over. He may have made his remarks with Rice's ambitions in mind. It's reported she has taken some wind from Cheney's sails.

My reaction was, oh smurf, now they're going to pretend that was the plan all along and try to attack the democrats with it.

I think it's so funny that this comes so quickly on the heels of the Bushian "talk = appeasement" speech in Israel.

Reality's a bitch, don't you know. A stubborn, stubborn bitch.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I think it's so funny that this comes so quickly on the heels of the Bushian "talk = appeasement" speech in Israel.

Reality's a bitch, don't you know. A stubborn, stubborn bitch.

But this is different.

But this report may be a bit over zealous. It may just be little more than the ongoing regular planning that any State Department would do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean it will make its way into actual policy.

Personally I think it has to, but it's not a given that it will be the Bush admin which will make it so.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I love it when the absurd main message of the Republican Presidential campaign ends up being the opposite what the Bush Administration does.

There's huge divides in the right; the neo-cons and the war hawks and the Republicans and the Likudites and the "liberal" hawks etc etc. Their political fortunes depend not just on Iraq but on Afghanistan and beyond. I believe the pentagon put the brakes on a military solution for the "and beyond" part. Without that, the unilateralists might as well pack up and go home. they need an army to pursue their policies, and they don't have one.

Recently, secretary Gates said as much when he declared that the State Department needs to get more involved in the events and not leave things to the pentagon. That's a slap down of the neo-con's ambitions right there. He's saying it's over. He may have made his remarks with Rice's ambitions in mind. It's reported she has taken some wind from Cheney's sails.

Yeah, your last sentence is part of my wondering....can Sec Gates and Sec Rice counter the Vice President ?  He used to have enough pull to marginalize Sec Rice.  And she seems to be plenty hawkish.

  5 more months...

I'm thinking Cheney has other things on his mind. If he and his followers don't have the Pentagon's ear, where does that leave him?

Cheney's too busy getting his plans set for moving into his Dubai rotating tower flat.

The real estate market is weak, making selling off his US mansions a real bitch.

I know. Pathetic, that the administration only now is getting around to the real priority.

This is just like Churchill!

sturner wrote:

I know. Pathetic, that the administration only now is getting around to the real priority.

Troops will have to be pulled from Iraq to meet Afghan requirements.

Bolton should just stick to high-rise demolitions.

The west, Europe in particular, had better get its skates on if it wants to deal with the Iranians.

Russia's Gazprom is getting ready to make a big play for Iran's gas fields. This could give Russia tremendous clout in the gas distribution market and I imagine that makes Europe very uneasy. Russia wields its gas market like a hammer. 

Iran is Russia's nuclear proxy and might become its energy one as well. If some meaningful accords between Iran and the west aren't reached, the Iraq Iran border will be the face-off point between east and west, and a new cold war waged over energy instead of ideology.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2008-07-19 5:08 am)