The grayest of gray Republican eminences weigh in on the Iraq Debate.
September 19, 2002 4:31 PM   Subscribe

The grayest of gray Republican eminences weigh in on the Iraq Debate. Brent Scowcroft, an ex-general with the prejudices and proclivities of his scholarly peers --the nattering nabobs of negativism-- proposes that the United States forget about invading Iraq. Henry Kissinger, one of the great American opportunists, has positioned himself as a kind of stealth critic, a loyal oppositionist who is doing his darnedest to nudge Bush in a multilateral direction. James Baker, who is intimately tied to a wide range of allegedly satanic forces and has an incredibly long and distinguished record of public service, to chasten George W. Bush's hawkish impulses on Iraq, proposes that the administration sponsor "a simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."
posted by semmi (11 comments total)

 
Come on - it's not like these statements even matter: Bush has already made up his mind. It's *going* to happen. There is absolutely no stopping it.
posted by interrobang at 4:38 PM on September 19, 2002


Maybe so: but can you remember the last time your 'president' went to war with his own party casting huge doubts over the project?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:08 PM on September 19, 2002


Brent Scowcroft and Howard Baker are long-time allies and retainers of the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and other Arab regimes which have their own fish to fry in this. Scowcroft's and Baker's views cannot and should not be confused with those of the "Republican eminences" generally.

Never forget that Baker's infamous quote on Israel (and I may be paraphrasing) "Fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." This may have been a staple viewpoint on the Middle East of country club Republicans, but it has long since to express the mainstream Republican view.
posted by MattD at 5:26 PM on September 19, 2002


There's an old saying in Tennessee-I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee-that says, fool me once, shame on-shame on you..... Fool me you can't get fooled again.

George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
posted by CrazyJub at 5:33 PM on September 19, 2002


...[C]an you remember the last time your 'president' went to war with his own party casting huge doubts over the project?

Not that it's "my" or "our" president temporally speaking, but yeah, Abraham Lincoln in 1861-1865; he faced opposition from members of both parties throughout the duration of the Civil War. He won re-election in 1864, but not under actual GOP aegis; he had to run under the temporary coalitional figleaf of a "National Unity Party" (!) because the Republicans were so fragmented over the progress of the war.
posted by alumshubby at 5:54 PM on September 19, 2002


And look how that turned out for him...
posted by briank at 6:03 PM on September 19, 2002


Yes-generally regarded as our greatest president.
posted by quercus at 6:21 PM on September 19, 2002


quercus: Not according to the Electoral College version of the rankings!
posted by raysmj at 6:48 PM on September 19, 2002


Yes-generally regarded as our greatest president.


Not if you ask the new breed of his poisonous critics, he wasn't.

Sad.
posted by hama7 at 7:02 PM on September 19, 2002


Bush should listen to his dad's advisors. They make much more sense than his.
posted by PoliticalJunkie at 7:52 AM on September 20, 2002


Did anyone actually read the article? The administration has actually been following James (not Howard) Baker's advice, which didn't rule out force, but advised going to the UN (which Bush has done) first. His words:
Some will argue, as was done in 1990, that going for United Nations authority and not getting it will weaken our case. I disagree. By proposing to proceed in such a way, we will be doing the right thing, both politically and substantively. We will occupy the moral high ground and put the burden of supporting an outlaw regime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on any countries that vote no. And even if the administration fails in the Security Council, it is still free--citing Iraq's flouting of the international community's resolutions and perhaps Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which guarantees a nation's right to self-defense--to weigh the costs versus the benefit of going forward alone.
posted by timothompson at 8:56 AM on September 20, 2002


« Older Multiple Sclerosis could be sexually transmitted! ...  |  US threat to [wait for it..] s... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments