The Coffeespy

The New York Times, via the Early Bird, reported President Bush’s comments on the ISG report and response to the group’s insistence the recommendations be adopted in their entirety.  The President’s response?

“Congress isn’t going to accept every recommendation in the report,” Mr. Bush said, “and neither will the administration.”

In particular, Bush said he would not pull back American combat units over the next 15 months and set conditions on talks with Iran and Syria.

On Iran and Syria, Mr. Bush stuck to the conditions he set long ago for talks: Iran must abandon its nuclear program, and Syria must give up its support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. “If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it’s easy — just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict,” he said.

This is precisely right.  You don’t alter foreign policy toward states supporting terrorism just to make it easier on yourself in other areas.  Going back to my World War II recommendation, you don’t make a deal with Germany to get the edge on Japan in 1942.

The ISG is, of course, lobbying to get it’s plan put through as a single piece to be followed to the letter.  Why?  I’ve got a theory on that one.

Baker: Hmm… this report is kind of lame.  It sounds a lot like “stay the course.”

Hamilton: Yeah, whattya think we should do?

Baker: Well, how about we make some demands no one will ever be able to follow.  Then we can just claim that’s why the report had no impact whatsoever.

Hamilton: Dood, awesome idea.  Throw in talks with Iran and Syria.  We can even play the regional realism angle on that one.

Baker: Sweeeeet!

Now I’m not sure what the exact thought process was, but I bet it went something like that.  ISG in CYA mode.  They knew they were laying a stinker.

“I hope we don’t treat this like a fruit salad and say, ‘I like this but I don’t like that. I like this, but I don’t like that,’ ” Mr. Baker said. “This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem we’re facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems that we face in the region, and to restore America’s standing and credibility in that part of the world.”

Designed to deal with other problems in the region?  So the ISG is exceeding its mandate?  I fail to see how ignoring the nuclear issue in Iran, something the administration is heavily faulted for concerning Korea, can strengthen the U.S. position.  In one fell swoop, the U.S. would legitimize Iran’s nuclear ambitions through silent consent and give them an opening to slap down the U.S. yet again!

I hope no one treats the report like a fruit salad, too.  Eating this thing would leave a bad taste in my mouth and probably get me a healthy dose of political Polonium-201.

From the ‘Sphere

The Moderate Voice has a lengthy media analysis.  I’m liking this guy more and more even though I disagree with him on some issues.  He really puts thought into his posts.

Democracy Arsenal puts it a bit more mildly than me on their assessment of talks with Iran and Syria, but we seem to agree.  Go figure.  It’s a thoughtful piece worth reading.

Right Wing Nuthouse says the same thing.  It’s a stinker.