Sully backhandedly acknowledges Kerry's ideas are part of ISG Report

[beachmom]

Andrew's posts are extremely annoying today -- they're all contorted going from send 50,000 troops one minute with withdraw immediately the next. I can't figure out what he's getting at, like this passage, but I THINK he's saying that a lot of the recommendations are Kerry's ideas, but who knows -- maybe you guys can interpret this example of Andrew's twisting and turning thinking:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/the_burial_of_n.html

Bush's apparent acceptance of the Blair-Baker position that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to resolving Iraq is the end of neoconservatism in the Bush administration. But the new realism is utterly unrealistic, as George Will eloquently explains today. Double-down or get out. Those remain the only real options, in my view. Increasingly, I lean toward getting out completely, and finally giving the region the civil and religious war it so obviously and deeply wants. We had our chance; and we blew it. Bush doesn't or won't get this; and it's pretty clear he has little or no grip on reality. The terrible costs of our withdrawal are primarily on his hands; but they are also on the hands of the Iraqi factions who prefer tearing each other apart to dealing with the modern world.

He may continue - forcing America into a brutal period of political civil war to save his own face. He won't save his own face - it's too late for that. And my bet is he will do nothing on the scale necessary to save Iraq. This is the consequence of re-electing a patent incompetent, who is now reduced to enforcing the policies of the man he defeated in 2004, with none of the advantages Kerry would have had. If Bush finds 50,000 to 75,000 troops, we'll know he's serious. But I suspect he isn't. He never has been, has he?

[wisteria]

1. Maybe he is referring to Iraq soldiers. n/t

[karynnj]

2. That is pretty tough to figure out

To me he just sounds depressed and disheartened by the situation. It sounds like he is saying that the only sensible options are to either get out entirely, knowing the area will blow up or to increase the troops by 50,000 - 75,000. He also kind of implies that the neo-con ideas didn't work because of Bush's incompetence.

He implies though that neither are the likely course and that instead Bush will end up listening to the ISG which he equates to enforcing Kerry's policies. From the first part he seems to be against these policies (which are not really Kerry's) The Will article suggests that time has already bypassed succeeding with this type of effort. (I hope everyone, Democrat and Republican who sat on their hands for months due to the political calendar is proud of themselves.)

He does give Kerry a back handed compliment by saying that Bush has none of Kerry's advantages (I assume diplomatic skills, a functioning brain and the fact that he is not Bush).

[blm]

3. In 04 Kerry was FOR more troops put in before Iraq's first election to stabilize

the country so the UN and NATO could come into a more stable situation and the US military could begin to withdrawa sooner.

That could have been accomplished back then, but no way now.

The other advantage Kerry would have had implementing that strategy in 2005 was that the other countries' leaders would have trusted him 100% more than they trusted Bush, because of Kerry's own record of working towards peace throughout his career and because Kerry has actually STUDIED the world's religions and how they effect their region's governance.