I'm not even convinced Bush 43 knew what a Neoconservative was when he was elected in 2000. He wanted to differentiate himself from dad so he made some friends who claimed they agreed.

I think The Little Prince will do just about anything to salvage his Presidency. He practically begged the Democrats to save his ass today with all the "work together" shit. Why's that so important all of a sudden? Why didn't he tell his buddies in Congress who kissed his ass for 6 years to ask the Dems to join the process? Why, because he thought he could do it all himself. Now he knows he can't. He wants a "legacy". He dearly wants to be the guy who ends the Iraq war or at least brings the troops home. He knows neither his father nor Bill Clinton were able to leave a legacy (at least in his opinion) and he dearly, dearly doesn't want to be like either of them. That is going to drive every decision he makes for the next 2 years.

Does this mean that Cheney stops running the country? 

--- Policies not Politics
          Daily Landscape

It just amazes me how, in the 1980s, we were so appalled by the hard right core of Ronald Reagan's national security apparatus. These days, when those guys re-appear and Bush takes them in, they seem downright moderate. Have they changed? I don't think so. We've changed our expectations. And we're willing to accept the leadership of a classic anti-Soviet Cold Warrior, who helped define our failed Central America policy, because he is so much more moderate than the recently de-throned neo-cons who fully defined our horribly failed Middle East Policy.

So let's be clear on this: we're endorsing realpolitik, coddling dictators, preserving stability over encouraging democratic opposition, all those bad Kissingerian 70s things (usually summed up, ironically enough, by a single photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). (Oh, and a spend-all-the-money-you-want, Soviet-threat-focused military, as opposed to the nimbler, cheaper, more innovative force Rumsfeld has been creating for the last six years.)

It's one thing for Bush 43 to have arrived at this point through exhaustion. It's another for supposed liberals to suddenly view Metternichian cynicism as the highest best goal of American policy.

It sickens me, in fact. When did you all stop being liberals?

Who said anything about endorsing Gates? He might be a step up from Rummy, but at this point no one knows what he will do - or even what he can do. We know Bush will not leave Iraq, and we know that Iraq can't be won - at least not in the way we in the west would envision a win (i.e. a secular, pro-western democracy) - so where does that leave Gates? Probably doing more of the same, but with less 'aw shucks, who could know the known unknowns?' schtik. The Army is having trouble meeting recruiting goals, and there won't be a draft so the army can't increase it's numbers. Gates is going to spend two years simply NOT BEING RUMMY for the Democratic controlled congress.

As for Rummy's military being cheaper, you've got to be kidding me. The Vietnam war, adjusted for inflation, cost the United States $590 billion over ten years of fighting with our 'Soviet-threat-focused military'. We are well past the half-way mark ($340B) after three and a half years while fielding less than half as many men.

Also, I appreciate your concern for our apparent lack of liberal values, but when millions are suffering and dying beacuse of a stupid ass choice we made, step one is to stop the suffering and dying - or at least try not to make it worse. This wasn't a valiant struggle for liberty by the people of Iraq, for the people of Iraq. They didn't start this thing. We did. They didn't choose to suffer for the promise of a better tomorrow; we decided to kill thier leader and blow their shit up because we thought he might want to kill us - maybe - someday.

Liberals don't wage war for change sake. Liberals wage war when theere is no other choice. War is, as the saying goes, a failure of diplomacy.

Is Daddy Bailing Out W again?

Baker, Hamilton, Gates, all cronies of Bush 43, coming to clean up the mess of Iraq.

I see a parallel here. Didn't Daddy's friends bail out W when his business failed?

It is hard to break old habits.

Gates is more than I thought.

From a lengthy article in the Texas Monthly about Gates's leadership at Texas A&M, ideas about change and the big picture:

...He seldom rules by fiat. His style is to create a climate in which change is encouraged and bring in a person who is amenable to it.

...“Leadership in large public institutions requires a skill set different from the private sector,” Gates told me. “A&M and the CIA have this in common. Professionals in the organization got there before you were there and will be there after you leave. For changes to last, the professionals have to assimilate the changes and make them their own. My time here is finite. I want to build something that will long outlast me.”

...Of arms limitations negotiations with the Soviet Union, he writes about senior American officials who “not only lost sight of the forest but mistook tiny shrubs for trees.” Gates knows the difference between shrubs and trees.

[From reader Virginia to Andrew Sullivan]

I see a legacy firewall going up around Bush and Cheney is outside of it.  The firewall separates those who are working for the GWB legacy and those with their own agendas. Cheney is now only useful as a tool of building the legacy. What is not clear to me is who is the strategist for building the legacy.

Getting rid of Rumsfeld continues the marginalization of Cheney. Without Libby he had already lost some clout. Josh Bolten as Chief of Staff owes Cheney nothing. With Rumsfeld's political appointees and Cheney cronies moving on, as I expect they will, Cheney loses top level access. Cheney's man Bolton is history.  Remaining lower level Cheney accolytes sprinkled around the government will have less power.

Robber barons might due for a start. "A ruthlessly powerful US capitalist or industrialist of the late 19th century considered to have become wealthy by exploiting natural resources, corrupting legislators, or other unethical means." Websters Unabridged. 1996.

Any bells ringing?

(I also posted some of this on another Gates thread)
On Joe Scarborough (CNN) Wednesday night, Scarborough said that Bush 41's advisers like Baker and Scowcroft had told him (Scarborough) privately that they detest Bush 43, that they think he's botched everything badly. That remark was cut from the transcript of the show, without any annotation that a portion had been edited out. Scarborough was making the point that Gates is closely tied to those Bush 41 advisers, especially Scowcroft.

Scarborough also said that a case could be made that Limbaugh had lost Montana, and hence the Senate, for the Republicans by mocking Michael J. Fox, but that no Republican would make that case because they would need Limbaugh in 2008. I think he also put Rove in the category - culpable for current losses, but needed for future wins.

Scarborough spent a good deal of time trying to distance himself from the people, policies, and talking points he's given partisan support to in the past to the detriment of the country.

Bush is rearanging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

His Presidency has finally been given the bashing it deserves by the American people, which at last seem to have caught on to what has been as clear as day to any person with half a brain outside America for quite some time. How this idiot ended up the leader of the free world and in charge of the most sophisticated war machine on earth, apart perhaps from the Military Commissions Act of 2006 going into law, must be one of the most disasterous events in American history.

Now his Presidency is in tatters to the American people themselves, as it has been to us outside the US for years. We see this appointment for what it is; a pathetic effort to make it look like he's changing something when he really isn't so much. A political move that has no more impact than the sight of Condi on the telly helping fork out emergency supplies after Katrina, while we here in Australia had already seen the dead bodies outside the stadium days after it struck. Too little too late, and it was just for show.

We know Bush will not leave Iraq, and we know that Iraq can't be won - at least not in the way we in the west would envision a win (i.e. a secular, pro-western democracy) - so where does that leave Gates?

The ability to 'fix the intelligence' as he did previously and keep us out of Iran?

Poppy Rides to the Rescue!

The firing of Rumsfeld and muzzling of Cheney signals a not a new foreign policy but a return to the foreign policy so beloved by the main-stream media of Bush '41.

The Baker commission and Gates' hiring is a p.r. move to signal to both the country and world that the crazies are out and sober minded diplomats are in charge.

The problem of course is two-fold.

1. The war in Iraq is irretrevably lost. NOTHING we do at this point is going to salvage a viable democracy in Iraq. Instead the Baker commission is going to de facto carve up the country. This will be accompanied by rivers of blood, since the one thing the Sunnis HATE more than the Americans is idea that they will become this tiny rump state in the middle of the country -- with no oil. They will fight for a generation to prevent that.

Meanwhile Iran will supposedly rein in the Shiites and Syria the Sunnis, while the Kurds do God knows what.

This begs the question what incentive the Iranians have to cooperate with Bush. Unless the U.S. is prepared to negotiate a settlement with Iran on the question of their nuclear program, this plan is a non-starter.

That leaves only the de-facto partition of the country combined with symbolic troop withdrawals designed as P.R. moves with a coordinated media offensive to win back the ignorant and guillable American middle. Since the media never reports what's really going on in Iraq and you have to turn to internet news sources like Juan Cole's Informed Comment to learn the truth, it's a safe bet that whatever lies the new Bush team comes up with will be believed -- for about 1 year until it becomes clear again that the wheels are already off the wagon.

As for Democrats the arrive in the majority just in time to preside over the defeat. Think the right-wing and the media won't blame them for Bush's failure?

The division of Iraq is going on. It's arrogant to believe that we in The West can contribute with anything positive by trying to influence or change the ongoing partition.

What we can do, however, is to work for the protection of victimized civilians, for instance civilians in need of transfer to a safer neighborhood and in need of a tile to live of.

Yes, this would make us taking part in ethnic cleansing, but isn't that to prefer for being responsible for igniting massacres or genocide?

The process is to the advantage of Iran. Yes, but that's been obvious for years by now. Nothing we can do much about. Nothing worth to waste much ink on.

But remember that Arabs and Persians do have their own difficulties.

This begs the question what incentive the Iranians have to cooperate with Bush. Unless the U.S. is prepared to negotiate a settlement with Iran on the question of their nuclear program, this plan is a non-starter.

There is of course plenty of goodies that would be in America's power to offer Iran or Syria, like for instance weapons and retracted support for Israel. But would this administration be willing to do such concessions; and what would the opposition, the Democrats, say if they learned about it?

Bi-partisan is a code word for avoiding risks for both sides, but maybe most for the President?