HAMAS holds secret talks with US Democratic Party

[Lancer]

So do they. I'm sure the arabs pay better.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Not bad, KH. However, I would at least have the FBI look into it to see if there was some substance to the report.

And...there's substance here?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


How would you demonstrate that no Democrat has talked to any Hamas member?

By making fun of idiots who believe it with no proof that it happened.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I heard that President Bush was walking around Mosul raping women and peeing on the Koran.

I want an investigation.

President Bush shouldn't be raping women and pissing on the Koran, if he did.

I want an investigation.

[KrazyHorse]

If President Bush pissed on the Koran and raped Iraqi women (as is being claimed by certain Apolyton sources) then he deserves to be impeached.

An investigation is certainly warranted. I don't see how he could refuse, if he's innocent. What does he have to hide?

[DaShi]

Yes, this has me really worried now.

[MarkG]

in related news

'Forward' - Bush's New Favorite Word?

By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 4:11 PM

WASHINGTON -- When he received his own copy of the Iraq Study Group report, President Bush praised the subtitle, "The way forward _ a new approach." On Thursday, it was clear he had added the phrase to his lexicon. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair used "forward" or "way forward" about two dozen times during their news conference about the war and problems in the Middle East.

Some of the main points about the report and what Bush said about them:

Iran and Syria:

Report: The United States should speak directly to Iran and Syria under the sponsorship of a new group made up of Iraq's neighbors and other nations wanting to help strengthen the Iraqi government.

Bush: The U.S. has made it clear to the Iranians that if they want to engage America, they must verifiably suspend their uranium enrichment program. Syria must stop destabilizing the Western-backed government in Lebanon, allowing arms and money cross its border into Iraq and providing safe haven to terrorist groups.

"If people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country," Bush said. "And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up."

U.S. policy and diplomacy:

Report: The U.S. immediately should seek the creation of a group of countries that would work to strengthen Iraq's sovereignty. The group would include Iraq; Iran, Syria and other neighbors; regional states such as Egypt and the Gulf States; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and the European Union.

Bush: "The idea of having an international group is an interesting idea."

U.S. troops:

Report: Increase the number of U.S. trainers bolstering Iraqi security forces to as many as 20.000 _ up from 3,000 to 4,000 _ with the goal of withdrawing the bulk of U.S. combat troops. By the first quarter of 2008 _ "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground" _ all combat brigades not necessary for force protection should be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces or in missions, such as special operations or search and rescue.

Bush: "We want the Iraqis taking the fight, but it's very important ... as we design programs, to be flexible and realistic and _ as the report said _ ... depending upon conditions," Bush said. "I thought that made a lot of sense. I've always said we'd like our troops out as fast as possible."

"Our commanders will be making recommendations based upon whether or not we're achieving our stated objective," Bush said. "And the objective, I repeat, is a government which can sustain, govern, and defend itself."

Israelis and Palestinians:

Report: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the U.S. to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts, including Bush's commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Bush: "One of the reasons why there hasn't been instant success is because radicals and extremists are trying to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. Why? Because democracy is a defeat for them. That's what I strongly believe.

"And so, no question progress has been spotty. But it's important for people to understand one of the reasons why is, is because radicals are trying to prevent it, and they're willing to kill innocent people to prevent progress. Now, our goal is to help the (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas government strengthen its security forces, and we're doing that."

© 2006 The Associated Press

[Dinner]

I expect Bush will treat the report by the Iraqi study group exactly as he treated the 9/11 report. Namely as something to talk about but ultimately ignore.

It's a shame we still haven't implimented the 9/11 report recommendations 5 years after 9/11.

[Ned]

Oerdin, what was in the 9/11 report that was not the Iraq War intelligence report? I know we shuffled the deck chairs on the intelligence ship and created a new intelligence Czar, but I thought the major thing we did in response to 9/11 was to create or massage the Patriotic Act. Was there something else?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I expect Bush will treat the report by the Iraqi study group exactly as he treated the 9/11 report. Namely as something to talk about but ultimately ignore.

Well lets see, the Kurds dont like it, the Israelis dont like it, the Shiites (al Hakim) seem to be cool to it, the Iranians arent wild about it, McCain is blasting it, ....

The deal seems to be to get Shia and Kurds to concede to the Sunnis, and to use the Iranians to deliver the Shia, cause the Iranians are just so eager to have a stable, multiethnic Iraq on their border. And to get the Israelis to make concessions to Syria, cause Jim Baker is just being Jim Baker.

[Ned]

LoTM, There is a lack of critical analysis of the report on US media, who seem to see the report as one more piece of **** to throw at Bush. Katie Couric on CBS evening News badgered Tony Blair, trying to get him to admit that he had made mistakes in Iraq and that his support off Bush was among them.

The New York Times seems to see the situation as a battle between Secretary Baker and Secretary Rice, reducing everything to "negotiations" versus "confrontation." Of course in this battle the New York Times likes Secretary Baker.

News Analysis
Dueling Views on Diplomacy Pit Baker Against Rice
By DAVID E. SANGER <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-per>
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — Many of the blistering critiques of the Bush administration contained in the Iraq <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...inline=nyt-geo> Study Group’s report boil down to this: the differing worldviews of Baker versus Rice.
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-per> was the architect of the “new diplomatic offensive” in the Middle East that the commission recommended Wednesday as one of its main prescriptions for extracting the country from the mess in Iraq. Ever since, he has been talking on television, to Congress and to Iraqis and foreign diplomats about how he would conduct American foreign policy differently. Very differently.
At a midday meeting with reporters on Thursday, Mr. Baker insisted that the study group had “rejected looking backward.” But he then proceeded to make a passionate argument for a course of action he believed Condoleezza Rice <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-per>, the current secretary of state, should be pursuing — while carefully never mentioning Ms. Rice by name.
The United States should engage Iran, Mr. Baker contended, if only to reveal its “rejectionist attitude”; it should try to “flip the Syrians”; and it should begin a renewed quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that, he maintained, would help convince Arab moderates that America was not all about invasions and regime change.
Meanwhile, Ms. Rice remained publicly silent, sitting across town in the office that Mr. Baker gave up 14 years ago. She has yet to say anything about the public tutorial being conducted by the man who first knew her when she was a mid-level Soviet expert on the National Security Council <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-org>. She has not responded to Mr. Baker’s argument, delivered in a tone that drips with isn’t-this-obvious, that America has to be willing to talk to its adversaries (a premise Ms. Rice has questioned if the conditions are not right), or his dismissal of the administration’s early argument that the way to peace in the Middle East was through quick, decisive victory in Baghdad.
Aides to the 52-year-old Ms. Rice say she is acutely aware that there is little percentage in getting into a public argument with Mr. Baker, the 76-year-old architect of the first Bush administration’s Middle East policy. But Thursday, as President Bush gently pushed back against some of Mr. Baker’s recommendations, Ms. Rice’s aides and allies were offering a private defense, saying that she already has a coherent, effective strategy for the region.
She has advocated “deepening the isolation of Syria,” because she believes much of the rest of the Arab world condemns its efforts to topple Lebanon’s government, they said; and in seeking to isolate Iran, they said, she hopes to capitalize on the fears of nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan that Iran seeks to dominate the region, with the option of wielding a nuclear weapon.
Ms. Rice makes no apology for the premium she has placed on promoting democracy in the Middle East, even though that is an idea that Mr. Baker and his commission conspicuously ignored in spelling out their recommendations. “I don’t think that the road to democracy in Iraq is at all utopian,” she said in April.
It is plenty utopian to Mr. Baker, who has made clear his view that the quest is entirely ill-suited to the realities of striking a political deal that may keep Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other, and that may extract American forces from Iraq.
Mr. Baker said nothing on Thursday about looking for Jeffersonian democrats in Iraq; he would be happy with few good “Iraqi nationalists” who can keep the country from splintering apart.
“They start from completely different places,” said Dennis Ross <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-per>, the Middle East negotiator who worked for Mr. Baker years ago and left the State Department early in the Bush administration. “Baker approaches everything with a negotiator’s mindset. That doesn’t mean every negotiation leads to a deal, but you engage your adversaries and use your leverage to change their behavior. This administration has never had a negotiator’s mind-set. It divides the world into friends and foes, and the foes are incorrigible and not redeemable. There has been more of an instinct toward regime change than to changing regime behavior.”
To some degree, the Bush administration has softened that approach in its second term, and Ms. Rice’s aides contend that much of what is recommended in the Baker report, including a regional group to support the country, is already under way.
Mr. Bush himself seems uncertain how to handle his always-uncomfortable relationship with his father’s friend. It was Mr. Baker who in 2000 ran the strategy for winning the Florida recount, but he has also made little secret in private that he regards the administration as a bunch of diplomatic go-cart racers, more interested in speed than strategy and prone to ruinous crashes.
The administration has sent out word that it regards Mr. Baker’s recommendations as more than a little anachronistic, better suited to the Middle East of 1991 than to the one they are confronting — and to some degree have created — in 2006 three years after the Iraq invasion. It is a criticism that angers Mr. Baker, members of the study group say.
Iran and Syria illustrate the differing approaches of Mr. Baker and Ms. Rice. “If you can flip the Syrians you will cure Israel’s Hezbollah <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-org> problem,” Mr. Baker said Thursday, noting that Syria is the transit point for arms shipments to Hezbollah. He said Syrian officials told him “that they do have the ability to convince Hamas <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-org> to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist,” and added, “If we accomplish that, that would give the Ehud Olmert <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...inline=nyt-per> a negotiating partner.”
Ms. Rice’s allies argue that if it were all that simple, the Syrian problem would have been solved long ago. Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser and Ms. Rice’s former deputy, said recently that the problem “isn’t one of communication, it’s one of cooperation.” Now that Mr. Baker has taken his differences public, the mystery is this: is he speaking for Mr. Bush’s father? “We never figured that out,” said one fellow member of the panel. “There was always this implication that there was a tremendous amount of frustration from the old man about what was happening. But Jim was always very careful.”
The elder Mr. Bush was careful, too. Asked if he wanted to offer his insights to the panel, he declined.

[Ned]

Yeah, it does appear that Baker through Israel under the bus in order to get our troops out of Iraq.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/08/061208122947.vnyuf8tw.html

[SlowwHand]

So in brief, what's the story?
Did Democrats meet with them? If not, why was it briefly published?
I don't want to pick through all this again.

[Ramo]

cause the Iranians are just so eager to have a stable, multiethnic Iraq on their border

Why wouldn't they be? When the decision comes down between having a stable ally or a regional war, it ain't hard.

[Ramo]

Baker-Hamilton seems to be roughly what I've wanted for the past several months.