RSS
Using PayPal
GEORGE W. BUSH TAKES EXCEPTION TO SCOWCROFT'S COMMENTS
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Jan 07 2005, 2:19PM
A short while ago, reporters asked President Bush for a reaction to comments made at the foreign policy luncheon I organized yesterday in the Senate with former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. We have been flooded by calls for the transcript ever since -- and will be posting them shortly on this site.
Until then, here is a Washington Post article that was just published on the web (and out in tomorrow's paper) by William Branigan on President Bush's reaction to Brent Scowcroft's cautionary comments that an "incipient civil war" may be ignited after the January 30th elections.
In addition, here is a different article in the Washington Post that ran in today's newspaper by Dana Priest and Robin Wright that mentions the event and comments made.
Also, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times had this piece on the event covering both Scowcroft's and Brzezinski's comments. Here is a follow-up article just posted on the LA times website by Brownstein on George Bush's reaction.
Chris Nelson, who publishes the 'uber-insider' (as Josh Marshall calls it) Nelson Report, reported this in his 6 January issue about the event and discussion:
The Nelson Report, 6 January 2006 (excerpts)
1. A fascinating yet (given the need) horrifying initiative was launched today by the New America Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund: "The New Solarium Project On US Foreign Policy"; the task, "Charting a US Foreign Policy Road Map For 2005 And Beyond".
Organizer Steve Clemons hosted two former National Security Advisors, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a passle of earnest journalists, in a spirited discussion of the questions noted in the Summary...and their implications.
-- it would be misleading to go for the easy headlines from either Scowcroft or Brzezinski. The arguments were calm, thoughtful, almost sorrowful in presentation. Not even under the temptation of leading questions did either man indulge in ad hominum remarks about President Bush or his Administration...although Scowcroft did permit himself a tellingly vigorous "no comment", when asked about his dismissal from the Foreign Intelligence Review Board.
2. We used "horrifying", above, because both the questions and answers revealed a level of despair about the current situation of the US, not just in Iraq, but around the world, that we have not personally seen since the darkest days of the Vietnam War, and the domestic divisions which still haunt US politics today.
-- both of these old pros...dare we call them wise old men...clearly are looking at the same sets of problems; both clearly feel the potential for disaster; and both clearly fear that neither the country, nor the Bush Administration, has the stomach to pay the price for rectifying the mistakes of the past 4 years. More to the point, on Iraq specifically, they don't really think it's possible, due to the mistakes already made.
3. These men have spent their lives as policy advisors, so of course they see how it might be done, and therefore what should be done, to try and restore the situation. And failing that in Iraq, they can see how to set in motion a new set of positive relationships which can work to avoid future disasters.
-- but, to repeat, it does not sound like either, but particularly Brzezinski, has much confidence that Bush and his top people have the moral or intellectual capacity to accurately diagnose the problems, much less to implement viable approaches.
4. On Iraq, the clearest headline from Scowcroft was his observation that the coming election, even if it takes place, "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict; we may be seeing incipient civil war at this time." And even if ultimate success is possible, it will be a 10 year process. Quite frankly, Scowcroft said, the current situation is so dire that the real question for today is the fundamental one of "whether we get out now"...by implication, before too much damage is done world wide.
-- "Zbig's" headline, arrived via a detailed discussion of the cascade, the reasons for it, and his forthright prediction that nothing less than 500,000 troops, $200-billion a year, a new Draft, and "war taxation" would be required to "prevail' in the long run. But, he noted, "Not even [a dictatorship like] the Soviet Union was prepared to [go to such extremes] in Afghanistan. There comes a point in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified...and only time will tell if [the United States] is facing a moment of wisdom, or cultural decay."
5. "Cultural decay"...my god, consider the implications of that remark! In any event, on the vital question of whether Bush is aware of dissent, much less policy alternatives, Zbig allowed himself a mild sarcasm at the expense of Colin Powell, noting Powell's penchant for low-key comments in front of the President, but more detailed, after-the-fact criticisms of policy failures when talking to journalists.
-- Bush does hear criticism and alternatives, and does come under pressure...from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Brzezinski argued. Scowcroft amused himself with the joke that it's "only journalists" who think they can accurately describe what goes on behind the gates around the White House. And, he allowed, "no matter how high the fences, it's not impervious to [alternative] information. Participants have good access to [the necessary] information. It's how they process that information that is the question."
6. Scowcroft carefully avoided a specific endorsement or rejection of Zbig's "500,000 troops", preferring to focus on the need for Europe to "stop taking satisfaction from US discomfiture." But to get the Euros on board, "Bush needs to tell them [at the summit] next month that the US needs help and to ask them to consider the implications to their interests if the US pulls out now -- civil war in the Middle East!" Scowcroft's point...the President has to reach out, but the Europeans have to be willing to act.
-- another major Brzezinski theme is that Europe and Japan are essential actors which must partner with the US. The future of the world will depend on close cooperation to bring India and China in as responsible, peaceful players. But this won't happen if the US continues its arrogant and counterproductive habit of demanding cooperation but refusing participation in basic decisions. "We've got to share both the burdens and the decisions...and we can, IF we can convince them we are united on core values [the "torture" outrage presenting a huge current obstacle] and shared objectives".
7. Specifically, Brzezinski warned that the current "global war on terrorism...is not a strategy" because it "lumps together" all Islamic interests around the world, especially in Asia. While it is true that the root cause of much current terrorism is the civil war within Islam over modernization, the US strategy risks forcing together the very disparate Islams of Asia vs the Middle East.
-- nothing less than a "Grand Alliance" between the US, Japan and Europe can have a hope of resolving the three interlocking crises in the Middle East...Israel/Palestine, Iran, and Iraq. Each must be simultaneously addressed, although they will not advance in concert. Adding to the risk of no coordination...since "the US is now the 'occupier' of Iraq, in a region of historic tension and conflict, we look like the enemy of all Islam."
8. A final interesting point, debated briefly, also relates to our "Gossip" item tonight, the resignation of John Bolton...and that Rice's recently retired NSC non-proliferation guy, Bob Joseph, will become Undersecretary of State for that critical function. The NY Times Dave Sanger asked Scowcroft how he thought Bush would be able to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, given all of the EU/Middle East/Iran complications under discussion.
-- Scowcroft allowed himself a chuckle in reminding the audience that "I was right" in an Op-Ed more than a year ago on making a "red line" clear to North Korea [no selling of nuclear material or technology]...but that circumstances are different now, so "I don't think a red line is the right thing for North Korea now."
9. Scowcroft went on to strongly endorse the 6 Party Process, but to warn that the Bush Administration still does not seem to have made a fundamental policy choice -- does the US really want to make a trade with the DPRK to remove the nukes [thus implying the continuation of the Kim Jong-il regime]...and, given US hostility, has Kim Jong-il decided to "cling to the nukes" regardless.
-- Scowcroft repeated a warning this Report has made for the past two years...that IF there is a breakdown in the 6 Party process, it is critical for US/China relations, and for Asia, that the US is not held to blame. "If there's a breakdown, China must stay on our side!" On Iran, Scowcroft sees a very different dynamic, given the pro-active role of the Europeans. The US must actively support the Euros, and not just say it won't object to others giving Iran inducements.
I have my own thoughts about this important discussion which I will post after I satisfy the demands for transcripts coming from all the networks, wire services, and print media.
But for other TWN readers, the transcripts will be finished today and posted on the site hopefully before the close of business today.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - AL GONZALES'S SECRET MEMOS "FAIR GAME" BY HISTORICAL STANDARD» Next Article - STREAMING VIDEO OF MEETING WITH BRENT SCOWCROFT AND ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
Congratulations on a great luncheon! I guess this is Bush is being "resolute" and upbeat - all is well in Iraq, except for a few smoking hulks. Seeing the reaction, it's good to see these learned graybeards get some well-deserved attention on this important topic. Look forward to the whole transcript, when it's available.
"We have been flooded by calls for the transcript ever since -- and will be posting them shortly on this site."
Thanks, Steve. Consider this a contribution to the flood.
Good luck, Steve, and all who work with you.
Steve,
I couldn't help but note the following Bush quote from Branigan's WaPo piece:
"I think we're making great progress" in Iraq. He added, "And it's exciting times for the Iraqi people. And it's so exciting there are some who are trying to intimidate people from going to the polls."
Did you get that last part? Is that a misquote, or Bush merely committing another Bushism (a la,
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we...They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.")?
Oh Brad, if you'd only wait 24 hours I'm sure there'll be plenty of blogs out there with 4,000 word essays explaining to you (with the aid of various pieces of email from soldiers serving in country) that this is actually a Hidden Good News Story and that you are merely too stupid to realise this, having allowed yourself to be held in thrall to Conventional Information Outlets That Hate America (eg. CNN, the WaPo, CSIS, RAND, the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, etc...).
Boy. And here I thought Yglesias had a personal three person luncheon with Brzesinski and Scrowcroft. I was like, "wow, dude".
Thanks for making this information available and having the forum and everything. I'm looking forward to a quite moment today when I can sit down and listen to the session. I knew New America Foundation was "the place" back in 2000. I feel the same way today. I belive New America's ideas are the third way.
AS for whether the kool-aid drinkers on the right and left want to listen is another story.
P.S to Steve, hope you make that social security forum (on 1/11) available also :-)
One of the most distressing things about reading the Nelson Report excerpts is thinking about Condi Rice being in the same job category as Zbig and Skowcroft. This is her professional circle. Yet, I just keep getting this image of her sideways smirk, "I think it was titled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US'" like she was thinking, "so what?" That memo was published three days before the stem cell speech, so obviously, there were other priorities.
Better check your feet; we're in deep doo doo.
Scowcroft - on the need for Europe to "stop taking satisfaction from US discomfiture....Bush needs to tell them [at the summit] next month that the US needs help and to ask them to consider the implications to their interests if the US pulls out now -- civil war in the Middle East!"
Yes...yes Mr. Scowcroft, but wouldn't that be easier if Bush dumped some of the cabinet that purposely and needlessly insulted the "old" Europeans? Or is losing a hopelessly out of position Bishop too big a price to pay when playing the big board?
from Washington Post article:
"He (Scowcroft) said the U.S. military presence in Iraq is inflaming the Middle East and hurting the war on terrorism, and he suggested turning the operation over to NATO or the United Nations."
What planet is Scowcroft on? I am especially referring to his absolutely absurd recommendation.
And perhaps Bush could "sacrifice" a few pawns...choice Woofy quotes from Drum:
"...calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark...there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq...Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force... costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high...To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong..."
And then the worst quote of all:
"I have been asked to stay and have accepted...I can't imagine life after Don Rumsfeld."
If a woman talked about her man that way, we'd all be embarrassed for her, what does the pentagon brass think? Don't ask...don't...tell?
berty,
Agreed Scowcroft's recommendation is absurd. To suggest that NATO and/or the UN could be hoodwinked into taking over for US in Iraq does not give them much credit. It would surely be a dreamy best case scenario to have either of those two organizations bogged down in Iraq for the next ten to twenty years instead of US. Imagine the coup of just waltzin' right out of there, washin' our hands of the whole mess, snickerin' "suckers."
If Bush and the neo-cons could pull that off, I would consider shoving under the rug their War Criminal status and let bygones be bygones.
carswell:
not exactly what i meant. The UN couldn't punch it's way out of a paper bag. I wonder what Iraqis would do with UN peacekeepers raping their young girls? And NATO? Don't make me laugh. The US "is" NATO except for political cover. Why don't you ask your boy Wesley Clarke about the efficacity of NATO? You really are brainwashed, aren't you Carswell? Part of the English tradition of appeasement.
" NATO? Don't make me laugh." - berti
Neither the Serbs, nor the Soviets shared your opinion Berti, either the Red Monster existed or the Republicans have been lying for sixty years.
According to your "facts" Berti, Republicans are either fools, or lyers, which is it Berti? Or did you get your "facts" wrong?
That'll happen, if you watch too much Faux News, you need to go easy on the stuff, but don't quit cold turkey, your system couldn't handle the real world all at once, ease into it.
Bush said yesterday, according to Branigan's WaPo article cited in Steve's post:
After the balloting, "we look forward to working with the newly constituted government to help train Iraqis as fast as possible so they can defend themselves," he [Bush] said. "Because ultimately the success in Iraq is going to be the willingness of the Iraqi citizens to fight for their own freedom."
So basically Bush is agreeing with Scowcroft's prediction of "incipient civil war," but putting a smiley face on it.
After the elections, the "newly constituted government" will be Shiite, who will "train Iraqis," that is, predominately Shiite Iraqis, "so they can defend themselves," and their Shiite government against the Sunnis who have not voted, and don't recognize a government composed mostly of peoples, Shiites, they once overwhelmingly dominated.
The icing on the cake is Bush's final line,
"Because ultimately the success in Iraq is going to be the willingness of the Iraqi citizens to fight for their own freedom."
In other words, a civil war between the Shiites, representing the government, and the Sunnis, anti-government forces. And the Kurds will probably just break away in the turmoil expelling the Arabs from Kirkuk in the process.
Bush actually sees things quite clearly, only he is not down in the mouth about the inevitable. Everything is beautiful in its own way. Sing it, George!
Carswell is finally getting what it is that makes a neo-con a neo-con, that is, to create chaos and turmoil so that freedom and democracy has a chance to bloom, instead of surrendering to the status quo of tyranny. De-stabilzation is the neo-con plan for the Middle East; civil war with the US taking the side of the revolutionaries to ensure their victory, is the goal; our presence during the tumult also insures that we can protect our vital interest in the region, oil. Yep, it is hard work, we must stay the course, it'll be bloody with much sacrifice, but it is noble to spread freedom in the world.
The long term optimism Bush has been infected with by his neo-con advisors is exemplified in his statements in the WaPo article of Branigan:
Asked if he shares Scowcroft's concerns, Bush told reporters today, "Quite the opposite. I think elections will be such a incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people."
He said that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces "appear to be relatively calm." The four remaining provinces "are places where the terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," he said. "So I know it's hard. But it's hard for a reason. And the reason it's hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom."
The United States and other nations must "be aggressive in the spread of freedom" and "stand with those brave citizens in Iraq who want to vote," Bush said.
"If the free world steps back and lets these people have their way . . . we'll never address the root causes of terror and hatred, which is frustration caused by tyranny," he said. "If we step back and allow for tyrannies to exist and people not to be free, the world our children will grow up in will be a hostile world."
Bush said he views the Jan. 30 elections "as a historical marker for our Iraq policy," adding, "It is an interesting point."
After the balloting, "we look forward to working with the newly constituted government to help train Iraqis as fast as possible so they can defend themselves," he said. "Because ultimately the success in Iraq is going to be the willingness of the Iraqi citizens to fight for their own freedom."
Bush said in response to a question, "I think we're making great progress" in Iraq. He added, "And it's exciting times for the Iraqi people. And it's so exciting there are some who are trying to intimidate people from going to the polls."
The question is: Are you with those with paralysing short-term vision, hand wringers wracked by daily death reports, in short, those consumed by fear. Or, are you with those who see long term and the glory of freedom's reign on earth, those on a noble quest, those whom songs will be sung of in the distant future.
The obvious reason why 14 or the 18 provinces "appear to be relatively calm" is because hardly anybody lives there. They are populated in proportions like the Dakotas and Wyoming and Montana. The action is in the other four. Baghdad is one of the remaining four, where the vast majority of the people live. If you can't achieve relative calm - and 24 hour electricity - in Baghdad, you have no business claiming any success.
The comments and the quotes that you have written here, avi, are EXACTLY the reasons why Steve and New America are embarking on a foreign policy mission that rebuilds and strengthens the intellectual capital that offers serious alternatives to the devastating and dangerous effects of truly short-sighted neoconservative utopia.
What we gots to do is described in a Newsweek article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
The Salvador Option as in death squads as in El Salvador during Reagan.. Like the man in Newsweek says,
"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."
Thus, its becoming clear that we must sponsor the killing of civilians who give basic support to the insurgents "that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency."
Send the leaden message, that if you're suspected of aiding our enemies you shall be killed no matter who you are.
Our last best hope.
Chalgaul,
Did you come here to advocate the murder of innocents to secure your bloodlust, to absolve you ascendant fool?
Do the modern day "Republicans" dig so deeply that undermine the foundations of hell. Satan himself blushes at your evil connivance.
Brennan,
Read the link I supplied, and direct your withering comments to those who are actually contemplating another round of American satanic pop goes the weasel evil.
brennan:
read a bit of what wesley clarke had to say about working within NATO during the war against Serbia ... how much is NATO worth today militarily? If the US dropped out? Zero, basically. During the cold war NATO was still basically an American force. Save your Dem-Rep. comments for someone else more gullible to your baiting.
brennan:
you are a one song guy ... no substance and the so-called melody is ringing hollow ... i am sure you were whining the same refrain during the invasion of Afghanistan, rooting for the Taliban ... don't you realize that your so-called ideas (ideology) is making a bee-line for the drain?
last post by bertignac
Chagaull,
Sorry about that, your sarcasm got mine, however, I did like your point about my "withering comments", jeeze...if my English teacher only knew. In fact, this one bears repeating.
And then the worst Woofy quote of all:
"I have been asked to stay and have accepted...I can't imagine life after Don Rumsfeld."
If a woman talked about her man that way, we'd all be embarrassed for her, what does the pentagon brass think? Don't ask...don't...tell?
Berti,
It appears that you've confused mind reading ( See:" i am sure you were"), with lip syncing nonsensical Republican talking points. As for posting under my name, hey...it's all part the "values" thing that I just don't "get".
brennan:
no mind reading ... simply making an inference based on the slop you sling today ... and remembering what some people actually said then and what they say now about what they said then ...
Priceless Berti...priceless:
"... and remembering what some people actually said then and what they say now about what they said then ..."
-Posted by bertignac at January 9, 2005 01:12 PM
Kinda creepy...when a guy gets undone one post up and starts lecturing others on their lack of honesty, sorta like that Bill Bennet on honest work, or Newt's infidelities with student intern(s) while his wife is hospitalized with cancer, or...(insert Modern Republican name here), again Berti, SOP.
brennan:
Plain straightforward English. What part of it didn't you understand? By the way, what did you say in the early days about invading Afghanistan, when the doubters chorus were singing the quagmire song?
Berty,
Fuggetabout Afghanistan. Could you give us an uplifting inspirational spiel that might be able to drown out the marching band playing Quagmire in Iraq. Fuggetabout slinging mud at others, the UN, Wesley Clark etc., and give us some substance as to how it is proper for an American to think and feel about what has been unfolding in Iraq, and your views about our future there.
Berti,
You are truly lazy, I post under my own name.
Why don't you start with "Mission Acomplished" since you are obsessed with wrong predictions.
Brennan and Carswell:
I brought up Afghanistan because I still haven't forgotten how every step of the way towards liberation of that country from the Taliban, there were "negatrons" insisting it couldn't be done. Some were so insidiously anti-US that they really didn't want the US to overthrow the Taliban, even though these same bleeding hearts decrided the crimes of the Taliban. So much of the doomsday talk then repeated itself in the invasion of Iraq. The whole middle East "street" was going to revolt. The Iraqis would use chemical or biological weapons. The invasions would cost tens of thousands of US lives. Now we are faced with an insurgency. Continually harping on the lack of correct post invasion planning of the Bush administration serves no purpose. Suggesting that the Europeans, or NATO or the UN somehow wave a magic wand serves no purpose. I do not pretend to have all the information or all the answers, but I basically see that the answer lays in those among the Iraqi Sunni who are responsible, as putting their money with the elections. A few short months ago the news was full of Al-Sadr, and you were harping on that, wringing hands. Why don't we, who basically are just writing posts on a blog, wait and see how this is going to work out? For my part, I prefer to give my energy and enthusiasm to US troops and Iraqis for freedom, rather than playing into the hands of Baathists and fundamentalist murderers by continuing through unrelenting negative, unproductive criticism.
Hope, faith, myths, belief, cheerleading, rose colored glasses
vs.
The reality of our situation.
I guess the former makes one feel alot better about our predicament.
And I guess, when it all plays out, the "realists" will get the blame for not supporting the troops, being defeatist, being un-patriotic, etc. that led to our strategic defeat in Iraq. Just like how the war hawks felt after Vietnam, and many of those war hawks became neo-cons.
Its gonna be the bitterness "We lost because the Left betrayed America."
I see it all again comin' to that. You and Coulter, berty.
carswell:
once you get past all the name-calling, which it seems you are so attached to, there isn't much substance to your "realism". And, the inferences and interpretations you make, which YOU call reality, are not necessarily the same for everyone else. Beyond interpreting "facts", nothing is done without hope, faith and belief ... which is the best of the human spirit. Save your so-called "realist" vs. "neo-con" dichotomy! It is stale and old and outlived its usefulness.
"Save your so-called "realist" vs. "neo-con" dichotomy! It is stale and old and outlived its usefulness."
Only in your own mind since it cuts to the quick.
Washington DC abounds with such talk, particularly in Republican conservative circles of those who wish to retain their reputations as being the original old time respected "realists."
Reader Comments (35) - post a comment