KISSINGER vs.JAMES BAKER III: "Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain"

[McCamy Taylor]

Every day for the past week, some major newspaper in the US has had some variation of the story "James Baker III Says that the US Must Change Course in Iraq". We hear nothing from Baker directly. It comes in the forms of strategic "leaks" of a report which he is not scheduled to deliver until well after the midterm elections. However, the mainstream media is convinced that it knows what Baker is going to tell W. He will say that the War in Iraq can not be won. He will advise that the US open diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran--which will necessarily preclude starting a war with those countries, something very many people are afraid that W. and Cheney plan to do after the elections. He will recommend that W. give up all hope of winning the current conflict and settle for a dignified withdrawal of troops to begin sometime next year. He will come up with a solution that will bring peace and stability to the region. The solution may entail scaling back plans to bring democracy to the region, but perhaps that was overly ambitious. The mainstream media seems to like what it thinks that it hears Baker saying.

The problem is that Baler has not actually said any of these things which the press is reporting that he is going to say to W. next month. Even if he does say them, W. has given no indication that he intends to listen or to follow a single one of James Baker III's suggestions.

The press is in love with the art of weaving fantasy into a frothy confection which it presents as "news". Truthiness, Stephen Colbert calls it. Truth that is prettier, more perfect than the bare facts. However, someone has to look at the facts. Some one has to be Toto and pull back the curtain to reveal the man behind the scenes.

Which foreign policy expert has W. and Cheney been listening to regularly almost since the start of the Iraq War, according to Bob Woodward? Who always has easy access to both men when he visits the White House, once every one to two months? The war criminal with a Peace Prize, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, as in the man who said that the US lost the VietNam War because it lost its will. The man who said that if you bring some troops home, the American people will get greedy for more, so you must never ever bring them back once they are committed to a fight. The man who said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Through all the sagging poll numbers and the peace rallies and the public disillusionment, W. and Cheney have continued to believe in Henry Kissinger's message. They listened to him over saner voices like those of Colin Powell and George Tenet and their own generals. So many things which they have done have the mark of Kissinger on them. Cultivating friendships with repressive governments for the sake of political expediency. Supporting the Israelis no matter how badly they act toward their neighbors. Supporting the Saudis and Pakistan, no matter how openly they support terrorists. Attempting to overthrow an elected government in Venezuela. Using other countries to torture enemies of this country. These are all from the Kissinger playbook.

Why the hell are we supposed to believe that W. is now ready to listen to James Baker III? Two weeks before the midterm election, we are to take it on faith that W. has had a change of heart? After the election is over, he will sit down with his daddy's best political buddy and they will chart a new course for the Iraq War?

No Democrat in his right mind buys this. The cart and pony show which James Baker III is putting on right now is for moderate Republicans and Independents and Religious Conservatives who may be thinking of staying home or voting Democratic because of their opposition toward the war. Here are the rest of the facts that the mainstream media left out when they spun their yarn about James Baker III and how he is going to talk some sense into W. and save us all from the folly of the Iraq War.

The Republican Party's own base is split--bitterly divided---over this war. Bush Sr. tried to help his boy by saying that if Democrats win control of Congress, the country will be in peril, but everyone knew that was just a father worrying that his son might get investigated or impeached by a Democratic House. So, the Daddy's best friend came to Washington. He said "I will help W. end this unpopular war." James Baker III is very popular with all the Republicans who are mad at W. and Cheney. They trust and respect him. They want to believe that he can talk some sense into the Bush boy. The plan that is being leaked to the press sounds so very reasonable. Anyone, even W. would have to listen to it, right? And W. has not said that he won't listen to it. He hasn't gotten on TV and said "I am gonna do this my way, damn it!"

Reality check, all you mainstream media reporters who are spinning tales for starry eyed moderate Republicans, independents and religious Conservatives. If W. were planning to embrace the Baker plan, he would do it now, before the election. That would take some serious steam out of the Democrats' sails. The hard core Right Wing Base loves Baker, too. They wouldn't stay home just because W. said "I'm gonna change course and follow some of James Baker III's suggestions." The only reason for Baker to withhold his report until after the election and for W. to withhold his response until after the election is because the whole idea of James Baker III suggesting a new plan is an act dreamed up by Karl Rove to sucker the disaffected Republican base into dragging its tired, disillusioned self to the polls one more time in the hopes that Monkey Boy might have evolved beyond the adolescent who flew onto the aircraft carrier to stand in front of a mission accomplished manner.

Anyone who doubts that James Baker III would take part in such a charade to help his best friend's boy--and his political party--should remember the saying "You will know a man by his acts." Back in 2000, James Baker III spearheaded the effort to make sure that the people's will was thwarted in Florida. His mission was to make sure that the votes were not counted. He took the case to the Supreme Court and got Scalia and the Gang of Five to make their notorious ruling in Bush v. Gore that prevented a recount of Florida's votes. A later recount revealed that Gore really did win in Florida. So, Baker's efforts to undermine the democratic process in order to help out a family friend got us into the mess we are now.

Second, in April 2001, he did a little thing called the "Baker Report" in which he said that the US would never have energy independence as long as Saddam was in power in Iraq. The report was well received by W. and Cheney. So, he helped convince W. to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

I can see why the mainstream media is afraid to tell this part of the story. James Baker III is even scarier than Cheney. However, their job is to report the news, not to tell Republicans what they want to hear. This is not Oz, this is the real world.

[Kolesar]

1. I hear James Baker 3 out there dropping RW messages like phosphor bombs

I listened to him on Public Radio's Diane Rehm show a few weeks back when he was promoting his book. I wanted to write or call in but I was busy. What set me off was that he was dropping his messages like "we won the Cold War with Peace Through Strength", which is a perverse war-mongering message. We won the Cold War when the Soviet Union's economic system failed. It had nothing to do with wasting money on MX missiles and B-1B bombers. What is perverse in Baker's slogan is that it insinuates that his political opposition was in favor of having no military power and not defending anything.

(Not to take anything away from your message).

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Political double speak. W. "I wont change" Tony Snow "He will change"

This is the craziest campaign stunt yet. It can only work if the news media does not do any more articles like this one in which you witness the administration saying Yea out of one beak and Nay out of the other beak simultaneously.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq;

"Despite calls for change, Bush said, "Our goal has not changed. Our goal is a country that can defend, sustain and govern itself, a country that which will serve as an ally in this war. Our tactics are adjusting."'

<snip> "Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said that while Bush might change tactics, he would not change his overall strategy."


You get that? He wont change strategy, but he will change tactics. I guess the far right wing base may have have gotten a little hot under the collar after all at the signs of W.'s loss of will. Gotta reasure everyone at once. Good thing that most reporters don't seem to be bothered by the inherent conflicts between all the different scenerios of what W. is going to do in Iraq after the elections.

:headbang: