Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Given the political climate, does anyone think this would actually work?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Advice from Indiana's Senator Lugar:
Indiana Senator Richard Lugar believes a bi-partisan meeting with President Bush would be the best way to produce results [about the dispute over Iraq].

"Perhaps the President's situation is improved if he calls on Senator Biden, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Speaker Pelosi for example, and says you know we're in a war, and we're in a situation of rather fractured political circumstances right now, and we need to think through this situation. And I think that would be very, very helpful," Senator Lugar said.
I cannot imagine, given the position each of these particular people have staked out politically, that much if anything would be accomplished.

OTOH, whether or not there was a single thing accomplished it might give Bush some political credit for reaching out in a "bi-partisan" way. Of course the argument can also be made that any such reaching out would be seen as a sign of weakness and a willingness on Bush's part to reconsider his new strategy.

Regardless of how it was perceived politically, however, I simply can't see anything of real substance ever coming from such a meeting.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is a GREAT idea! And if only we cold get Usama to turn up too, we could make this into a giant Summit solving all problems in re: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Dar-al-Islam in general...I would expect rainbows, unicorns, puppies, and chocolate fountains to appear soon after the meeting(s).
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Lugar’s suggestion/view reminds me of the silly people who think that all we need to do to have peace, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, is to bring everybody to the table to talk (BTW, Rice is one of those silly people, evidenced by her shuttling back and forth to get the dialogue going between the Palestinians and the Israelis).

What’s the point of talking in situations such as this? Does Bush not understand Pelosi’s views, and vice versa? Does Lugar think there is some compromise that Pelosi/Reid and Bush can reach... and that they’re interested in reaching it? If he does, why not come out and outline it right now? Doesn’t Lugar realize the Democrats feel they owe their new power to the "rather fractured political circumstances"? Doesn’t he know that any Democratic officeholder who offers Bush the least bit of leeway is doomed to being attacked by the crazies on the left?

To me, the fact that they’re not talking is proof there’s nothing to talk about. If there were a reason to talk, if the two sides were truly interested in reaching some kind of compromise, that they didn’t have the lines drawn in the sand, wouldn’t they already be talking? Heck, wouldn’t they already have talked and announced their compromise? It’s not as if they don’t have each other’s phone numbers, is it?

And there’s more of a chance that Bush agreeing to talk would be viewed more as a sign of weakness than one of bi-partisanship. Even worse for Bush, the (inevitable) lack of an agreement would be cited as yet another example of Bush being out of touch with the public and arrogant in refusing to compromise.
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
And if only we cold get Usama to turn up too, . . .
Why, we could ask him why he hates us . . .

Is it ever too late to start dialoge?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
One of George II’s biggest personal failings is that he does not negotiate, he dictates. This has cost the country many of its natural allies and is starting to tear his own party apart. Any negotiationhat George II enters into would be a good thing regardless of topic or outcome. He needs the practice
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Don? Yes.
 
Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
One of George II’s biggest personal failings is that he does not negotiate, he dictates. This has cost the country many of its natural allies and is starting to tear his own party apart. Any negotiationhat George II enters into would be a good thing regardless of topic or outcome. He needs the practice
I agree the No Child Left Behind Act-being written in large part by TED Kennedy, signing McCain-Feingold, never vetoing a bill all that PROVES his devotion to dictating outcomes, the 18 months of negotating with the UNSC over Iraq, the 6 Party talks on North Korea, the acceptance of the EU taking the lead on Iran’s nuclear program, yes this President DICTATES...

CindyB great advice from a former foreman of mine, "Try to tell lies small enough at least that you’ll believe them."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Lugar tried "advising" Bush 41 with a book, back in the day. His advice at the time, would have been laughable, had it not been so dangerous. I see his situation hasn’t improved much. Nor, apparently, his thought processes.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
I have thought Lugar is a little odd since I saw him discussing nuclear war once. During the entire discussion he had a big, Howdy Doody grin on his face. Inappropriate to say the least. He gives me the creeps.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider