Who believes Jim Baker is objective enough to run a bipartisan committee?

I laughed my ass off, (if only it were that easy), when I read "Jim Baker to lead a congressionally mandated bi-partisan, fact-finding mission," There are so many inconsistencies in that statement is sounds as ludicrous as "Pillsbury Dough-boy to act as main judge in home-made pie baking contest."

NYT: Can James Baker be Bush's 'silver bullet' in Iraq?

Last month's "quiet designation" of ex-Secretary of State James Baker to lead a congressionally mandated bi-partisan, fact-finding mission in Iraq may signify a new "willingness" by the Bush Administration "to admit that it needs help in weighing its options and generating public support," according to an article set for Monday's New York Times.

According to the Times, "People close to the Iraq Study Group say that it is unlikely to recommend a quick withdrawal from Iraq but that it could recommend efforts to involve the United Nations or troops from neighboring Muslim countries in securing the area."

Although the Times article notes that Baker hasn't had a "close relationship" with President Bush, as he did with Bush Sr. whose Administration he served in, "

eople close to Baker say that he was extremely concerned about being seen as second-guessing President George W. Bush's foreign policy aides and made certain of getting approval from the president in person before he took on the job."

Excerpts from the article written by Steven R. Weisman:



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Can_James_Baker_be_Bushs_0423.html

I can just hear our illustrious leader now

"See here Jim, I got this project fer ya..."

get out yer painters pants kiddies!

Surely not *! Perhaps 41? Maybe Clinton the First? Either way, Baker, even without Botts, is not a viable selection...

was unbiased and splendid, and it di d so much good to help protect our vote from partisan, private corporations :sarcasm:

considering the number of times that his presence has been associated with chaos, confusion or obstruction of the truth. Jim Baker should not be leading any investigation. But he should be the target of one.

April 20, 2006, 12:45PM
BP Defends Safety Record to Shareholders

By DEREK KRAVITZ Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

LONDON — British oil company BP PLC defended its safety record to shareholders at its annual meeting in London on Thursday amid an investigation into a pipeline break at its Alaska facility which resulted in the company's largest-ever oil spill.

BP Chairman Peter Sutherland said the company had learned important lessons following last month's massive oil spill on Alaska's Northern Slope and a deadly explosion at BP's Texas City, Texas, refinery last year that killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more.

Sutherland said BP had conducted an "extremely thorough internal inquiry" and appointed an independent panel of advisers, led by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, to study safety systems and culture at all its U.S. refineries.

But despite Sutherland's reassurances, investors and interest groups who attended the meeting accused BP of "serious management failures."

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/3807619.html

BP has a dismal safety record. Company records indicate the Texas City explosion was expected. And safety rules were ignored; for example, a trailer (holding mostly office personnel) was located far too close to equipment going through "start up."

BP is a client of Baker & Botts, but JB claimed he'd sold all his BP stock before heading up the "independent panel."

Was Henry Kissinger too busy to chair the Iraq committee?

If someone calls him in, whether it's an oil CEO for an oil slick which kills 15 men, or the slacker son of a Connecticut Republican elite, it's not to uncover the truth. It's to bury information that may prove damaging to his client.

been a bush supporter in one form or another since the 80s.

Even Henry Kissinger is more capable of fooling people into believing he's an honest broker these days than Jim Baker.

He belongs in jail, with the rest of the crooks.

dug up. His whole life he has had to bail father and son out of trouble. I figured he had an office in the White House.

as being willing to do GHWB's dirty work.

Baker doesn't like W one bit, but he's loyal to his dad.

So, no, he's not the man for this job.