Iraq Study Group report released; Update: “Rough waters” video added!
posted at 11:14 am on December 6, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s available for download here. The press conference has just started — and is being carried live by all three networks. An anxious media wonders: will Baker be able to encapsulate the pessimism of the report in one killer pithy soundbite? [Update: Bingo. See below.] If he does, you know who’ll have the video.
Updates coming.
Update: And just as I type that, Lee Hamilton declares, “Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.” Jackpot.
Update: It sounds like the leaks were accurate. They want a significant number of troops withdrawn soon — ideally within 16 months — and the rest redeployed to advise and support the Iraqi army. (Minor surprise: first they want a minor increase.) And of course they want us to talk to Iran and Syria, an initiative which most Americans (including most Republicans) support. Says Moran: “You will excuse me if I believe that talking to Syria while it is in the process of gobbling up its tiny Lebanese neighbor to be one of the most cynical, immoral, and ill-considered diplomatic ideas in a generation – which of course is right up Baker’s alley.” Presumably the outreach could start as early as next week, right after Iran gets done denying the Holocaust.
Verdict: success is not an option.
Although the study group will present its plan as a much-needed course change in Iraq, many of its own advisers concluded during its deliberations that the war is essentially already lost, according to private correspondence obtained yesterday and interviews with participants. The best the commission could put forward would be the “least bad” of many bad options, as former ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer wrote.
An early working draft from July stated that “there is even doubt that any level of resources could achieve the administration’s stated goals, given the illiberal and undemocratic political forces, many of them Islamic fundamentalists, that will dominate large parts of the country for a long time.”…
Much debate in e-mail exchanges among the most outspoken advisers to the study group focused on whether adding troops would help. But most feared that bringing in the large numbers required would break the military, lead to a surge in U.S. deaths and do nothing to better protect civilians.
In the end, the experts did not agree on sending additional forces beyond military advisers for the Iraqi national army. They seemed certain that Bush would reject most of their recommendations and that few could work anyway.
“Very early on, the notion of achieving some sort of victory didn’t take,” said Chas W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “So if victory is not possible and not feasible, even if you could define it, then what you’re left with is to find some way to mitigate defeat.“
If the Marines ever tire of “Semper Fi”…
Update: The enduring question’s going to be whether long-term success was ever an option or whether the Sunni/Shiite divide would have gobbled up the country eventually no matter what. If Bush had sent 300,000 troops three years ago, if the jihadis and militias had been choked in their cradle and the two sides had a few years of peace to acclimate themselves to, maybe they’d have a different footing going forward. Or, with a thousand years of slaughter on the books and Iran and AQ looking to stir it up, maybe not.
We are where we are, though. Which is why relying on the Iraqi military to prevent a civil war is an exceedingly naive idea:
[O]thers say that placing too much emphasis on training the mainly Shi’ite national army, which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said last week would be ready to take control of national security next June, ignores the fact that the country is in the midst of a deepening conflict that pits Shi’ites against Sunnis.
“We can train Iraqis to be better soldiers but it is not proven we can train them to be better Iraqis. They will still be loyal to communities and tribes rather than central government,” said Loren Thompson, defence analyst at the Lexington Institute.
“There is too much unjustified optimism that Iraqi forces are tractable and trainable. To date there is little evidence.”…
“If our goal is to prevent the spread of civil war, then we are not going to be pulling troops out, because the moment we do, the war will grow so ferocious we will stop deploying.
“If our goal is to get out, then we are going to have to accept an even higher level of civil strife. If Americans leave Iraq, it will not be peaceful by anybody’s definition.”
In the end, the Commission’s using the same strategy McCain is (allegedly), albeit in the opposite direction: he claims more troops will help, they claim fewer troops will. Bush can’t really embrace either option, though, and they know it. As things get worse, each will point to his failure to adopt their own recommendations to explain why things fell apart. Big help, but that’s his fault entirely for not having done all that he could in Iraq when the country still had the political will to do it.
Update: I leave you with this, from the executive summary. We need to solve the Israel-Palestinian issue. And we also need to engage in dialogue with Iran, which is committed to the destruction of Israel. Mazel tov.
The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
Update: N.Z. Bear has posted a hypertext version of the report for easy linking.
Update: Mary K’s been watching NBC and e-mails with a partial transcript. Brian Williams:
Various members of the Iraq Study Group, as you saw, helping in the answer of questions posed by reporters. The quote of the session may very well emerge to be this, from Congressman Hamilton initially, “Our ship of state has hit rough waters.”
Here’s the clip.
Update: Time says al-Sadr and Al Qaeda will love the report. Iraqi citizens? Not so much.
Update: You know I wouldn’t let you down. Soundbitemania!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Ship of fools. On a cruel sea.
Good Lt on December 6, 2006 at 11:15 AM
“You won’t find the word ‘victory’ in the report. You won’t find the words ‘civil war’ either. But you will find the word ’success’.
- James Baker
I sure hope these people know what they’re doing.
techno_barbarian on December 6, 2006 at 11:24 AM
I’ve read the executive summary, and feel a little bit stupider for it….
‘engage syria and iran’ given they are providing all of the support for an unstable iraq, we should probably engage them in the same manner that they engage us…
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 6, 2006 at 11:27 AM
No.
Skywise on December 6, 2006 at 11:28 AM
More proof that Al Gore is insane (and not overly bright).
Christoph on December 6, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Huh. I got a file error.
I think it’s a conspiracy.
Slublog on December 6, 2006 at 11:32 AM
CNN is going with the headline “President BUSH’S policy not working in Iraq”
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM
I hear you… how about telling Syria and Iran to either stop the terrorist support or they’ll be next.
dalewalt on December 6, 2006 at 11:47 AM
This was a waste of taxpayer money, I want a refund.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 6, 2006 at 11:49 AM
What do you expect from Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O’Connor??????
Clark1 on December 6, 2006 at 11:56 AM
There will be celebrations all over the jihadi world tonight.
I’m searching for the bright side in all this, and not having much success finding it. There’s gotta be SOMETHING positive to come out of this.
techno_barbarian on December 6, 2006 at 12:07 PM
i have no idea why there is so much desire to negotiate with syria and iran when both are perfect examples of undermining iraq and america
Defector01 on December 6, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Did anyone hear Alan Simpson’s comments? I got a phone call just as he was speaking and missed it. Darn day job…
Babs on December 6, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Not too mention in Venezuela, South America among the rising mulsim militants, and … ironically in hollywood and at Michael Moores house.
It’s really interesting how often the liberals are on the same side agreeing with, enabling, and assisting those who will later … if succesful … behead them all.
But remember. They’re not traitors. They’re patriots … patriots to whom? The Jihadis? If you defined them by action I’d say so.
One Angry Christian on December 6, 2006 at 12:21 PM
We had the United States Institute of Peace analyze a war.
Huh???
Does anyone else have to blink twice when they read that?
Troy Rasmussen on December 6, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Is there somewhere I can print a copy? We’re allmost out of TP and it’s cold out.
bdfaith on December 6, 2006 at 12:21 PM
America. The new France?
Kevin M on December 6, 2006 at 12:21 PM
A bipartisan effort to unify America in
defeatsuccess. *Sigh*Aunt B on December 6, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Seems like it, don’t it?
SaidinUnleashed on December 6, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Those who accept Israel’s right to exist = the null set.
And I’m sure Lebanon is really interested in talking to Syria right about now.
Bush’s biggest mistake may have been to let the realists crawl out from under their rock. These guys are our own version of Russian Communists. Defeated but not vanquished. (Or is it the other way around?)
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 6, 2006 at 12:30 PM
USIP is kind of an Orwellian acronym, Troy. It’s supposed to be about a very muscular sort of peace.
This is nice of us to basically negotiate our own surrender among ourselves like this. Saves Iran a lot of trouble.
see-dubya on December 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Am I the only one who wants to throw up?
Let me get this straight…. from the start, the Democrats and MSM have tied the hands of the American Military, so much so that every time we get a chance to kill them in mass, we are told not to, because we might offend someone or it might look good for President Bush. Are you (bleeping) kidding!!!!!
Do you want to know how bad it really is? Did you know that our soldiers in Afghanistan are not allowed to fight at night in some places? When terrorist hold up in any self proclaimed Holy site, store weapons, murder civilians, or snipe our soldiers, they are forbidden to turn the site into dust?
Day in and day out we are spoon fed our losses, but never once are we told of our victories?
And NOW, a bunch of washed up politicians want to nuance and lawyer us into defeat!!!
These people (the terrorist) will cut off every one of our heads if given the chance. They will not stop. They will not compromise. They will go on and on, generation after generation. To them it is God’s (Allah’s) will.
I hope President Bush takes this oportunity to unleash the might and power of our brave military and LET THEM WIN!!!
PinkyBigglesworth on December 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Bill Kristol: “…deeply irresponsible…”, “If they think we can’t win they should say it and make their argument.”, “…not serious, they give only three pages to dismissing all the alternatives that they don’t recommend.”, “I didn’t expect much, but having read it I’m not dissapointed as I expected, I’m slightly angry that it’s so disingenuous…”
I’m with Bill. I don’t know if it can be won, but this report is far worse than I thought it would be. No substantive consideration, no deliberative weight, James Baker is weak, weak, weak and more than a little bit evil. And the worst part is it’s totally useless to the President. What a waste.
The Apologist on December 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Hmmm….I knew this was going to be serious when I saw that chapter entitled “F*** the Jews, They Didn’t Vote For Us.”
see-dubya on December 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Honora, Nonfactor, and/or any of our left-leaning commentators (hell, anybody else too, for that matter):
Please explain to me how this report doesn’t encourage our enemies. How does it, in any way, help curb their ongoing actions to destabilize Iraq and the region?
I’ll say it again; Rumsfeld is right. “Weakness is provocative.”
I belive the jihadis smell blood in the water. I believe they sense victory. Tell me why I’m mistaken in that line of thinking.
techno_barbarian on December 6, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Seems like it, don’t it?
I’d have to agree here. We now have a historical track record of taking on a difficult task and then running away and leaving a mess.
America: crapping on the world.
I hate to sound so down on us, but frankly if we pull out we’ve just slaughtered a LOT of people. It really IS vietnam all over again.
One Angry Christian on December 6, 2006 at 12:37 PM
You never ask a navy man if he’ll have another drink, because it’s nobody’s goddamned business how much he’s had already.
there it is on December 6, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I’m beginning to think that Malaki should impose martial law in Baghdad. And perhaps any Iraqi troops found doing tribal/sectarian business instead of Iraq’s business should be shot. It’s time to separate the wheat from the weevils and if they’re isn’t any wheat, well, they’re going to kill each other anyway. We might as well stand back and let them. I hear that Kurdistan is nice this time of year, and that there’s some great hunting to be done along the Iranian and Syrian borders. And that would give us a conversation starter for dialog with those 2 countries.
Meanwhile, before we get too far into mitigating defeat, could someone tell me who it is we’re losing to?
Pablo on December 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Hmm. P.14:
All this stuff could happen, you understand, if we don’t do what they say and pull out.
I’d hate for neighboring countries to start intervening. That could mess things up.
see-dubya on December 6, 2006 at 12:48 PM
“Our ship of state has hit rough waters.”
Therefore we should abandon it immediately! To the lifeboats!
see-dubya on December 6, 2006 at 12:49 PM
…..And hundreds of thousands of once hopeful Iraqis now only praying for survival in the coming slaughter.
Who will emerge as the new Pol Pot?
BacaDog on December 6, 2006 at 1:01 PM
I think we can expect to see a new Osama video very soon. For all you Mark Steyn fans, I’m predicting a “strong horse” theme.
Zetterson on December 6, 2006 at 1:11 PM
I see this all time and it makes no sense. How have Democrats and the MSM tied the hands of the military? They have no power over what Bush’s orders to the military are or what the military does. If the administration ordered a slaughter there is nothing the Democrats could do to stop them.
You could make the point perhaps that pressure from the Democrats, the media, and the American people forced us to fight timidly; that the administration was afraid of the backlash a slaughter might cause and fought the war with that in the back of their minds and this led to defeat. That is an argument that could be made. But just claiming Democrats and the media are resposible makes no sense; Democrats voted for war and then were shut out of the decision making process…how are they to blame?
JaHerer22 on December 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM
I think you already know the answer, but we’re losing to “ourselves.” It’s a failure of will, and nothing else. If we get run out of Iraq, it will be the first time a nation has won every single military battle, and yet lost the war.
Dudley Smith on December 6, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Abu gharib
Lt Pantalona(sp?)
Unwillingness to look into the Iraq history and factually report the history of Saddam, his sons, their WMD programs, and the relationship between AQ and Iraq pre-2003.
In short, they’ve waged a morale war and attacked the base of support for the war. I don’t think they ever once cheered for our side, even in the face of what a truly noble and worthwhile fight this is.. or rather was.
Kai on December 6, 2006 at 1:26 PM
I’d say the media, the left and the democrats got their Vietnam. Only they had an active role in it.
Kai on December 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM
We needed this group of old farts to give us a report that is rather obvious to everyone? Waste of time and money. Gin up the military and let them fight. We will be out of there in 90 days.
Wade on December 6, 2006 at 1:32 PM
My favorite part of the report? The “incentives” for Iran and Syria:
Number five is the best - “and as an extra-super bonus, we’ll let you keep Sharia law!”
Slublog on December 6, 2006 at 1:35 PM
…this is a manual for defeat.
That’s OK…the Left needs America in ruins…all the better to build their Workers Utopia.
I’ve been sayin’ it here again and again…empanelling this collection of political fossils to, in effect, dictate policy was treason…now, following the recommendation they forward will be treason. To be clear, treason is the betrayal of your country either by weakening it or by empowering its enemies. This business does both.
This is a shameful day for our country.
Puritan1648 on December 6, 2006 at 1:50 PM
I’m really surprised and disappointed Ed Meese went along with this.
see-dubya on December 6, 2006 at 1:57 PM
-JFK
:(
Kai on December 6, 2006 at 1:58 PM
So we must turn over the ship to the captain and crew of the titanic.
Someone tell me why 5 years after 911 the democrats are worried that we are at war ? They so badly want to declare peace like that will end all of our problems.
You can offer a peace treaty doesnt mean the enemy will respect it.
If more americans die I certainly will label Lee Hamilton as “America’s Neville Chamberlan”
William Amos on December 6, 2006 at 2:00 PM
The Texas high scool football video may yet be, perhaps, a better metaphor for this war than for the elections.
Kid from Brooklyn on December 6, 2006 at 2:04 PM
Shouldn’t we just call this the “Iraq Studyhall” We all know nothing GOOD comes from folks in StudyHall. ;)
tickleddragon on December 6, 2006 at 2:07 PM
Allah be praised for the video.
I meant … the blogger…
:)
One Angry Christian on December 6, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Don’t forget that this “report” is from the same people that poo-poo the idea of securing our borders. They want to surrender to the terrorists, they want to surrender to the illegal aliens, why the heck are they in any position of power?
Why just because they say it, should it mean fly extriment to anyone?
How about we ignore them, support our brave troops, and encourage President Bush to continue the fight and win!
The Democrats have a slight majority, but if you listen to the MSM, they are in complet control which is just not the case.
If we don’t want to be defeated in the war on terror, then we need to keep fighting the political fight here at home.
PinkyBigglesworth on December 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM
They spent months, and the best they could come up with is surrender? Whatever happened to killing the badguys, and imposing your will on the civilians?
Iblis on December 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM
They shuold have called it the Iraq Surrender Group.
Dave R. on December 6, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Actually, the Iranians do have a disincentive to continue their activities, but the report doesn’t state it - a regional war against a Sunni Coalition funded by Saudi Arabia, as outlined in the Washington Post piece last week.
Dudley Smith on December 6, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Don’t these people ever die! I mean they have been around forever. Same old outlook! Same old ideas! Same old Hate America crowd! I’m getting more and more disgusted by the day! Maybe it’s time to convert now and avoid the rush.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM
James Baker = Jimmy Carter’s soulmate.
thirteen28 on December 6, 2006 at 2:49 PM
DaveR. Are you now responsible for a new Rushism?? Just heard him say that. Iraq Surrender Group. Congrats, Dave!
tickleddragon on December 6, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Iraq Surrender Group is so LAST WEEK it’s LAST MONTH!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 6, 2006 at 3:01 PM
This country is beaten, the battle is over and the terrorists have won. All that is left is retreat but I can assure you they will follow us home so ready yourselves. I hope all of the appeasing, cut-and-run jackasses are now happy.
rplat on December 6, 2006 at 3:29 PM
And when they DO follow us home, it’ll be Bush’s fault for not doing enough to find/stop them before they hit our shores.
dalewalt on December 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM
To quote Pogo,
“We’ve met the enemy, and he is us.”
thegreatbeast on December 6, 2006 at 3:32 PM
I think I need some motion sickness pills.
infidel on December 6, 2006 at 3:38 PM
DISGUST
feels like Jimmy Carter, again.
Hang your heads, bend over, and, well you know.
MikeG on December 6, 2006 at 4:15 PM
At least Bush can dismiss them out of hand now. The relevant question is: What’s the NSC’s review going to say and will it implicitly attack the poor reasoning of the ISG report? The NSC report is likely the one which will have the President’s ideas in it. It will be the guide for what to expect next, not this crapfest.
The Apologist on December 6, 2006 at 4:17 PM
I want Vernon Jordan’s ass in a flak jacket and boots on the ground OUTSIDE the Green Zone….then I may give half a tinker’s damn what he says we should do. SHUT UP.
seejanemom on December 6, 2006 at 4:24 PM
I believe there is a natural progression of divergent political philosophies that could culminate, at worst, in the USofA imploding and developing lack-o-testis. This is representative of the recent midterm elections, Pelosi giving us a view into her SFran colors and allies, Rumsfeld leaving (not such a bad guy after all, huh?), Gates wimpification before Congress (isn’t Byrd close to being a cadaver? or at least his brain has calcified by now), and now the Iraq Study Group produces a document that has al-Qaeida, the Taliban and any insurgent cheering that the USofA has committed seppuku and/or has just castrated itself. Oh, wait a second, I forgot John Bolton.
And to think that the Dems are so concerned about our image around the globe. The Dhimmis are so concerned about transparency that we now are wearing celophane for the rest of the world to see all our warts, bumps and lumps.
Well, we got what we wanted and we deserve every bit of whatever baggage comes with it. We’re either going to come out of this crapstorm a stronger nation or we’re all going to turning towards Mecca five times a day and praising Allah. If the latter happens, do I have a shot at 72 virgins?
USN6872 on December 6, 2006 at 4:24 PM
Looks like there’s something to hate in this report for everyone. The right doesn’t want to deal with Iran or Syria and the left doesn’t want to stick around until 2008.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 6, 2006 at 4:49 PM
We have 20,000 Nuclear weapons (the threat, not the actual use) and we’re getting pushed around by a bunch of ya-hoos with AK-47s and plastic explosives?!?
I hope and pray that Iraq does not fall into the waiting hands of Iran. The situation is ripe for bait and switch. I think we’ve underestimated how sophisticated our enemy is today…and how gullible the media is.
budorob on December 6, 2006 at 5:03 PM
A. Pretty much as I expected. Defeatism.
B. I think Bush will probably mostly go along with it, after a mild demurral. Hope I’m wrong.
C. (if B) God have mercy on the decent Iraqis. Any suspected as cooperating with us will be slaughtered or ‘re-educated’.
D. (if B) God have mercy on America. When they get through with the ‘killing fields’ in Iraq, many of them will be heading here. (and Australia, Britain, Italy etc.)
LegendHasIt on December 6, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Don’t despair–yet. All this Iraq to-and-fro is only Kabuki theater, where all the movements are exaggerated and are done in ridiculously slow-motion while hideous twangy music plays in the background.
This is how policy is made, and you don’t wanna look too close, in the same way you don’t wanna watch sausages being made. It’s ugly and absurd, and mostly non-sensical, and part of its purpose is to distract
read the Constittion: Bush is the Prez, and has the specifically-granted powers to conduct foreign policy. Congress ( or anyone else ) can do nothing except withhold funding, and that would be Political Suicide.
….although I’d like to see Pelosi & Co go down that road
Janos Hunyadi on December 6, 2006 at 5:35 PM
First impressions: Does anyone else here think James Baker is an unmitigated POS?
urbancenturion on December 6, 2006 at 6:07 PM
……I object to “unmitigated”…..
Janos Hunyadi on December 6, 2006 at 7:41 PM
Throughout a reading of the report, the word “vapid” comes to mind. One has to search long and hard to find anything of substance. It does appear they tried to concentrate on economics, but got security and politics all mixed up with it. Looking over the people they consulted, I can’t imagine there was consensus. I’d like to see what the consultants said. Bottom line: the Iraqis not knowing themselves what kind of country they want is causing chaos. Doesn’t make sense to turn things over or seek “reconciliation” (some kind of liberal buzzword) given those facts. I also don’t get their imbedded non-combat military idea. It will take a lot of spin to sell me on anything in this report.
dapro on December 6, 2006 at 9:18 PM
Quick Review:
Pieces of S**t everywhere are insulted.
That hurt.
That hurt more.
That one burns…bad.
But this one killed me.
Cry havoc…and let loose the dogs of war.
Jaibones on December 6, 2006 at 9:30 PM
I found this article
Baker wants to exclude Israel from this so called summit, even though the post 1967 borders are going to be discussed.
Baker is up to his old tricks. I hope W tells him to sit down and shut up.
Mooseman
Mooseman on December 6, 2006 at 9:36 PM
Janos Hunyadi wrote: “…can do nothing except withhold funding, and that would be Political Suicide.
….although I’d like to see Pelosi & Co go down that road”
If Pelosi and co do that, then Iraq will become Vietnam, because that is exactly what the Democrats did in Dec 1974 — they cut off all funding and all military aid to South Vietnam, including spare parts and ammunition. North Vietnam invaded the South the following spring and the South was conquered.
So don’t wish for it, because then everything will have been for nothing!
President Bush says he is waiting for the generals and the NSC to report. But if anybody thinks that he’s going to ignore the tone of this report, you’re mistaken. Doing so will get him impeached — which is the hope and dream of the MSM and the Democrats.
georgej on December 6, 2006 at 10:41 PM
If the word “engage” in the text is diplomatic code for “destroy the nuclear facilities of“, then I endorse this report.
If not, then they pissed away a lot of my tax money for something I could have told them for free:
-you don’t crush your enemy, you lose.
profitsbeard on December 6, 2006 at 11:02 PM
And the attacks will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on –You got the idea. Theis frigen ‘commission’ is the biggest kick in the soldiers ass this country could have mustered after givin thier lives and their limbs. It is disgusting that they would have allowed this whole fiasco to come about.
I hate to say this but this country needs a wake up like another 9-11 and Beslan. Sorry. But we are dealing with demonic maniacs and we have ‘old guard’ assholes trying to pave the way for some kind of ’safe’ future. They have really kicked our country and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in the stomach. I am livid.
auspatriotman on December 6, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Seems that in any talk with the Iranians it would be necessary to believe what they say. Then, why not believe this?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or “vanish from the face of the earth”.
“These oppressive countries are angry with us … a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.
“They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ’so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth,” he said.
News2Use on December 6, 2006 at 11:28 PM
WHAT A SHAM…
7 of the 10 are CFR members…Globalists.
James Baker III, represents the Saudi gov.
Enough said.
byteshredder on December 7, 2006 at 12:02 AM
As expected, this “report” comes across as a total sham. Right in a Left World: Iraq Group Report; Road to Peace or Another Sell Out?
Seems selling out Israel is a main focus.
LewWaters on December 7, 2006 at 1:08 AM
Again, Iraq is not Vietnam. Dec 1974 was almost two years after the last American troops ( other than advisors ) left South Vietnam in April 0f 73. The Demos waited until long after the conflict was “Vietnamized”, because they knew better than to try to do that while American troops were still ‘in theater’.
Please, when making historical analogies and drawing parallels, do so accurately
Janos Hunyadi on December 7, 2006 at 1:43 AM
The Hamilton/Baker group is nothing more than a gaggle of ex-bureaucrats and politicians that simply refuse to go away. In any fight, big or small, the easy way out is to quit and that’s exactly what this bunch has engineered. Any recommendation that prescribes negotiations with the world’s foremost terrorist states are clearly an act of desperation and moral cowardice. This country is in need of radical change and it should start by eliminating all of these useless boards, commissions, groups, and committees populated by unelected elitists. Our lack of courage, and determination caused us to sacrifice an entire nation to Communism during the Vietnam War and now we are about to throw the Iraqi people to the wolves. I am sick and tired of these soft-bellied beltway geniuses from all political parties sending our youth to die when they lack the guts to stand with them and stay in the fight.
rplat on December 7, 2006 at 8:23 AM
It seems that the MSM is giving Bush both barrels over this report. Since when do presidents fight wars? Who won the civil war, Grant or Lincoln? Who defeated the Nazis? FDR or Eisenhower? Granted, you could say that Truman did defeat Japan because he authorized dropping the bomb on them, but do you see what I am saying? Was it Bush that told the military how to fight in Iraq, or was it Rumsfeld?
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 7, 2006 at 8:30 AM
We should engage Iran and Syria, but not in civil discourse!
Golfer_75093 on December 7, 2006 at 8:54 AM
The military did win the war in Iraq. We have enjoyed great success in most of that troubled nation. The enemy that we cannot defeat is the media that has no interest in the United States acheiving ultimate victory or in our continued security. Every time I’ve talked to returning soldiers they tell me that the vast majority of the Iraqi people treat our soldiers well and are generally happy to see us. The insistance that we are seen as invaders and occupiers is limited to small areas of the country and largely a media created myth.
conservativecaveman on December 7, 2006 at 9:36 AM
I believe we already have enough sharks in the water. I don’t think we need the Iraq Study Group throwing in more chum.
I hope our people in Iraq are ready for another ‘Tet Offensive’ this January. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see an escalation of violence. The enemy smells blood in the water.
irishsquid on December 7, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Interesting bit by Tom Friedman on Imus this AM. He feels that our presence in Iraq allows the various militias not to have to “pay retail” for their activities–meaning the country still has basic services and doesn’t descend into total chaos. The militias don’t have to face the consequences in other words. Interesting thought.
The move provocative statements were about the likely response of Iran, Syria et al if we announced a departure date: would Iran support the Shiites and Syria the Sunnis (thereby becoming enemies instead of the allies they are today); would the Saudis finally get the lead out and step up to bat. Also states that our presence in Iraq puts Iran in the catbird seat: as long as we have ground troops in Iraq, they are effectively hostages that prevent us from any aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Don’t know that I am in agreement with all of this, but it is helpful to consider other POVs beyond the current groupthink of “if we leave the consequences will be unacceptable”.
There is tomorrow to think about, yes. But there’s also the day after tomorrow.
honora on December 7, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »