Since today is being hyped as Bow to the Iraq Study Group Day, we should note that this is not a White House commission, but a group assembled by Congress. It’s also affiliated with the U.S. Institute of Peace. (Not all of those affiliated commissions get massive hype from journalists. For example, take Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell’s commission on United Nations reform last year.) Gail Russell Chaddock of the Christian Science Monitor explained recently it began with veteran Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of northern Virginia:
The Iraq Study Group is the flip side of the usual blue-ribbon panel, whose launch is often its high point. It began modestly as a one-line earmark in last spring's emergency defense spending bill - "$1 million ... for activities relating to Iraq."
It was born from the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad in 2005, which Wolf says was a sharp contrast to his second visit in 2003, with Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut. While even then they traveled anonymously in old, beat-up vehicles for security reasons, they could visit villages, homes, hospitals, and schools relatively freely. In Al Kut, they were welcomed to join a wedding celebration and told how people loved America.
After his 2005 trip, Wolf urged Mr. Bush to select a group of "capable and distinguished individuals" to go to the region to "comprehensively review our efforts" in Iraq. He also began rounds of quiet consultations on the idea from Congress to the State Department, the Pentagon, and private think tanks....
Launched last spring, the ISG took on a much higher profile this fall, as elections neared and the situation on the ground got worse in Iraq.
"No one paid attention to this until the fall when it became clear that the Republican majority was going to fall and Iraq was the issue over which Republicans would lose," says Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at Brookings in Washington, D.C.
Wolf says he welcomes the high profile his simple idea has assumed. "I get amused when I think how we struggled to get it done, and now even Senator Kerry is supporting it," he says. "I think the attention will make the report even better."
Can anyone remember a commission getting this much hype during the Clinton administration, one that Clinton had better listen to or see his "legacy" ruined? I don't.
(This is Miles O'Brien on CNN this morning: "The Iraq Study Group's findings will no doubt have a big impact on how we view the war in Iraq and how we measure the president's performance. His willingness, or lack of willingness, to take its advice could say a lot about his legacy.")
The suspicious left-wing take on it is here.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It takes awhile to read the I
December 6, 2006 - 12:20 ET by slvrwlfIt takes awhile to read the Iraq Study Group report, but here's an interesting passage from the report titled under "Alternative Courses of Action", "Precipitate Withdrawal", pg. 37
"Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences....The near-term results would be a greater power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."
I haven't finished reading the report, but I have a feeling that this isn't exactly what the MSM or the far-left radicals (i.e. Michael Moore) wanted when this report was being hyped.
You've got alot more patience
December 6, 2006 - 13:19 ET by mattmYou've got alot more patience than I to read the whole thing.
To me, this whole thing is just a circus. It's main value is in demonstrating the folly of the PC, CYA beltway mindset. This panel has no legal authority, has produced little if any new information and, from what I can tell, hasn't concluded anything other than that which we already know: Iraq is a tough situation.
But I'll wait until you've read the whole thing to make my final recommendations....
BTW Wouldn't it be great if they had concluded that we should triple our troop strength and nuke Tehran and Damascus? (just a thought)
I wonder if the panel ever read this stuff: http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
mattm,One part that I think t
December 6, 2006 - 14:02 ET by slvrwlfmattm,
One part that I think the MSM will gloss over, pg. 67:
"The presence of US forces in Iraq is a key topic of interest in a national reconciliation dialogue. The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose. The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear their shared interest in the orderly departure of US forces as Iraqi forces take on the security mission..."
The President has stated all along that as Iraqi forces stand up, we stand down. Gee, how nice for another group to validate what the president already knows and has said time and again...
Yet the MSM keeps pounding th
December 6, 2006 - 14:37 ET by mattmYet the MSM keeps pounding the mantra that the conculsion of the report is "Bush's Iraq policy isn't working."
"If you do not read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." - Mark Twain
blathering self important defeatists!
December 6, 2006 - 12:31 ET by bigtimerThe Iraq Study Group report is out, they have had their much sought after by the media and the over-rated self-important group themselves,really really big press conference, now it is up to the enemy within, the other self important appointed group of people...the mainstream media, they will take care of the rest!
What a bunch of blathering balderdash!
Great for our moral, just really great for the military!
We may as well wave the white flag now and retreat, kissing every-ones rear on the way out, especially Iran and Syria....throw in Russia, N.K., the UN and the rest of the world while we are at it!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Iraq Commission
December 6, 2006 - 12:33 ET by iveseenitallGreat recommendations from the group. Negotiate with the devil, set a time table for running, sit back and watch the holocaust begin. Oh well, it's not on American soil----YET!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
"Our most important reco
December 6, 2006 - 12:37 ET by Dave R"Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly....
....Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support."
Support for what? Throwing in the towel?
With all due respect to James Baker, was it too difficult for him and the others on this "distinguished panel" to map out a route to win this thing?
They should have called it the Iraq Surrender Group. I'm guessing the Islamic Fascists in this world are laughing their turbans off right about now.
Lost in Iraq
December 6, 2006 - 12:47 ET by iveseenitallGreat point, Dave. Looks like we CAN'T win in Iraq. We've lost our culliones and thrown in the towel. And the liberals love it. Hitler loved Chamberlain too. As Bigtimer so aptly puts it, "a bunch of blathering balderdash."
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I know they got a budget fr
December 6, 2006 - 13:04 ET by sarcasmoI know they got a budget from Congress, but did they really get an explicit PR-flack budget for leak-time, like they've hired? Who appropriated THAT??? Think about it...
JMR
The Gore 1996 Airline Commission report?
December 6, 2006 - 13:16 ET by Gary HallTim. Remember the Gore 1996 Airline Commission Report? Combine this with Clinton's own 1998 PDB (another one of those "Bin determined to strike" notes)- and we have one of the most undercovered stories in recent history. If memory serves me correct Gore's Airline Commission report not only got little attention back during the Clinton years, it got even less attention during the media frenzy following 9/11 when it should have, as I believe it was known that in an effort to water down the perceived costly recommendations to improve airport and airline security - which may have gone a long ways towards preventing 9/11- the Airline industry came up with sudden large campaign contributions to the Democratic party.
Just heard on an ABC newsradi
December 6, 2006 - 13:38 ET by mattmJust heard on an ABC newsradio affiliate: ...the commission's report says that the current policy in Iraq "isn't working." Is that what it says? Even if it does say that, does that mean it's true?
Pelosi is saying the report proves it's a failure, yet the problems in Iraq don't compare to the danger we'd all be in if Saddam was still in power, building nukes, harboring and funding terrorists and partnering with all the other tyrants of the world. Let's form a blue-ribbon panel to determine how messed up the world would be under that scenario.
This thing is a farce, and is nothing more than a springboard for continued media misinformation and Bush-Bashing. The contents of the report, just like the reality on the ground, is irrelevant to them. Damnable liars!
mattm,Under "Alternative
December 6, 2006 - 13:54 ET by slvrwlfmattm,
Under "Alternative Courses of Action", "Staying the Course", pg. 38, it states:
"Current US policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government [Iraq's government] is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one US official said to us, "Our leaving would make it worse...The current approach without modification will not make it better."
I'm not a cheerleader for the ISG, but honestly, this report is not as critical of the Bush Administration as the MSM would have people believe.
Pg. 40:
"We agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."
You know, there's somethi
December 6, 2006 - 15:38 ET by ckc1227The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained.
You know, there's something I find very disturbing about the characterization of this conflict that no one else seems to be picking up on. If it's true that this fight is putting a huge strain on our military, what in the hell are we going to do if we ever find ourselves fighting a legitimate enemy, such as China, or North Korea, or if our current actions were against one of those enemies now as opposed to Iraq? If our current action is so draining, imagine how draining it will be against those guys.
This tells me our military was in pretty crappy shape when we went into this thing. There's no way our military should be at the breaking point as is often reported, but, if it is, what the heck is up with that?
Now, so no one misunderstands, I'm not slamming our military men and women, and I'm not dismissing current military actions as being easy or anything, I'm just questioning the state of our military going into this thing. If this relatively small conflict is so draining, we're screwed if we have to confront a larger, more powerful enemy.
OKay, that's weird. Hannity
December 6, 2006 - 15:40 ET by ckc1227OKay, that's weird. Hannity just made the same argument right after I posted, lol.
Spooky, lol.
I just heard on the Hugh He
December 6, 2006 - 19:19 ET by John in CAI just heard on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Sandy Burglar was an ISG member or witness?!!!!
Why would the opinion or thoughts of a convicted thief be sought or considered?
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Found a PDF of the ISG repo
December 6, 2006 - 21:39 ET by John in CAFound a PDF of the ISG report. Sandy Burglar is listed under consultations. Still, why ask for any opinion of a convicted thief of national security documents?
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John
December 6, 2006 - 21:52 ET by BlondeJohn,
Um....because he's a democrat who worked for Her Royal Highness Hillary?
That makes him perfectly creditable in the MSM's book of thieves....um pundits...um consultants!
blonde, yeah, I have no dou
December 6, 2006 - 22:01 ET by John in CAblonde, yeah, I have no doubt. I noticed there were a lot of clintonistas listed as panelists or consultants. Leon Panetta, William Perry, Burglar, and others. I didn't notice many Bushies on there - unless you count Baker. Of course Scowcroft was on the team, which that's no ally.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John,Baker's no "bushie&
December 6, 2006 - 22:07 ET by BlondeJohn,
Baker's no "bushie" either.
He's a wolf in sheep's clothes.
I wish Bush would say "thank you very much, buh bye".
Loved the article today....No Alcee, No Harmon, but the new chair of Intel advocates for 30 - 40,000 more "boots".
The dems don't know which way is up. Chaos rules!
It is so comforting to know t
December 7, 2006 - 10:05 ET by Steve SternIt is so comforting to know that such an esteemed group of people in the Iraq Study Group have drafted the terms of our surrender.
Buy the newspapers, watch broadcast news and help undermine the interests of the USA in world.