Iraq Study Group Report
So it's out. Judging from the excerpts, it's the usual kind of tendentious mush that's predictable from a bipartisan commission that seems to put the development of "concensus" before anything else.
What's not particularly clear to me is what credentials its members have to have their recommendations taken more seriously than those of, say, the generals in the field or an assortment of other experts, including people who have spent more time in Iraq and in its most dangerous areas.
Take commission member Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Her qualifications for telling America what to do with Iraq are -- what? Lee Hamilton, James Baker and Chuck Robb have a long history of foreign policy service, but all have approached the task with their own load of baggage, including plenty of biases about the war itself (Baker, for exaple, would logically want to prove that it was the right decision not to take out Hussein, back in the early '90's when he was secretary of state).
The panel was put together at the request of Congress -- clearly, as a way both to offload responsibility for making tough calls on Iraq and also as a vehicle for pressuring the President.
As with most bipartisan, blue-ribbon commissions, chances are that it will provide some fabulous opportunities for attitudinizing by its members, offer the president's adversaries numerous ways to attack, and ultimately, provide very little that's of solid or lasting benefit.
What's not particularly clear to me is what credentials its members have to have their recommendations taken more seriously than those of, say, the generals in the field or an assortment of other experts, including people who have spent more time in Iraq and in its most dangerous areas.
Take commission member Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Her qualifications for telling America what to do with Iraq are -- what? Lee Hamilton, James Baker and Chuck Robb have a long history of foreign policy service, but all have approached the task with their own load of baggage, including plenty of biases about the war itself (Baker, for exaple, would logically want to prove that it was the right decision not to take out Hussein, back in the early '90's when he was secretary of state).
The panel was put together at the request of Congress -- clearly, as a way both to offload responsibility for making tough calls on Iraq and also as a vehicle for pressuring the President.
As with most bipartisan, blue-ribbon commissions, chances are that it will provide some fabulous opportunities for attitudinizing by its members, offer the president's adversaries numerous ways to attack, and ultimately, provide very little that's of solid or lasting benefit.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:51 AM
4 Comments:
What's wrong with Joel Osteen?
Anyway, a panel of Victor Davis Hanson, Laura Ingraham (who's at least gone over to Iraq), and say 24 U.S. Army personnel in Iraq would be a better start.
The harsh reality has hit home. The harsher reality that retreat would cause is what needs to be prevented. It's only a matter of time, but the islamo-fascists will strike again in the U.S. And they will be greatly aided by the retreat and appeasers.
Also, what does Isreal have to do with the bombings in England, France, Spain, and with Darfur? Can the U.N save any innocents like it does fuzzy little penguins being heated up by evil humans?
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like some kind of nail.
When the commission consists of diplomats and other noted compromisers, should it be any surprise that the solutions would consist of talking and compromising?
Cliff - I disagree - What an amazing waste of oxygen
Late to the thread, but for Baton Rouge,
If Hussein died of natural causes, then there'd be two arguably worse despots to take his place, namely, his sons. These two examples of pure evil had less upstairs, or rather where most have a heart, than did their vermin father. With complete control with absolutely no restraints, what a stupid wager it would be to suggest that things wouldn't be even worse.
So here's a question for you, Mr. Blood, Flesh and Treasure: What are you willing to do to defend and promote democracy, the lives of innocents, and a world free of the type of scum that hacks off the heads of bound victims?
Post a Comment
<< Home