Custom Search

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Thanks, But No Thanks

Bush and Blair had a press conference, which I watched and although they both said the proper and appropriate things about the Iraq Study Group, it was clear that it will be given the consideration that it deserves, none. The Study Group's buzz words, saying the situation was grave, yadda yadda yadda, isn't exactly a new vision, the President and our miliatry has been saying it was grave all along.

Their brilliant observations about how we cannot leave immediately and leave behind chaos , again, is nothing new and something the president has been saying over and over again. So because it now comes from the mouths of a group of bipartisan politicians, it is now correct when it wasn't the day before? Silly.

One of the questions, from the LA Times, really hit my funny bone though:


Q Mr. President, you have said that you have the Baker-Hamilton report, you also have the -- you're waiting to hear from the Pentagon, you're waiting to hear from the State Department. This report was prepared by a bipartisan group, the only one you'll get. Secretary Baker has a special relationship with the family. Should this report not get extra consideration? Does it not carry more weight than any of the others?

Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do? That anyone would even think that a report written by a group of former politicians should be given "extra consideration" about a military operation than MILITARY recommendations? I actually laughed out loud when I heard the question. Somehow suggesting that "politicians" should have more say in military operations than the military...I am still laughing here.

That question has to win some sort of knucklehead of the day award or something.

You can read the whole press conference here.

Mary Katharine Ham points out how excited the press seem to get at the prospect of defeat. What I notice is how disappointed they are when they realize that some people in this world still actually believe that our military, along with the Iraqi's elected government can actually work and "succeed". (Yes I know, that word, succeed fits right up there with victory, viewed by some people as dirty words)

Hot Air has another amusing take on the ISG report:

I don’t have much to add to what others have said in criticizing the Iraq Survey Group’s report. Much of my reaction can be summed up in short pithy words that I don’t ordinarily use. It’s a pile of this, it’s full of that, and the vaunted bipartisan Solons who met, achieved consensus and reported their solemn findings can do this or that to themselves.

It is his next point which asks a very important and relevant question though:

But here’s a question: Since when did the United States or any country wage war by publishing its plans or suggested plans for all the world to see? Since when did the United States or any country let its enemies see internal deliberations and strategic pivots, and since when did we think our enemies shared our interests, either in one war theater or on a more broad strategic plane? Since when did we wage war by a geriatric committee of has-beens and shady Washington insiders? Since when has there been anything to talk about with the world’s two worst remaining terrorist states?
Rick Moran states things quite well, not many will appreciate his comments, but that does not make them any less true.

And for those who believe we’ve already “lost” and there is no hope of retrieving the situation, get out of the way because you refuse to be part of a solution. You are entitled to your opinion. But many millions who look at the same facts on the ground in Iraq as you disagree. We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not Pollyannas. We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers. You only reveal yourself to be a shallow thinker if you can’t see that there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists. How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off. Yes we agree that this is not the dream of the “neo-cons” or Bush, that Iraq will not be as free as we like or as peaceful as it eventually will be. But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done.

Read the rest of his piece is it well worth it. He is not living in a fantasy land, he understands the realities of the situation, he understands that things are bad in Iraq, but he also understands that winning, or success IS an option.

Fact is, now that the elections are over and the Democrats used the war in Iraq to take their seats, NOW that that cannot be undone, they are finally being honest, at least some of them are, and recognizing publically that we cannot leave Iraq with certain measures of success...if you doubt this, just look at the new head of the intelligence committee's words, Silvestre Reyes, in a Newsweek interview, states clearly that more troops are needed in Iraq to "dismantle the militias" and he also points out "We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States."

Read it yourself if you do not believe me.

There is a way forward and it does include success and those that disagree should get the hell out of the way because leaving a destabilized Iraq for Iran and al-Qaeda to base theirselves is NOT an option. Deal with it.

If you are now pissing and moaning that you were lied to and this is not what you were promised by the Democrats... I guess the last laugh is on you, for believing them.

More from Screw Politically Correct B.S. with The Iraq Study Group Updated.

Another one to read is the New York Post.