Iraq Study Group Report(AP)

[White_Male_Canada]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States faces a "grave and deteriorating" situation after three years of war in Iraq, a high-level commission warned bluntly on Wednesday, recommending enhanced diplomacy to stabilize the country and hopefully permit the withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008.

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved," the commission said after an eight-month review of a war that has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,900 U.S. troops and grown so unpopular at home that it helped trigger a Democratic takeover of Congress in last month's elections.

Portions of the report were obtained by The Associated Press.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061206/D8LRCUO0E.html

[ottorocket]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States faces a "grave and deteriorating" situation after three years of war in Iraq, a high-level commission warned bluntly on Wednesday, recommending enhanced diplomacy to stabilize the country and hopefully permit the withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008.

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved," the commission said after an eight-month review of a war that has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,900 U.S. troops and grown so unpopular at home that it helped trigger a Democratic takeover of Congress in last month's elections.

Portions of the report were obtained by The Associated Press.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061206/D8LRCUO0E.html

ISG report is your basic plan for retreat and face saving. There is zero plan for "victory" in the report, and its a whole lot of proposals to appease Syria and the wack jobs in Iran. What a waste of time. America looks weaker because of it, because of our crying ex-presidents, because of partisan politics, and because GW cannot pull his head out of his ass and fight a war how it should be done. Without all the PC bull***. And thats the truth.

And in the meantime...Iran will go nuke and continue flooding Iraq with fighters and militia, and eventually make good on its threats to Israel.

Where are all the real men these days?

[White_Male_Canada]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States faces a "grave and deteriorating" situation after three years of war in Iraq, a high-level commission warned bluntly on Wednesday, recommending enhanced diplomacy to stabilize the country and hopefully permit the withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008.

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved," the commission said after an eight-month review of a war that has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,900 U.S. troops and grown so unpopular at home that it helped trigger a Democratic takeover of Congress in last month's elections.

Portions of the report were obtained by The Associated Press.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061206/D8LRCUO0E.html

ISG report is your basic plan for retreat and face saving. There is zero plan for "victory" in the report, and its a whole lot of proposals to appease Syria and the wack jobs in Iran. What a waste of time. America looks weaker because of it, because of our crying ex-presidents, because of partisan politics, and because GW cannot pull his head out of his ass and fight a war how it should be done. Without all the PC bull***. And thats the truth.

And in the meantime...Iran will go nuke and continue flooding Iraq with fighters and militia, and eventually make good on its threats to Israel.

Where are all the real men these days?


Bingo !

Had to laugh today when one reporter made all those "bi-partisan statesmen" look like deer in headlights when he asked why their report is so special being that none of them, except one, ever ventured out of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Negociate with those with whom there are no common goals!?
Link negociations with Israel !?

So laughable is this report,it`s destined for the garbage bin.

[guyone]

THE ONLY ANSWER!

[White_Male_Canada]

------------------------------------------------

[Coroner]

Breaking news: Saddam escaped!

http://www.slibe.com/fullimage/6607d268-71818d8a6e-gif.gif (http://www.slibe.com)

[chefmike]

:roll:

[Quickman]

I heard on NPR the other day that over 60 percent of the members of a popular conservative website disagreed with the ISG report and favored an increase in the use of force. The term "unleash hell" was used.

I wonder if "unleashing hell," or advocating a dramatic increase in US force is a common thought among conservatives on how to deal with the situation in Iraq.

I for one find it disturbing in 4 ways:

1) If what's being unleashed on Iraq isn't hell right now, it's at least purgatory with around 100 deaths per day and 600,000 plus since the war started. Not to mention the almost 3000 US soliders lost.

2) If we're dealing with sectarian violence/civil war and not a counter insurgency, who do we unleash hell on? The country is tearing itself apart...

3) How far do we go with "unleash hell"? Or to put it differently, how far do we go in terms of escalating the use of force. Do we consider the nuclear option? Plus it seems like madness to try to escalate the use of force when using force as the first and most popular tactic in iraq has been such a failure. For me, this line is akin to the line of reasoning that if one can't break though a brick wall with his head, it's only because he's not running fast enough.

4) This whole thing seems a little nationalist to me in the worst possible way. It feels like conservatives rush to use more force and feel justified because they are (non americans) and therefore easier to dehumanize. 600,000 people dead since '03? I wonder how many woman and children had politics that justified our taking thier lives. Isn't moral authority important? And W/O wmd, it's not as if this is about our own self preservation...

[guyone]

I don't know what web site called for that but they are entitled to their opinion. Just like the communist radio station you listen to (National Proletariat Radio) which is publicly funded. As far as that particular web site being in charge of national policy? I don't think so. Our mission was always to take out Saddam thus why you see 'Mission Accomplished'. The removal of Saddam, the goal of our mission has been met. Why these animals can't behave in a civilized manner after they have been freed from a life of tyranny is beyond me. Then again I wouldn't be too surprised if the communists were behind all this unrest. This stinks of pinko propagation.

[Quickman]

So what is the conservative strategy on Iraq if it's not to intensify the use of force? If conservatives are against the 79 points the ISG put out and they don't want to intensify the use of force and they don't want to "cut-n-run" then what do they want to do? Mantain the status-quo?

Also how do publicly funded news programs like those on NPR equate to communist propaganda? I would think public funding gives NPR the freedom to report as they see fit without being beholden to anyone. Furthermore, if NPR is considered leftist or communist, who would you consider mainstream?

[ezed]

Bring back Col. Kurtz!

[ezed]

Time for Col. Kurtz! (Whoops!) Nothing like getting to happy with button pushing! :oops:

[chefmike]

Our mission was always to take out Saddam thus why you see 'Mission Accomplished'. The removal of Saddam, the goal of our mission has been met.

LMFAO!

Our Mission? Which mission and on what day?

I guess that "our" must refer to the chimp-in-chief and the few remaining neocons like yourself, all still clinging desperately to the sinking USS shrubya.... 8)


Why these animals can't behave in a civilized manner after they have been freed from a life of tyranny is beyond me.


BAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!!!

Uh huh....

I guess some folks just don't know when they got it good.... :roll:

[jp3711nc]

Don't you mean Iraq surrender group

[chefmike]

Don't you mean Iraq surrender group

Not exactly, zippy.

I mean the "we should never have invaded Iraq, caused thousands of needless deaths, wasted billions of tax dollars, touched off a civil war and created a breeding ground for terrorists, so how are we going to get the fuck out of here before we cause any further damage" group.

That's the group that I mean, slick.

[chefmike]

:roll:

[jp3711nc]

do you really want terroist to get a nuke they be able to destroy isreal aswell U.S billion lives are at stake because we don't believe in the same religon as them. Would you like that on your head if they had a powerful weapon at there disposle they will use it I know I don't. This war for liberals is the only way to humilate the president and the republicans open your eye's and see who are the real enemy is its not America but the terroist that plan to kill anbody who don't belive what they belive.

[chefmike]

do you really want terroist to get a nuke they be able to destroy isreal aswell U.S billion lives are at stake because we don't believe in the same religon as them. Would you like that on your head if they had a powerful weapon at there disposle they will use it I know I don't. This war for liberals is the only way to humilate the president and the republicans open your eye's and see who are the real enemy is its not America but the terroist that plan to kill anbody who don't belive what they belive.

ROTFLMFAO!

Folks, what we have here is living proof that the 'No Child Left Behind' program is as poorly managed as the needless fiasco in Iraq.... :roll:

[guyone]

That's mean.

[chefmike]

Noted chickenhawk and dope fiend Rush finally gets something right... :lol: :P

Rush Is Right

Rush Limbaugh is vexed by the Iraq Study Group. At first, Rush said the group's report was not a cut and run prescription. He now says, "This is cut and run, surrender without the words." And, now, Rush is right.

The Iraq Study Group's report is a very respectable cover document for American surrender in Iraq.

America never formally surrenders, so we have to call surrender something else. In Vietnam, we called it Vietnamization. Henry Kissinger spent years negotiating the terms of our surrender there and ended up with a deal that he could have gotten on the first day he went to work in the Nixon White House--the Americans leave and North Vietnam wins. The Iraq Study Group delivered a plan for the Iraqization of the combat--complete the "training" of the Iraqi "army" and "police," then embed some American officers with Iraqi units and wish them luck as the bulk of the American forces sneak out the back door without anyone ever using the word surrender. This is exactly what most of the American people are looking for--a way out of Iraq without calling it surrender. The Iraq Study Group has mapped it out for us very nicely, and Rush is trying to ruin it for us by calling a surrender plan a surrender plan. It is downright un-American of him. Being American means you never have to say you surrender.

The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I was not an early critic of the war. I did not support it or oppose it during the ramp up to war. I accepted the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly.

When I first heard President Bush accuse Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq, I knew that America was going to cut and run from Iraq. When a war turns so bad that an American president feels compelled to start warning against cutting and running, the clock starts ticking on when we actually will cut and run. The Nixon administration spent five years figuring out how to cut and run from Vietnam and managed to get more American soldiers killed during Kissinger's utterly pointless "peace" negotiations and the withdrawal period than were killed during Lyndon Johnson's full-on war period. There has been much speculation about how smart George W. Bush is, but not even his most adamant defenders have ever suggested he is smarter than Nixon. So, we have every right to expect that Bush will not be even as good as Nixon at cutting and running. Bush will leave the end game to his successor who, with the American people's approval, will cut and run by following some variation on the Iraq Study Group's report. All hell will break loose when we leave Iraq no matter when that occurs. But within Bush's life time, other American presidents just might visit Iraq as routinely as they now visit Vietnam if we manage the long term aftermath of our exit as well as we did in Southeast Asia.

Rush takes emotional exception to the Iraq Study Group's report because "there is nothing in this about winning, there is nothing in this about victory." And, here too, Rush is right. But most Americans now believe victory is impossible in Iraq are unperturbed by the absence of a chapter on victory in the report.

Rush has been wrong about a few things. Rush and Bush were wrong to think that having a "Mission Accomplished" rally on an aircraft carrier wasn't a bit premature. Rush and Bush were wrong to think a slogan--"stay the course"--was a strategy. And Rush and Bush are wrong to think we can push on to "victory" in Iraq--a view held almost exclusively by Republicans (like Rush and Bush) who did everything possible to avoid ever being sent into combat themselves. But Rush is right that the day our last helicopter leaves Baghdad, America will, once again, "surrender without the words."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rush-is-right_b_36325.html

[chefmike]

That's mean.

War is hell.