Iraq Study Group findings

Posted by: ST on December 6, 2006 at 1:52 pm

There’s been a lot of talk in the blogosphere about the findings of the Iraq Study Group, which were released in full today.

I haven’t had a chance to look at them, but wanted to link up for discussion purposes to the report itself and Washington Post story about it so you guys could weigh in with your thoughts.

Democrats are saying that the ISG’s findings are “consistent” with their proposals. Which pretty much tells me I’m not going to find very much – if anything – in that report to get behind.

Jay at Stop The ACLU has a blogger/pundit roundup of reactions, and so far the consensus is “it stinks.”

Here’s the President’s statement on the report.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog trackbacked with Iraq War Watch: Iraq Study Group - Try Diplomacy and then Cut and Run
  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with My look at the Iraq Study Group report
  • 14 Responses to “Iraq Study Group findings”

    Comments

    1. Josh says:

      The US has saved Europe in two world wars and protected us in the Cold War. Is it now Europe’s turn to rescue America in Iraq?

      The ISG report recommends a support group for Iraq that should include the European Union and could even include anti-war Germany.

      Do you expect European help in Iraq? I am skeptical.

      I have blogged about the recommendations involving the EU. What do you think?

    2. Phil says:

      I’m sorry but I have no hope for this ISG thing to work at all. I’m not sure what to say but I think that we should have kept up our forces without withdrawing all those who were in there from the start. We should have maintained that force level. :-w

    3. Drewsmom says:

      Europe ain’t gonna help us do jack, I think we should keep this in mind next time they need our help or money.
      [-(

    4. CZ says:

      Is it just me or does the term Iraq “Study Group” sound like a high school extra credit assignment?

      I got your “study group” right here. Blow those Islamofascist dirtballs back to the feakin’ stone age (it’s not too far from where they live now).

      Overwealming force is all they understand. It’s what W should have done in the first place, that was his big mistake.

      Peace had a chance. :)>-

    5. - When we start relying on “group-think” committees, theres generally four things you can be sure of:

      1) The problem is messy, dynamic, and very difficult, and all recomendations will generaly be warmed over revisions of earlier ideas. No one will be willing to make any hardline demands. that would mean you own the idea. the Dems will support anything that makes it sound as bad as possible, but offer no real solutions. Its all about politics for them, not a war.

      2) No one has any idea of what to do, other than try to counter the enemies moves, and hope time is on your side.

      3) the changes will be mainly strategic, and not a lot of visable changes will be obvious.

      4) No matter what happens the Dems will continue to hammer on Iraq, because they can’t afford a successful end until after ’08, if ever.

      - Bang **==

    6. - BTW…The eracible old reprobate of the Dimbulb leadership, Dirty Harry Reid, gave us the “benefit” of his assessment:

      “…[the] committee has found that Iraq has been handled all wrong, and set forth a set of changes of direction…”

      - Much like the Democrats “Plan for the peace”, no examples could be found in the report itself, which ostensively seems to basically support most of the Bush administrations efforts, other than a few Gates enumerated the other day. But when the invisible ink gets old enough, perhaps by 2015, it will become readible, and we’ll all know then exactly what the Dems had in mind.

      - My bet is, no matter how its worded, the Democratic manifest on the WOT, and Iraq, will always translate into “cut and run”, at the end of the day.

      - Well electorate. You wished for a change, and you got it. Is it everything you dreamed it would be?

      - Bang **==

    7. NC Cop says:

      Considering this plan hinges on our buddies in Syria and Iran helping out, I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting any changes soon.

      A huge victory for Syria, Iran, and Al Qaeda would be the U.S. crawling back home with it’s tail between it’s legs. They have absolutely nothing at all to gain by helping out in Iraq.

      While I don’t completely discount the study’s findings, I don’t think there is much in the way of realistic options. I do think that 2008 is not an unreasonable estimate to draw down troops, although I don’t think that should have been published. After 5 years the Iraqis should be able to conduct their own security, provdied they have the proper competent management in place.

    8. Steve Skubinna says:

      Does the ISG suggest a venue for this meeting with Iran and Syria to settle Iraq’s future? Because there’s one obvious spot:

      Munich.

      Okay, two obvious spots: and Yalta.

    9. Great White Rat says:

      Well said, Steve.

      One question: who in their right mind actually believes that you can trust these two islamo-terrorist regimes to keep their word on anything they might agree to in these talks?

      To me, this whole idea is a non-starter.

    10. Lorica says:

      You know the more I hear about this ISG study. Which how can this be a real study, when only 1 group member left the green zone of Baghdad, sounds too much like the drive by media in their attempts to report how Iraq is going, but I digress.

      Isn’t alot of this study really a slam on Condi? Seems to me they beat on her pretty hard. I haven’t read the thing yet, but from some of what I have heard and read, that is how it seems to me. – Lorica

    11. sanity says:

      Has anyone discussed Baker’s connection to the Saudi’s?

      In the past few years, Baker Botts–which employs about 700 lawyers, has had annual revenues of about $365 million and operates offices in Austin, Baku, Dallas, London, Moscow, New York, Riyadh and Washington, DC.

      As Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, Baker was a regular visitor to the House of Saud.

      When two of the most powerful members of the House of Saud–the Saudi defense minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, and his brother, Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the governor of Riyadh–needed lawyers to defend them against a lawsuit brought against them and other Saudis by survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sultan and Salman hired Baker Botts.

      The Baker Botts legal team has openly acknowledged in their brief that Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud has for the past 16 years approved regular payments of about $266,000 a year to the International Islamic Relief Organization—a large Saudi charity whose U.S. offices were last year raided by federal agents.

      LINK (PDF FILE)

      Bakers lawfirm is also representing the Saudi’s that are being sued in the 9-11 lawsuits…..

      THE OPENING DEFENSE SALVO in what promises to be a bruising legal battle was fired last week when a trio of lawyers from Baker Botts, a prestigious Houston-based law firm, filed a motion on behalf of Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi defense minister. The motion attacked the 9-11 lawsuit as a “broadside indictment of Saudi government, religion and culture.” It also argued that, as the thirdranking official of a foreign government, their client is immune from any U.S. legal action and that he should therefore be dismissed from the case altogether. But in laying out their arguments, Sultan’s U.S. lawyers also presented highly detailed new evidence of the Saudi government’s role in funneling millions of dollars to a web of Islamic charities that are widely suspected by U.S. officials of covertly financing the operations of Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.

      LINK (PDF FILE)

      This is the question of the day I suppose:

      Q: Should Baker be advising Bush on Iraq?

    12. Lorica says:

      TAG YOUR IT!!! =)) From the NY post echoing my I said here just yesterday:

      LINK

      :D I have a serious differing opinion on what these individuals call “Bi-Partisan”. – Lorica