LINK

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

The ‘Net has been abuzz with reactions of the ISG report.  The report eagerly awaited by the left as proof of Bush’s failure has had some surprising critics though.
Pretty bad when Slate questions the report:
This Is What We’ve B…

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?

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

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.

Munich.

Okay, two obvious spots: and Yalta.

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.

“…[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

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

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.

President George W. Bush (C) speaks to the press after receiving the official report of the Iraq Study Group in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, December 6, 2006.
AP: Panel: Try diplomacy in Iraq, then leave
The United States faces a…

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?