Author Topic: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations  (Read 1686 times)

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« on: December 07, 2006, 06:51:30 PM »
What a bunch of arrogant, elitist twits Hamilton and Baker turn out to be.  At least some of our senators have the wherewithal to see through this crap.

Emphasis added in bold, my comments in italics and << ... >>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq



By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senators sharply questioned an
Iraq commission's call for a new U.S. war strategy Thursday, saying the Bush administration and Congress must work urgently together to find a more effective approach.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a 2008 presidential hopeful, took strong issue with the commission's call for phasing out the U.S. combat role in Iraq by 2008 and focusing instead more on training and advising the Iraqi army. He rejected the idea that the Army and Marines cannot spare more combat forces for Iraq duty.

"There's only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps," said McCain, a Vietnam veteran who will become the ranking Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee when the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress in January.

"I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat sooner or later in Iraq," McCain added. 

One of the commission's co-chairmen, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., underscored the urgency of changing course in Iraq, where conditions were described as grave and deteriorating. He was asked at what point the situation there, if not corrected, would be hopeless.

"Well, there certainly is that point, and we're perilously close to that point," he replied.

Hamilton and his co-chairman, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, testified before the Senate committee one day after delivering their report. Hamilton said that a new, more realistic and practical approach is needed.

"That's a very tough policy problem, and in order for this to happen, it can't be pie in the sky, it can't be idealistic, it has to be pragmatic," he said. Later, he added, "We reject the idea that the situation is hopeless."

Most senators broadly endorsed the commission's report, which made 79 recommendations for policy changes. Their skepticism focused mainly on two of the recommendations: a diplomatic approach to
Iran and
Syria, and an acceleration of the U.S. military's work to train and advise Iraqi forces.

Hamilton said it was essential for the White House and Congress to work together on this, and he criticized lawmakers for not having taken a stronger role in overseeing the Bush administration's war policies.

Many in Congress have praised the group's report, which was eight months in the making.

Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said the key question now is whether Bush will effectively implement a new policy.

"We need the White House to become the `Iraq Results Group,' " she said.

Baker said Congress could play a key role in that regard.

"If the Congress would come together behind supporting -- let's say utopianly -- all of the recommendations of this report, that would do a lot toward moving things downtown," Baker told the committee.  <<"Utopia" amounts to explicitly following your plan in its entirety, eh Mr. Baker?>>

As the pair appeared on Capitol Hill, Bush met at the White House with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, a key Bush ally in Iraq. Speaking to reporters, Bush referred to this as a "difficult moment for America and Great Britain."

Bush has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism. Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., whether he agreed, Baker replied, "It may not have been when we first went in but it certainly is now."

Hamilton added, "I would strike the word 'the' and use the word 'a'. To make it 'the' central front overstates it."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., and Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, both said they are skeptical about another of the commission's key recommendations: that the administration approach Iran in search of help in stabilizing Iraq, as part of a regional diplomatic initiative.

"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.

Baker acknowledged that the Iranians were unlikely to help, even if asked. He said that during the course of the commission's discussions an Iranian official told him that Iran was not inclined to help.   <<Then why the frak did you recommend asking Iran for help!?>>

But Baker said he saw no harm in approaching Iran anyway, and if it declines to help, "then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state they have proven to be."  <<Oh, right...  We're all too stupid to realize that Iran is acting against American interests.  We need you to devise a cockeyed foreign policy scheme to demonstrate this painfully obvious fact.>>

Hamilton said that while Iran has been unhelpful to U.S. interests in Iraq thus far, "We do not think it's in the Iranian interest for the American policy to fail completely, and to lead to chaos in that country." He said the Iranian's main worry is that a chaotic Iraq would lead to a refugee crisis on its border.  <<Right Mr. Hamilton, concern over humanitarian issues is a higher priority to Iran than defeating the Great Satan.>>

McCain also questioned the wisdom of the group's recommendation that many more U.S. troops be placed inside Iraqi combat units to advise and train them on the battlefield. He said this was too dangerous.

Hamilton acknowledged that it was risky but said there would be combat forces available to protect the trainers and adviser. He added that it was the group's consensus view that this approach was necessary in order to phase out the U.S. combat role and accelerate the building of competent Iraqi security forces.

"But there is no blinking the fact that that's a risky mission and a difficult mission and we should not slide over it as you have not in your comments," Hamilton said.

The study panel's 96-page report said flatly that the administration's approach was not working and recommended that the U.S. military accelerate a change in its main mission so that most combat troops can be withdrawn by spring 2008.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2006, 02:26:29 AM »
It's pretty easy to criticize any recommendation about Iraq since there are so many problems over there.  And it's too easy to ask "what should we do" while knowing there is no easy solution.  So I will ask a different question.  What would constitute a "victory" in Iraq?
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2006, 03:58:09 AM »
So I will ask a different question.  What would constitute a "victory" in Iraq?
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US.  Bonus points if that government is a democracy, but if we continue to lose resolve at our current pace we may have to settle for any type of government.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2006, 04:25:24 AM »
I would certainly agree with that goal as a best case scenario.  My problem is I don't see our current actions as a way of obtaining that.  Another issue is the self supporting part means the new gov has to have the support of the people, or at least not cause opponents to attack it.  I don't see more of our troops as a way of making that happen.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,411
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2006, 04:43:32 AM »
And the panel is not recommending more troops.

Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt. we can work with, even if they are not entirely free from Islamist influence (a la Saudi Arabia).  It would also mean an Iraq from which our forces could stage attacks elsewhere in the region (even if we never use it as such).  Victory would also have been the US gaining respect in the mid-East by toppling a monstrous secular dictator.  That was squandered by the grade-school antics of left-wing twits world-wide.  Question the war all you want, guys, but for crying out loud, don't give Arabs more reasons to think Bush is worse than bin Laden! 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2006, 06:50:18 AM »
It's funny that many of  the same people who criticized  the government (Republican) for not staying in Afghanistan and making sure a stable government was in place after we helped them boot the Russkies out, are now crying for us to bale out of Iraq............
before a stable government is in place.
Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2006, 07:08:55 AM »
It's worse than that.  The same people who accused the Bush Administration of "acting unilaterally" in Iraq are also accusing the administration of "lacking leadership" on North Korea.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2006, 09:17:36 AM »
Quote
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US.
That describes Iraq prior to our invasion, does it not?Huh??

Quote
Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt.
That's easy to accomplish. Simple turn the country back over to Saddam.  He managed to provide stability and keep the peace.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,411
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2006, 10:14:21 AM »
Quote
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US.
That describes Iraq prior to our invasion, does it not?Huh??
It does not. 

Quote
Quote
Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt.
That's easy to accomplish. Simple turn the country back over to Saddam.  He managed to provide stability and keep the peace.
  That period was not the end of a sentence.  You understood that, of course, you just wanted to pull my words out of context.  That is a form of mendacity.  If you were interested in an honest discussion, you could quote the whole sentence:
Quote
Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt. we can work with, even if they are not entirely free from Islamist influence (a la Saudi Arabia).
 

But why argue with someone who can't comprehend having more than one reason for something? 
Quote
First it was WMD's, then 'regime change' and now 'democratization'.  Clearly, there is no coherent strategy on the part of this administration.  It makes no sense to continue this conflict.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=5211.msg79088#msg79088
Riley, you can't be taken seriously as long as you repeat such moonbatisms. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2006, 04:21:07 PM »
Quote
But why argue with someone who can't comprehend having more than one reason for something? 
Quote
First it was WMD's, then 'regime change' and now 'democratization'.  Clearly, there is no coherent strategy on the part of this administration.  It makes no sense to continue this conflict.

Those are consecutive excuses, not concurrent reasons.  As each 'goal' was accomplished, a new one was invented to take its place.   Look, there are nearly 3000 American deaths and nearly 22,000 wounded-too many of them permanently disabled, missing arms, legs- since this fiasco began.  And for what?  Our national security interests were never at risk from pre-invasion Iraq.  The intel was wrong.  Everybody admits that, even George Bush.  Why is he so hell-bent on continuing this folly?  One can only speculate.  Maybe it's about oil, or rewarding his friends with open ended sky's the limit 'contracts'.   Maybe it's ideological; permanent bases in Iraq (which he's admitted are part of the 'plan') would provide a platform in the middle east from which to project power for whatever whimsical reason may arise.  Maybe it's his own ego and inability to admit error-no matter what the cost to others.  Or maybe a combination of all the above.

One thing's for sure-this administration does not understand the purpose of the military (which is not surprising, really, considering none of them served).  They think social engineering is a legitimate use of our armed forces.  And all along they've had the luxury of a rubber stamp Congress supporting this notion-all without any oversight whatsoever.

So, the Iraq Study Panel's 'workproduct', as impractical and scatterbrained as it may be has served a purpose-to provide an impetus for a change of direction of our Iraq 'policy'.  That's a good thing.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,411
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2006, 08:22:52 PM »
Warning: I'm pretty harsh in this post.  I'm tired of know-nothing nay-sayers repeating every two-bit opinion they hear in the press.  Where did all of these foreign policy experts spring from? 

Quote
Those are consecutive excuses, not concurrent reasons. 
Says you.  I think you're only reacting to sound-bites and forgetting that these reasons were all laid out prior the war.  Weren't they?

Quote
As each 'goal' was accomplished, a new one was invented to take its place. 
  So you're saying we accomplished some of our goals?

Quote
Our national security interests were never at risk from pre-invasion Iraq. 
  In what world?

Quote
The intel was wrong.  Everybody admits that, even George Bush.  Why is he so hell-bent on continuing this folly?
   What folly?  The war?  You think we should just quit the war? 

Quote
Maybe it's ideological; permanent bases in Iraq (which he's admitted are part of the 'plan') would provide a platform in the middle east from which to project power for whatever whimsical reason may arise. 
  How could that possibly be a bad thing?  And please tell me where he "admitted" (as if it were some dirty secret) that we would have permenant bases in Iraq?  It worked in Germany, Japan and elsewhere.

Quote
Maybe it's his own ego and inability to admit error. 
  You have no way of judging his "errors," you're even more confused on this issue than I am.

Quote
One thing's for sure-this administration does not understand the purpose of the military (which is not surprising, really, considering none of them served).  They think social engineering is a legitimate use of our armed forces.  And all along they've had the luxury of a rubber stamp Congress supporting this notion-all without any oversight whatsoever.
  Blah, blah, blah. 

Quote
So, the Iraq Study Panel's 'workproduct', as impractical and scatterbrained as it may be has served a purpose-to provide an impetus for a change of direction of our Iraq 'policy'.  That's a good thing. 
  more blah, blah.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Strings

  • Guest
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2006, 09:50:54 PM »

>Our national security interests were never at risk from pre-invasion Iraq.  The intel was wrong.  Everybody admits that, even George Bush.  Why is he so hell-bent on continuing this folly?<

Hmmm... we went in based on intel that has been since found to be faulty. But we're there now... should we have gone "oh... sorry. We were wrong. Sorry about removing any existing infrastructure... hope y'all can replace it"?

 Let's change the scenario just a bit. There's been a LOT of discussion about police "no-knock" raids. So the po-po have a snitch tell 'em that there's a drug house at 1212 12th St. They do a bit of intel gathering, and notice a fair amount of transient traffic. So they raid: the doors're busted in, residents held at gunpoint and cuffed, the works. At which point they find out that their snitch was wrong, and the "transient traffic" was friends stopping by to help set up a party. Should the cops just go "sorry... good luck putting your house and lives back together"? Or should they maybe take a bit of responsibility, help pay for damages, maybe publish an appology in the local paper?

 That's how I view what we're ding in Iraq right now: we demolished their "house" (which WAS dysfunctional, nobody could argue that), and now we're helping them get it rebuilt (hopefully, better this time)...

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2006, 12:30:06 AM »
Problem is we are only hearing what the media want's to tell us about the whole Iraq situation. It's hard to formulate ANY opinion based on that. If that committee represents the thinking of what are supposedly some of the best minds in the nation, we are in BIG trouble as far as I'm concerned.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2006, 12:09:20 PM »
At least there's one GOP Senator not marching in mind-numbed lockstep with the administration-

Here's part of what Gordon Smith said:

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let's go home."

You can read the rest of his remarks here:
http://gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=254

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2006, 12:48:37 PM »
Right, 'cause the rest of the Republicans in the Congress are all marching in "mind-numbed lockstep"...

 rolleyes

Mannlicher

  • Grumpy Old Gator
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,435
  • The Bonnie Blue
Re: Senators sharply question Iraq study panel's recommendations
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2006, 01:07:14 PM »
the ones that really love that report are Democrats, and radical muslim terrorists.  Kinda makes you wonder, are they 'strange bedfellows' or not.