Article

2006-11-14 Home Front: WoT

Austin Bay: Iraq Study Group is a political facade

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2006-11-14 09:07|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I hope Col Bay's right - because it means that the Dems will finally climb on board by having a set of objectives for leaving Iraq they can use as a fig leaf, and a timetable that's broad enough to ensure that US objectives (not neccesarily Iraqi ones) are met.

Personally, thier "we need to be OUT NOW" drum beaters are going to make it hard for them to have any room to manuever sensibly on this.

One thing's for sure: the war and world look a lot different when you must deal with them instead of just talk about how bad the other guy is doing.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-14 09:20|| 2006-11-14 09:20|| Front Page Top

#2 He's wrong. George McGovern is advising the 'Democratic wing' of the Democratic party. Also known as the modern Copperheads, their goal is to get out troops out ASAP and screw the consequences. Baker-Hamilton might have worked if the Trunks had held the Senate, thus confronting Pelosi, et al., with no chance to force an end-the-war-now resolution through. But Pelosi and Reid together can get such a resolution, and they'll need it to keep the Copperheads in their party from revolting.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-11-14 09:52|| 2006-11-14 09:52|| Front Page Top

#3 When did Baker ever produce a plan or strategy that was NOT a weak compromise with tyranny?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-11-14 10:59|| 2006-11-14 10:59|| Front Page Top

#4 You know Doc, when I heard that McGovern was giving advice to the Dems I about choked. Why go to him? Because he's a loser and they want to lose in Iraq. It's always Vietnam to these idiots. Losing is a badge of honor to them. If only they could take all the consequences themselves.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-11-14 11:11|| 2006-11-14 11:11|| Front Page Top

#5 I figure that whatever Baker comes up with is just cover for W to start making some changes. If there is no agreement on policy, then after a lot of howling and wrangling the Dummocrats will flash their ace and refuse to back funding for operations. They'll say they don't want to , but are forced to. Same song, different verse.

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-11-14 18:55|| 2006-11-14 18:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Iff the Dems begin any pullout and new 9-11's/Amer Hiroshimas take place, whether preplanned =random, they won't escape any blame, espec for 2008. Unfortunately for America, its politically "safer" for them to let US milfors "stay put" so that Dubya will get the blame for keeping our milfors in Iraq > you know, SECULAR ETHICS. GIVEN THAT THE LEFT KNOWS MAINSTREAM AMERICA SUPPOR DUBYA'S POLICY OF PRE-EMPTION + TENOUS = LANDLSIDE/MANDATE 2006 "VICTORY", I DOUBT THE BLAMELESS DEMOLEFT WILL WILLINGLY PULLOUT UNLESS THE MSM CAN DE FACTO CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF BLAME. IRONY > to do the latter for the sake of POLITIX conversely invites AMer Hirsohimas.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-11-14 22:02|| 2006-11-14 22:02|| Front Page Top

#7 Is Baker still a resgistered agent of the Saudis?

Posted by 3dc 2006-11-14 22:48|| 2006-11-14 22:48|| Front Page Top

23:57 gromgoru
23:53 CrazyFool
23:53 3dc
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 anon
23:45 gromgoru
23:40 pihkalbadger
23:31 Zenster
23:30 pihkalbadger
23:25 pihkalbadger
23:22 BA
23:21 .com
23:20 .com
23:19 pihkalbadger
23:16 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:15 BA
23:15 Frank G
23:14 3dc
23:13 Frank G
23:13 wxjames
23:11 pihkalbadger
23:09 Frank G
23:01 .com