Senator-Elect Klobuchar on Iraq Study Group Findings

I frankly don't see much coming out of this report, unfortunately. Yes, they've announced publicly (and with much credibility) that Cheerleader Georgie is an abysmal failure, but there's little sign that the arrogant little prick will ever admit his failures and change course.

Far more likely is a scenario in which he finds a way to delay taking any action other than "stay the course" for the remainder of his horrific presidency, and hand the real work off to the next in line. That way, the petulant little a-hole can walk away with the delusion that "it wasn't me that lost it..."

Somebody needs to start impeachment hearings.

Poor Clarkie, you got to get out of that basement the CO fumes from the furnace are deluding your mind. Our President isn't as small minded as you would purport him to be, he doesn't worry about whether he will be tagged with some sort of blame. He is the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on Earth doing his job of protecting and securing our nation from radicals and terrorists that in this day and age have found the means to attack us.
You if anybody should famililar with his quest to protect Truth,,Justice and the AMERICAN way of life.
Re-deployment is a BS way of saying cut and run. Our nation is being threatened and the rest of the world along with a bunch of leftists in this country seem more than willing to accomodate them.
When we suffer anotherr attack, what will the "head-in-the-sand" cowards say then?
They will wail why wasn't something done to stop this? what we are doing is the "something", too many are too stupid to realize it.

KEITH---YOU ARE IN FOR A RUDE AWAKENING!!!!!!

I guess I will join him then. The only really significant change suggested by the ISG was their suggestion that we chat with Iran and Syria, They admitted that there will be no success in bringing Iran to the table but Baker really seems to think we can "flip" Syria to our way of thinking. He says they will agree to leave Lebanon alone, investigate the assassinations of Gemayel and Harire (who does he think murdered them?), make Hezbollah stand down, make nice with their Sunni neighbors, and convince Hamas to leave Israel alone and acknowledge their right to exist. In return, Syria will get the Golan Heights which they once coveted buy now no longer seem interested in. Of course, Baker is missing an important point here. The ISG has specifically excluded Israel from the talks and the Golan Heights is not ours to give away.

Let's send Baker over as the Flipper in Chief (I love that name suggested by a commentator) and let him make nice with all the nasties. It can't hurt and serious envoys won't have to waste their time.

Then we can go back to snoozing our way through the ISG report which was mostly a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The ISG did however point out that cutting and running as several posters suggest would be an unmitigated disaster.

"Our President isn't as small minded as you would purport him to be, he doesn't worry about whether he will be tagged with some sort of blame. "

Incorrect. He is, and always has been, a spoiled rotten, petulant, arrogant, abusive little, festering, stinking pile of feces. He's also a terminal failure. He has never been successful at anything in his miserable life, except stealing two elections, and he had daddy's friends help with that as well.

You just go on cheering for the failed cheerleader, however. He needs whatever tiny shred of support remains for him at this point.




"Re-deployment is a BS way of saying cut and run."

Are you prepared to call it that when your boy announces it as the plan of action?





"Our nation is being threatened and the rest of the world along with a bunch of leftists in this country seem more than willing to accomodate them. "

You should be so lucky. If it had been up the the left, we'd never have become mired in Bushie's Vietnam to begin with.




"When we suffer anotherr attack, what will the "head-in-the-sand" cowards say then?"

Here's a novel thought...how about we go after who actually did it, instead of attacking a nation that had nothing to do with it? Hmmmm? Nah...far too complex for you wingnuts to comprehend.

Meaningful discussions with Syria and Iran? Really?

That's not "head in the sand" that's "head up the arse".

Yes we should throw up our hands and talk to the very people who are supplying arms and insurgents" that is hindering our ability to stabilize Iraq.
I know I am not going to be shocked when we are attacked again. I know I am an American who is watching our President do the job thst he is obligated to di under our Constitution.
It is a shame that there are so many self loathing unAmerican fellow citizens that do not understand what is happening to us.
Clark you are too stupid to realize the connection, so why bother to state the obvious.

We can just leave and the extremist muslims will just be happy with their victory and leave the free world alone. Right? Then everybody sings Kumbaya and we will be safe. Right? If they are rewarded with our cutting and running, they won't need to push their adgenda any further. Right? Iran and Syria will just allow Isreal to exist. Right? All the intelligensia will now return back to Iraq now. Right? Iraq will continue to pursue a government with civil courts and a banking system that will allow them to better participate in the global marketplace. Right? Women will have civil rights. Right? Little girls will continue to be able to go to school. Right?

"Meaningful discussions with Syria and Iran? Really?

That's not "head in the sand" that's "head up the arse".

Funny. It's worked pretty well in the past. I wonder why diplomacy is considered "dumb" now that "the adults" are in charge?




"I know I am not going to be shocked when we are attacked again. I know I am an American who is watching our President do the job thst he is obligated to di under our Constitution. "

He failed you miserably the first time around. What on earth makes you think he won't do so next time? After all, he's done virtually nothing since 9/11 to make this nation any safer or more secure. There's really no reason to think that he won't sit frozen in a classroom, pissing himself, when the next attack occurs.




"It is a shame that there are so many self loathing unAmerican fellow citizens that do not understand what is happening to us. "

I agree completely. When will you people realize that you're being manipulated and played for fools, so that you're nation's wealth can be stolen from underfoot?




"Clark you are too stupid to realize the connection, so why bother to state the obvious. "

There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Sorry.

"Funny. It's worked pretty well in the past. I wonder why diplomacy is considered "dumb" now that "the adults" are in charge?"



Oh yes I remember it working so well:

Please Mr. Hitler Sir stop killing the Jews.

Please Iran give us back our citizens.

Please Kim Yong we will give you this if you don't set off a nuclear device.


Hezbollah listen, we will give you back this land if you stop attacking us.



Don't you just love diplomacy?????

Remember Clark, the Islamic extremists want you and your friends on the political left dead too. They just like using you as a pawn in their game. Create dissent and weeken the will of the enemy.

"Oh yes I remember it working so well:"

There are countless times when it's worked quite well, not the least of which was keeping Russia and China from vaporizing us over the past 50 years or so.

You don't want to talk to your enemies? Then, prepare yourself to deal with the repercussions. Why do you think NK has nukes today, Iran is threatening to build them, and Israel and the Palestinians are at each other's throats again? Specifically, because junior took talking off the table years ago. Gigantic mistake.

Let's not forget that, had junior talked about Iraq's threat before launching his illegal war, we wouldn't be in the freaking mess we're in there right now. Talking is critical. Talking with enemies or perceived enemies is paramount. Not doing so is a direct threat to this nations' security.

"Remember Clark, the Islamic extremists want you and your friends on the political left dead too."

Of, for God's sake. Aren't we done with this idiotic fearmongering by now?

Guess what? I'm not afraid. In fact, tell your cheerleader pretendident to send his best friend Osama over to my house, and I'll take care of him myself. I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. Since when did America become a nation of sniveling, whining little pussified cowards? Give me a break.

"There are countless times when it's worked quite well, not the least of which was keeping Russia and China from vaporizing us over the past 50 years or so."





Wrong Clark, we were not vaporized because we out spent the Russians militarily and they capitulated. The verdict is still out on China.



"Guess what? I'm not afraid. In fact, tell your cheerleader pretendident to send his best friend Osama over to my house, and I'll take care of him myself. I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. Since when did America become a nation of sniveling, whining little pussified cowards? Give me a break."



And how are you going to do that Clark???? Sit him down at your table and beg and plead with him not to harm you and your family. Which you and I both know would never work. Or are you going to blow him off the face of the earth.. I think the 2nd is more likely and by doing that you just blew your theory of diplomac

"Wrong Clark, we were not vaporized because we out spent the Russians militarily and they capitulated. The verdict is still out on China."

You're incorrect. I will agree to disagree with you on this. The policy of mutually assured destruction merely played a role. It did not play THE role.

China will not require weapons to destroy us. The moment that they begin dumping our dollars, we're through playing war games.




"And how are you going to do that Clark???? Sit him down at your table and beg and plead with him not to harm you and your family."

Please. I'm not afraid of your big, bad boogieman. Why are you? Stop being ridiculous, and allowing yourself to be misled around by fear.

"You're incorrect. I will agree to disagree with you on this. The policy of mutually assured destruction merely played a role. It did not play THE role. "



WRONG, According to the below article it was the central point in their downfall

http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm


"Please. I'm not afraid of your big, bad boogieman. Why are you? Stop being ridiculous, and allowing yourself to be misled around by fear"




You were the one who said that you would handle him. I was just wondering HOW??? which by the way you did not answer..... My point is that you basically said you would use force right. Or were you just going to talk his ear off.

Remember the disco bombing in Germany that killed the US servicemen. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi had been bombing innocents all over the world until Reagan bombed him and his family. Then you did not hear from him again..

Now was that diplomacy or just go old American kick ass force????

You guys have a happy time thumping your chests and work yourself into a sweat over the legions of ragheads ready to steal your wives, children and all the beer in the fridge. It's got beyond you now. Baker is a long time Bush family croney and he's paddled little Georges behind. You guys think you are make irrefutable points lamenting the oncoming hordes while you let support the moron whose failed policies create more danger and havoc then we've ever known. It really damn silly boys. YOU DON"T HAVE AN OPTION. Buck up face reality. There will NEVER be legions of US troops crushing ever bit of resistance in the Middle East. IT"S OVER.

I think the ISG Report will serve to educate future generations with regard to the Iraq War. It is likely that some will try to rewrite history in George W. Bush's favor when it comes to this war but the Report gives validity to Bush's mistakes and forever marks the ubiquitous request of him to - please - finally - forget about "stay the course!"

Churchhill commented: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

I do not think Dubya will escape the lash of history, particularly after hearings begin. There will be those who will earnestly whitewash his missteps and those who will support his unique brand of imperialism to the very end. To me history will not find Bush as interesting as the Americans that elected him. How did this nation of great traditions get suckered so badly and what does it say for the durablity of the American Experiment.

Jeez, I wonder who will be at fault for every mistake in the history of the world when Bush is no longer the President.

Very interesting. I have a short story, Siddhi's Daddy, all about the consequences of war in general, and specifically Iraq. Please check it out if anyone has a chance.

A Study Group Report that millions are reading, except perhaps the one man who it was written for, probably because they haven't come out with the abridged, comic book version that makes him look as heroic as he felt when he declared all major combat operations had ceased: George Bush. The last Neocon left standing, and unfortunately the only one that counts.
Thank you for this, Diana.

The Picture Book Edition of the ISG, with popups. I like it.

Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent. The twentieth century was crueler to wartime presidents. After winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," Woodrow Wilson oversaw American entry into the First World War. Yet while the doughboys returned home triumphant, Wilson's idealistic and politically disastrous campaign for American entry into the League of Nations presaged a resurgence of the opposition Republican Party along with a redoubling of American isolationism that lasted until Pearl Harbor.
Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.

No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president's own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies -- including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."

When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

If you want to read the rest of the article it can be found here...http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/2

It was written by a history professor at Princeton.

Also, I don't understand why people that don't like Bush are called Unamerican and unpatriotic. If you remember back to your elementary history that is what this country was founded on. People that were tired of their government that spoke up and took a stand. And according to the most recent poll I could find, which was conducted by Zogby, Bush's approvel rating is at a whopping 30%. Which means that myself and 70% of the country thinks that they guy is a douchebag. You can't argue with that, even though I know you will.

"We seem unable to learn from the past mistakes. I suspect that regardless of the outcome of this war, we will deeply regret the actions taken by people we have trained to use short sentences and insults as a form of communication."

Well said.

Great comments, All; many thanks.

For four years now I've been closely following the Iraq War, but I'm taking a break from the steady flow of news and information from so many sources--newspapers, internet, magazines, TV. Like a black hole, the Iraq War is an event horizon there is no escape from. What I need is "Iraq Unplugged." After being so absorbed by the war, I'm trying to focus elsewhere. Let the 110th Congress deal with it. The Iraq Study Group made a great start to getting the U.S. to find a way to escape this quaqmire. If we're not careful, this war will drag on and on. Unforseen consequences will surely emerge, the so-called unknowns we cannot even fathom.

Meanwhile, I'll do some crossword puzzles, I'll read about the arts, find a novel in the evening. One thing I do wonder about. If this war had never happened--it was President Bush's choice--what would America be dealing with instead? Problems and opportunities that we've been avoiding for the last four years.

Any more thoughts about Iraq today will only give me a bad case of nausea. It was bad enough on Christmas Day when I heard on the news about more U.S. casualties. Pity the families of U.S. military personnel to receive news on such a day, of all days when we say "Peace on earth, goodwill to all men, women, and children."

There is hope! Senator Klobuchar will be Minnesota's voice and her office and staff will be our Iraq Study Group. Best wishes. Iraq is an intractible disaster. Escape velocity from Iraq War's black hole will be nearly impossible.

Our descendants won't be the only ones writing history.

The children of other nations will know that our population was not monolithic in its thinking, even if our president barely seems to think at all.

Thank you, Diana, for posting this article. It has generated much discussion. Onward...action!