Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Mark Your Calendar

This news comes quicker than I anticipated, and the recommendations will be released on 12/6 (next Wednesday).

That is, of course, assuming that the New York Times doesn't get tipped off before then. At least that wouldn't be damaging to national security, like so many of their other scoops.

That they are suggesting talks with Syria and Iran doesn't bode well for the group's recommendations. Nor my blood pressure, but I'm glad they've given me a week to prepare for it.


Daniel Webster said...

"The result, the newspapers reported, is a recommendation that the United States make clear that its troop commitment is not open-ended, while leaving the timeframe for withdrawal vague."

Take heart, brother. There may well be a peace-offering granted the democrats of an initial withdrawal of a few thousand troops, but there'll be no recommendation springing forth from this commission on any immediate and major change in war policy. I'm fairly certain we can count on that.

Elsewise, probably a more productive use of this commission's time might be in studying what effect our latest elections results had on the frequency and number of incidents of violence in Iraq. I should think recommendations based on those results might be very very interesting indeed.

Anonymous said...


The Monarchist said...

Hi, Populist. Have we met yet?


Anonymous said...

We have not met. I'm new to the party.. I look forward to the dialogue!!

michael hargis said...

So...basically this commission of foreign policy whizbangs has recommended that we do what we are already doing, and have been doing all along. Stay the course and gradually draw down the troops as circumstances permit, until Iraqi forces are able to take over themselves. Why, that's just plumb brilliant!

That the commission has hired a public relations firm to help sell their recommendations to the American people tells me all I need to know.

When it comes to foreign policy, the President still weilds more power and authority than both houses of Congress put together, if he chooses to use it.

Nothing's changed. We are at war and the only thing that really matters is that we win.

Daniel Webster said...


That'n always gives me a good chuckle. Thanks.

And yep, I think you've pretty well nailed it....that's about the size of it, man.

the populist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the populist said...

My question on the war is why we didn't send more troops to begin with???? If we are going to go to war, then the government should fully commit to it and send enough troops to get the job done and get it done right. In my humble view, "The Million Dollar President" was trying to satisfy himself (by going in to Iraq) and trying to satisfy those that might oppose the war (by sending a small number of troops). I don't oppose the war, per se, but I do oppose the incompotent execution of it.

To add insult to injury, "The Million Dollar President" has refused, until recently, to acknowledge that things were not going well. Again, in my humble view, "The Million Dollar PResident" should have gotten over himself much, much sooner.

Power to the People!

The Monarchist said...


Where we went wrong was not adapting soon enough, I'd suggest. We rolled through Iraq in a matter of days which should have set off major red flags that the Republican Guard and folks like them were going to be sure that although the "war" was a breeze, the reconstruction would be hell.


the populist said...

I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps our "fearless leader" was a little too intoxicated by the recent "victory" in Afghanistan and the ease with which the troops plowed through Iraq. That old west mentality has not served W well!!