Well, well, well, Iraq Panel to Suggest Withdraw From Iraq

[berni_mccoy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

[Bobbie Jo]

1. Wow...

Now why didn't WE think of that??

[bigtree]

2. kick

[Solly Mack]

3. Keeping in mind Robert Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group

prior to his nomination as Sec. of Defense.

He's only been out of the group for about 3 weeks... and it's not likely the ISG came up with their proposals just within these last 3 weeks - especially since the ISG has been saying for a little while now that they would be publishing their proposals soon...so Gates knew what was coming.

[upi402]

4. So now the alternate plane... State Dept???

BushCo wanted an out (a plan B) for a reason it seems.

[wiggs]

5. ...and since the administration has said it will not do this, the ISG should say

that the first step toward solving Iraq is getting these boneheads out of office. Really, why would we allow the people who made the awful decision to put us there and who kept making one mistake after another be the ones to try to get us out?

That should be on page 1 of the ISG report.

[Gregorian]

6. It's like an avalanche. Mission Accomplished.

Suddenly they've done what they came to do. And now they can leave. Hey, it only cost how much money and how many lives? Bargain!

This has caught me by surprise.

I suppose it all hinged on whether they had Congress or not.

[Lexingtonian]

7. sounds worthless

Without specific criteria as to when, just how do they expect the Bush people to implement this plan?

[uppityperson]

8. "gradual" with no timetable?

no measurable goals? Just gradually?

[stillcool]

9. well....that's new and different...

I don't suppose they'll say that in 6-7 months we'll start withdrawing troops? That 6-7 month line is really starting to grate on me...like the #2 guy in AlQaeda.. You would think they'd say 8-9 months just to avoid the monotony.

[WCGreen]

10. Brilliant....

My boys and girl really thought out of the box on this one...

Let's take the "Bush" plan and reword it...

Brilliant...

[stevedeshazer]

11. Disagree. It's a mishmash of squishy nothingness.

If the snippets in this article are indicative of the entire report, it's nothing.

Non-binding.

No timetable.

<snip> "...avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended."

This is exactly the same bullshit we've been spoon-fed with for four years.

Nothing new here, just another BFEE whitewash.

[buddysmellgood]

12. Panel says Cut and Run...but don't say when and how.

[immoderate]

13. Oh, sometime between now and later...

--IMM

[mom cat]

14. Sounds about right ... real definitave ... lots of wiggle room

[bleever]

15. Cut 'n Amble.

Brilliant!

How could the compromise between two fictions not be a fiction?

[Kablooie]

16. So how's Bush going to spin this? Just refuse?