The President has the report:
President Bush got a preview Tuesday of the Iraq commission’s ideas for changing war policies, as the White House sought to dampen the report’s impact by emphasizing that Bush will be listening to other voices as well.
Over lunch at the White House, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the Iraq Study Group’s Republican co-chairman, gave Bush a private briefing on the general outline of the conclusions, said Dana Perino, a presidential spokeswoman.
The report — which Baker referred to during the lunch, Perino said — will be released Wednesday morning. The full commission, led by Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, will give a copy of the report to Bush at 7 a.m. EST.
Following the presentation to the president, the group is to brief Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his team via secure videoconference from the White House.
Leaked accounts don’t lead me to believe that there’s anything earth-shattering in the report. That won’t stop the media from selecting relatively minor points and sensationalizing them. One important point, which Democrats will manage to overlook:
“What we recommend demands a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation between executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government,” the report says. “Foreign policy is doomed to failure — as is any action in Iraq — if not supported by broad sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country towards such a consensus.”
That might be the bleakest assessment in the report.
Update:
The report has been released and is available for download in PDF format.
Right Click for URL
December 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
The exact conduct of war will depend to a great extent upon its objectives, which may include factors such as the seizure of territory, the annihilation of a rival state, the subjugation of another people or recognition of one’s own people as a separate state. Typically any military action by one state is opposed, ie is countered by the military forces of one or more states. Therefore, the ultimate objective of each state becomes secondary to the immediate objective of removing or nullification of the resistance offered by the opposing military forces. This may be accomplished variously by out-maneuvering them, by destroying them in open battle, by causing them to desert or surrender, or to be destroyed by indirect action such pestilence and starvation.
Now there are to too many rules to war as of now a days . war is not pritty or was it ever ment to be pretty . so it will be the forever war or untill you bankrupt your own contry due to tomany rules and fundamentals and human rights.
First off what started this all this war stuff in the east . to force diplomacy .
was it to get oil and money from them look back i think it was do to being pisst about the trade center ?
then some how it turned in to something about oil then it turned in to deplomacey.
next we all know we the west u.s.a. will not win.
why you ask ?
now the whay the east wins is not bye killing you that is a smoke screen . what they do is keep you tied up in war till your daller bottoms out (you are now poor)
look at the daller u.s.a before the war and look at it know. This has been one of the most nicest wars ever .
Seconed off the east has all the time in the world they are in no rush . but it seems the west is . time is money to the west .
so with time on the easts side i see no good whey this will end . there is no whey to fight time. we all know that ?
you can’t have pace and war we all know that . ?
There is no nice whay to win war .
January 11th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Since Bush is going for it and not pulling out , and understanding he does not know what he is doing . i have a few sugestions . one you have have to tackle terror bye puting terror in the face of terror . seconed you have to take charge of the east and stand strong with out seconed guessing your self . i have so many thoughts on how it can be won . and it can be but its a ugly win .
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 am