Second Life for Study Group

[lily]

Well, it looks like Bush may have a plan B.......of course it should have been plan A, and we wouldn't be having his last hurrah (surge) but then that wouldn't be staying the course, would it?

I also wonder if Pelosi's trip to Syria may have something to do with Bush now deciding that he just may have to talk to Syria and Iran after all?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001406.html?referrer=email


Second Life for Study Group
Iraq Woes Lead To a Reappraisal

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 21, 2007; Page A01

After an initially tepid reception from policymakers, the recommendations of
the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and
Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage
the American engagement in Iraq.

With negotiations continuing this week on a new war funding bill, the
administration is strongly signaling that it would accept the idea of
requiring the Iraqi government to meet political benchmarks or else risk
losing some assistance from the United States. That was one of the key
proposals from the group headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker
III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton, but it was initially
dismissed by the White House when first proposed last December.



The administration is also preparing for its first substantive discussions
with Iran, to begin on Memorial Day, not long after its first high-level
talks with Syria in more than two years. The Iraq Study Group had strongly
urged such regional diplomacy aimed at fostering a political settlement and
bringing down the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

"They are coming our way," Hamilton said in a recent interview.

The comeback of the Iraq Study Group's suggestions underscores the intense
desire by some in Washington to fashion a workable long-term policy on Iraq.
The months since the commission issued its report have seen increased
polarization, with Democrats mostly united in their desire to end American
involvement in the war and President Bush struggling to buy time for
additional troops to pacify Baghdad.

The urgency may be felt most acutely on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers from
both parties are planning to introduce legislation soon that would make the
79 Iraq Study Group recommendations official policy of the U.S. government.
Among the sponsors are several Republicans who have traditionally supported
the Bush administration on Iraq -- another sign of how GOP lawmakers may be
looking for an exit strategy.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is one of the sponsors, said he is
looking to the study group's ideas as a way of ensuring a long-term American
commitment to Iraq, albeit with a smaller troop presence. "My sense among
Republican senators is we know very well that the current course is not a
sustainable course over a longer period of time," he said. "If we drift into
September, [the president] may not be able to find a bipartisan basis to
support a long-term limited interest in Iraq."

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who helped create the Baker-Hamilton commission,
called the recommendations a "gift to the administration" and said they
offer "a road map to success." Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), another
mainstream Republican, said he thought the proposals were "gaining more
support in the Congress because the situation in Iraq is not going as well
as we had hoped."

Officials in Washington "don't know what to do," said Hamilton, a Democrat.
"They don't have a framework. They are looking. They are searching.
Something has to follow the surge [of U.S. troops to Iraq] -- they are
interested in our proposals as a framework for policy."

Administration officials say they are already implementing many of the
Baker-Hamilton ideas, though the president himself has tacitly admitted that
some of the major elements remain undone. Bush has spoken frequently in
recent weeks about his interest in the Iraq Study Group's proposal to shift
the American military's role in Iraq from combat to training and support and
reduce the number of U.S. troops, suggesting that is the direction he wants
to go after violence in Baghdad is brought under control.

"I liked what James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton suggested," Bush said in East
Grand Rapids, Mich., last month. "And that is to be in a position at some
point in time where our troops are embedded with the Iraqi units -- in other
words, there's Iraqi units providing security with a handful of U.S.
troops -- helping them learn what it means to be a good military."

Such comments highlight an evolution in administration attitudes toward the
study group, which delivered its recommendations to the White House along
with a withering critique of administration Iraq policy.

[loosecannon]

Well, it looks like Bush may have a plan B.......of course it should have been plan A, and we wouldn't be having his last hurrah (surge) but then that wouldn't be staying the course, would it?

I also wonder if Pelosi's trip to Syria may have something to do with Bush now deciding that he just may have to talk to Syria and Iran after all?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001406.html?referrer=email

Thanks Lilly. It figures that the singular point in which Bush identifies with the group's 80 recommendations is the most dangerously idealistic one. (imbedding AM troops with Iraqi units)

Bush is becoming a friggin joke. His policies keep failing and he still won't listen to anyone else.

Pull his plug America, yank that clod off the mound.

[lily]

You know loose........at this stage in the game, I'm just glad he's come to his senses and realizes that winning this war isn't going to be done by military alone. If he thinks this is all his idea, who really cares at this point?

[loosecannon]

You know loose........at this stage in the game, I'm just glad he's come to his senses and realizes that winning this war isn't going to be done by military alone. If he thinks this is all his idea, who really cares at this point?

Lilly Bush isn't going to adopt the ISG plan. He is gonna reframe a slightly diff approach and ask for one more supplemental spending bill in September along with one more chance for one more "new" strategy.

This is a hoax.

[lily]

Lilly Bush isn't going to adopt the ISG plan. He is gonna reframe a slightly diff approach and ask for one more supplemental spending bill in September along with one more chance for one more "new" strategy.

This is a hoax.

No, I'm talking about him finally getting to the table with Iran and Syria. That is not a hoax

[Dilloduck]

No, I'm talking about him finally getting to the table with Iran and Syria. That is not a hoax

Iran has NO interest in comproming. Talk all you want. What do you think we should tell em ?

[loosecannon]

No, I'm talking about him finally getting to the table with Iran and Syria. That is not a hoax

We will see. The ISG had in mind a number of diplomatic efforts designed to encourage Iran and Syria to participate in securing Iraq.

Bush looked at that proposal and essentially decided that Iran was our new enemy, even announcing such in his SOTU addy.

[loosecannon]

Iran has NO interest in comproming. Talk all you want. What do you think we should tell em ?

We are leaving. Iraq is gonna need some help from it's neighbors. You wanna participate with the other Arab League nations in providing interim security in our wake?

[Dilloduck]

We are leaving. Iraq is gonna need some help from it's neighbors. You wanna participate with the other Arab League nations in providing interim security in our wake?

They have no interest in our help.

[lily]

Iran has NO interest in comproming. Talk all you want. What do you think we should tell em ?

.........and you know this because?

[lily]

We will see. The ISG had in mind a number of diplomatic efforts designed to encourage Iran and Syria to participate in securing Iraq.

Bush looked at that proposal and essentially decided that Iran was our new enemy, even announcing such in his SOTU addy.

Loose......what he said in the SOTU is different than what is going on now. The meeting is set up for this month.

[loosecannon]

Loose......what he said in the SOTU is different than what is going on now. The meeting is set up for this month.

That meeting has already been postponed twice.

You enjoy all the exuberance you want.

In the end Bush will merely coy to perhaps 5-10% of the ISG recommendations, put a new face on an old plan and just ask for one more chance and then one more chance until each and every supplemental budget is passed thru 08.

It is a hoax.

[lily]

That meeting has already been postponed twice.

You enjoy all the exuberance you want.

In the end Bush will merely coy to perhaps 5-10% of the ISG recommendations, put a new face on an old plan and just ask for one more chance and then one more chance until each and every supplemental budget is passed thru 08.

It is a hoax.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/17/us.iran/index.html

U.S., Iran to meet in Baghdad on May 28



(CNN) -- U.S. and Iranian officials will meet in Baghdad later this month to
discuss issues involving Iraq, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said
Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters that the date
would be May 28. Both officials were speaking from Islamabad, Pakistan,
where an Islamic conference of foreign ministers was being held.

According to Zebari, the discussions will be a part of three-party talks,
involving the United States, Iran and Iraq.

Earlier this week, White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters the talks
would not result in a normalization of relations between the two countries,
which have been cut since the 1979 hostage crisis.

"It is not unusual to have conversations of this sort," Snow said, adding
that the possibility of granting Iran full diplomatic status would not be
contemplated and has never been offered.

President Bush has branded Iran part of an "axis of evil." The White House
accuses Iran -- Iraq's neighbor -- of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of
providing weapons used by insurgents against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the United States will push Iran
to play "a productive role in Iraq" and to stop sending bomb components and
other such materials into the country.

Tehran denies the U.S. accusations and says it is not fomenting violence in
the country.

"Following consultations between Iranian and Iraqi officials, Tehran has
agreed to hold negotiations with Washington to relieve pains and suffering
of the Iraqi people, support and strengthen the government of Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki and stabilize security and peace in that country," Foreign
Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said, according to Iranian
state-run media.

Iranian and U.S. diplomats had "brief encounters" earlier this month in
Egypt at a two-day conference on Iraq, said Ryan Crocker, the U.S.
ambassador to Iraq.

Ok......give me until May 28th before you burst my bubble.:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Ok......give me until May 28th before you burst my bubble.:laugh2:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....I won't get fooled again" ~The Great Decider

[Dilloduck]

That meeting has already been postponed twice.

You enjoy all the exuberance you want.

In the end Bush will merely coy to perhaps 5-10% of the ISG recommendations, put a new face on an old plan and just ask for one more chance and then one more chance until each and every supplemental budget is passed thru 08.

It is a hoax.

You mean the fact that Iran has any interest at all in listening to the US say anything but "We surrender--build your nukes and keeping killing our troops "?

[loosecannon]

You mean the fact that Iran has any interest at all in listening to the US say anything but "We surrender--build your nukes and keeping killing our troops "?

DD, Iran offered to assist us in the War on Terror and capturing Bin Laden before we invaded Iraq.

I am convinced that their not yet weapons grade enrichment program is either purely defensive or at worse potentially offense in the case of israel. To which I shrug indifferently.

Iran only threatens us the way a cornered rat would.

[Dilloduck]

DD, Iran offered to assist us in the War on Terror and capturing Bin Laden before we invaded Iraq.

I am convinced that their not yet weapons grade enrichment program is either purely defensive or at worse potentially offense in the case of israel. To which I shrug indifferently.

Iran only threatens us the way a cornered rat would.

What did we have to do to get their cooperation? I'd love to see the link.

You really don't expect us to believe you hunch about Iran do you? The AIEA doesn't and announce more noncompliance issues by Iran.

[loosecannon]

What did we have to do to get their cooperation? I'd love to see the link.

You really don't expect us to believe you hunch about Iran do you? The AIEA doesn't and announce more noncompliance issues by Iran.


The IAEA has never said anything which remotely contradicts my hunch.

I will look around again later for Iran's offer to assist in the WOT but there are too many hits about other Iran subjects to find much beyong Iran's condemnation of the 9/11 attack. I might have more time later.

[loosecannon]

What did we have to do to get their cooperation?

Anything at all except to call them the axis of evil and invade both of their neighbors.

[Dilloduck]

Anything at all except to call them the axis of evil and invade both of their neighbors.

Sure --I'll wait :link:

[Dilloduck]

The IAEA has never said anything which remotely contradicts my hunch.

I will look around again later for Iran's offer to assist in the WOT but there are too many hits about other Iran subjects to find much beyong Iran's condemnation of the 9/11 attack. I might have more time later.

The negotiatons are going well---things go so great when we just talk to them . :lol:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=64388


Nuclear Watchdog Reports Iran Expanded Nuclear Program

Iran defied another U.N. Security Council deadline to end uranium enrichment and has expanded its enrichment capacity, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency report released Wednesday.




The violation of a 60-day deadline demanding an end to all nuclear fuel work in exchange for negotiations on trade incentives could mean more sanctions against the country.

"Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of ... the nature of its nuclear program," said the IAEA report.

After the report's release, the United States deployed nine warships, including two aircraft carriers, into the Persian Gulf, an area of international waters off the coast of Iran.

Iran has stated that its nuclear activity is for power generation only and denies any plans for nuclear arms, but the international community has voiced concerns over the capability of the program.

The report found that an underground facility in Natanz, Iran, is creating uranium gas for 1,312 centrifuge machines to make enriched uranium.

The IAEA indicated a need for better intelligence on the situation and said "the agency's level of knowledge of certain aspects of Iran's nuclear related activities has deteriorated" because Iran ceased providing crucial information to the IAEA more than a year ago.

The United States has led the call for Iran to cease enrichment activity. A White House spokesman called the new report "a laundry list of Iran's continued defiance of the international community" and that "Iran's leaders are only furthering the isolation of the Iranian people," reported Reuters.

U.S. and European envoys also are set to meet with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has made controversial comments suggesting Iran should be allowed to keep some uranium enrichment capacity as a compromise.

ElBaradei told the New York Times in May that "the focus should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production."

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Wednesday the major world powers would reject any such compromise and continue to demand a complete halt to enrichment activity.

[Gaffer]

iran wants to nuke Isreal, comrade doesn't care. They want to impose their version of islam on the rest of the region, comrade doesn't care. They want to destroy the US. comrade doesn't care. They are killing our soldiers in iraq, comrade doesn't care. But he wants us to talk to them.

Ahmalittlehitler in iran has made his intentions and plans very clear. comrade doesn't care. We have been in a cold war with iran since 1979. The only help they will give in iraq is to get control of the country and install their man sadr as the dictator.

iran is only interested in talking to delay actions taken against them. It's a typical muslin tactic. They only want time to develope their nukes and be able to strike at our carrier groups in the gulf.

[loosecannon]

The negotiatons are going well---things go so great when we just talk to them . :lol:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=64388

DD, not a word in that article contradicted my statement.

And are you saying that you don't remember Bush declaring Iran an axis of evil nation and us invading BOTH or Iran's closest neighbors?

[loosecannon]

iran wants to nuke Isreal

NOT our problem. Israel has the worlds third largest nuclear arsenal.


They want to impose their version of islam on the rest of the region

with this sentence you rambled into the myths that dwell in your paranoid imagination


They want to destroy the US.

and with this comment you dove off the cliff into utter lunacy


comrade doesn't care. They are killing our soldiers in iraq

No, false, they might be providing arms, a practice which is considered fair by the US.

Meanwhile in reality the Sunni are responsible for 90% of our battle casualites in Iraq. They are our new allies.



But he wants us to talk to them.

The Iraq Study group/Baker- Hamilton commission wants us to talk to them. That group includes our current Secretary of defense Robert Gates.

Send him a nasty e-mail calling him comrade:laugh2: :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

NOT our problem. Israel has the worlds third largest nuclear arsenal.



with this sentence you rambled into the myths that dwell in your paranoid imagination



and with this comment you dove off the cliff into utter lunacy



No, false, they might be providing arms, a practice which is considered fair by the US.

Meanwhile in reality the Sunni are responsible for 90% of our battle casualites in Iraq. They are our new allies.




The Iraq Study group/Baker- Hamilton commission wants us to talk to them. That group includes our current Secretary of defense Robert Gates.

Send him a nasty e-mail calling him comrade:laugh2: :laugh2:

You have links to back all this up, right? I'd expect nothing less.

[loosecannon]

You have links to back all this up, right? I'd expect nothing less.

what specific point are you unfamiliar with?

[Kathianne]

what specific point are you unfamiliar with?

pick your own. You provided several.

[loosecannon]

pick your own. You provided several.

IOW a frivilous request?

[Kathianne]

IOW a frivilous request?

What's IOW?

[Gaffer]

comrade thinks the iraq study group is the know all end all of government policy.

Ever stop to think that they could be wrong on at least some of their conclusions.

iran is supplying weapons material and men to iraq to fight against the US and iraqi troops. You think this is acceptable actions? it's just to be expected? It's a fucking act of war.

Most of our casualties have been sunni caused. al queda sunni's. Supported and supplied by iran. iran IS playing both sides of the fence there.

But you keep your head buried and maybe they won't see you.

[loosecannon]

What's IOW?

In
Other
Words

[loosecannon]

comrade thinks the iraq study group is the know all end all of government policy.

Well actually history has already proven it.

The members of the ISG have:

>Represented GWB before the supreme court in Bush v. Gore and WON

>been appointed to the defense secretary position BY BUSH, SINCE their report was released

>held positions of secretary of State and Head of the CIA during the first gulf war (which conversely was NOT a fuck up)


Ever stop to think that they could be wrong on at least some of their conclusions.

Sure but has Bush been RIGHT on even ONE of his conclusions?


iran is supplying weapons material and men to iraq to fight against the US and iraqi troops. You think this is acceptable actions? it's just to be expected? It's a fucking act of war.

Well Nimrod, WE provided weapons materials including WMD to be used against Iran in the Iraq/Iran war.

If we do it, it is fair? Straightforward question Gaffer.

If we arm Iran's enemies is it fair? So if Iran arms our enemies how can that conceivably be different?


Most of our casualties have been sunni caused. al queda sunni's. Supported and supplied by iran. iran IS playing both sides of the fence there.

Sorry but WRONG.

Iran is supporting the SHIA, because Iran is a SHIA nation.

Iran does NOT support the Sunnis.

Saudi Arabia does, another ALLY of the US. Saudis are Sunnis. And they are arming the folks who are killing 90% of our soldiers.

[lily]

Ahmalittlehitler in iran has made his intentions and plans very clear. comrade doesn't care. We have been in a cold war with iran since 1979. The only help they will give in iraq is to get control of the country and install their man sadr as the dictator.

Al-Sadr isn' Iran's man, he is Maliki's staunchest backer. Someone we had in Najaf and brokered a deal that let him and all he merry men go with their weapons.


iran is only interested in talking to delay actions taken against them. It's a typical muslin tactic. They only want time to develope their nukes and be able to strike at our carrier groups in the gulf.

All nine of them that arrived in the Gulf last night??

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/23/ap3751000.html

[Psychoblues]

Holy Crap!!!!! You have shattered everything the Adminstration wants us to know about all this!!!!!!!!





Al-Sadr isn' Iran's man, he is Maliki's staunchest backer. Someone we had in Najaf and brokered a deal that let him and all he merry men go with their weapons.



All nine of them that arrived in the Gulf last night??

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/23/ap3751000.html

Can you give us a redacted (blacked out) version without being so graphic or seemingly secretive???????????

[lily]

Holy Crap!!!!! You have shattered everything the Adminstration wants us to know about all this!!!!!!!!






Can you give us a redacted (blacked out) version without being so graphic or seemingly secretive???????????

:laugh2: Sorry, you had to click twice on the link:


Navy Stages Show of Force Off Iran Coast
By BARBARA SURK 05.23.07, 11:16 AM ET




The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian
coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships
packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced
exercises in the Persian Gulf.

The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were
joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own
strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th
Marine Expeditionary Unit (nyse: UNT - news - people ).

The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz
on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry
two-fifths of the world's oil exports.

Aircraft aboard the two carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct
air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises.

The maneuvers came just two months after a previous exercise in March when
two U.S. carrier groups carried out two days of air and sea maneuvers off
the Iranian coast.

Before the arrival of the Bonhomme Richard strike group, the Navy maintained
around 20,000 U.S personnel at sea in the Gulf and neighboring waters.

U.S. warships have frequently collided with merchant ships in the busy
shipping lanes of the Gulf.

[Gaffer]

Al-Sadr isn' Iran's man, he is Maliki's staunchest backer. Someone we had in Najaf and brokered a deal that let him and all he merry men go with their weapons.



All nine of them that arrived in the Gulf last night??

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/23/ap3751000.html

sadr is iran's man, he's hiding there now.

we have three carrier groups in the gulf now. Two amphibious assault groups as well.

[lily]

sadr is iran's man, he's hiding there now.

Well again, the facts just don't back you up, Gaffer. Sadr is no Iran's man. He is al-Maliki's as I stated......and as for him being in Iran, the fact is we don't know where he is, just like we don't know were bin-laden is and we let them both go. Does it really matter? They both are now icons, adored by those that follow them and are capable of doing what they want, where ever they want.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1662777.ece

Al-Maliki defiant as cleric tells ministers to quit Iraqi Cabinet

James Hider in Basra
The radical Shia leader Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr pulled his six
ministers out of the Iraqi Cabinet yesterday, dealing a blow to Nouri
al-Maliki, the US-backed Prime Minister, whose support had rested on the
backing of the young cleric.

The cleric's members of parliament said that the walkout was in protest at
the failure of the Shia Government to heed their demands for a rapid pullout
of US troops from Iraq, something the hardline movement - made up mostly of
young, impoverished Shia men - has been demanding since shortly after the
2003 invasion.

"The main reasons are the Prime Minister's lack of response to the demands
of nearly one million people in Najaf asking for the withdrawal of US forces
and the deterioration in security and services," Sadrist lawmaker Nassar
al-Rubaie said, referring to a march in the Shia shrine city on April 9, the
fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to US forces.


we have three carrier groups in the gulf now. Two amphibious assault groups as well.

Yes.....and we just added 9 more.:bang3: