Why is it that we (Americans) give any creedence to this commission on Iraq?

Question

The whole thing is a joke. It is full of politicians, Clinton cronies, and lawyers. I see civilians offering military advice. They have no idea what they are talking about and are trying to offer a political solution to a military problem.

There are 5 supposed Republicans on this committee. Lee Hamilton is a joke. Baker worked for Bush Sr and Bush Sr is a liberal with a Republican name. Sandra Day O'Connor is no Republican either. These people are not qualified. This goes back to my question.

My question has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. I mention him because there are people on the commission that are cronies of his. Clinton's actions have nothing to do with this report.

Answer 1

There is no reason to. Baker is a lawyer who supports Saudi Arabia. These people are not the Commander in Chief, they are legislatures. They are breaching their constitutional authority by telling Bush how to run this war. They should be thrown in jail for such a crime. They have told the world that America should surrender, and because of this, 10 of our brave men died today, simply to promote some garbage agenda that is not good for this country. Screw that commission. It can go to hell, its nothing, and this is a promise to you. If Bush listens to it, I swear to you right now, and I will go on record saying this, I will lose all respect for the man and never support him again. If he listens to the Iraq Surrender Group, I will turn against Bush, because he will no longer be the strong, unpandering leader I always thought he was. Throw this commission in the trash Bush, it is of no use! Hell, they want negotiations with Iran and Syria! That in itself is enough to show how much crap this whole damn thing is. Its insane!

Answer 2

First - Who cares if Clinton's "cronies" are on there? As long as they have some inkling of what is going on, I don't care.

Second - Had Bush, Rumsfeld, or Cheney actually listened to the military to begin with, we would have much less of a problem. They all wanted more troops from the start and the government refused to deliver. Thus, we got a half-assed, politically developed war.

Third - Civilians are necessary in order to give solutions to the problems that have arisen such as how to create a functioning government. Developing government is not an area of military expertise, unfortunately.

Fourth - As much as I despise politicians, they are necessary to create a state, as they have knowledge in that field.

Answer 3

The Iraq Study Group was proposed by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. The group is composed of five Republicans and five Democrats. They made a huge effort to engage bipartisanship and put their party predispositions aside to address the problem of Iraq. This committee knew very well that it would be picked apart like a Christmas turkey. I've no doubt that they have triple-checked their facts and that it took a small miracle for five Repubs and five Dems to agree on lunch, much less suggestions for an alternate solution in Iraq.

It's past time for the President to consider ideas from other sources than his hand-picked crowd of yes men and women. He has claimed to respect those on this committee and he has claimed that he will give much consideration to their recommendations. Let's hope he keeps his word this time around. He certainly has not been successful in Iraq following the current course.

EDIT: Unbelievable. Now you turn it around by claiming these people who are Republicans just can't be Republicans, for what reason was that? Could it be that you just don't like it that they have the nerve to disagree with Bush's politicies? There are few places better than YA to see rationalizations reproduce like bunny rabbits.

Answer 4

The commission was composed of 5 Dems AND five Republicans. Political yes. But finally honest. I agree concerning leaving it to the Generals.

Answer 5

Jim Baker, Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State, headed up the commission which had 5 Dem's and 5 Repubs. They worked for almost a year, and said most of their advice was taken from the current Generals and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You need not give it any credence, but they were convened to help the President decide what to do.

Answer 6

Rumsfeld was a civilian, he gave lots of advice. Oh and it was five republicans and five democrats, hardly all Clindton cronies. It is simply advice on what they think might be done to improve issues in Iraq.

The links below might give you some idea as to why what these men have to say might be worth at least looking at before discarding.

Answer 7

Here's a news bulletin for you. George Bush is a civilian politician. Baker spearheaded the recount effort for Bush in Florida in 2000 and also worked for his father.

Answer 8

Your interrogative is far more comical than the premise it tries to convey. The conflict was politically motivated in the first place with a partisan blessing.

I am the Fringe and any idiot can pull a trigger but it takes a genius to know when to release the safety.

Answer 9

yeah... they need to leave it to military experts like Bush, Rummy and Cheney... HAHAHA

if nothing else, it's civilians telling other civilians that they have no clue what they are doing... which seems to be apparent...

and what about the generals that have said the same things that the commission said?

Answer 10

it's funny because their conclusion is that a military solution is not possible.... it must be political!!!!
maybe they know something you don't.....

and there are five republicans and five democrats, don't blame this on Clinton!!!!!!!

and just FYI...... our military policy in Iraq is probably the worst failure in the history of our military!!!!!! if you want to keep listening to them... maybe you need to get your A S S over there and bring our boys home!!!!!