Sources: Iraq Study Group will not call for withdrawal timetable

[Amianthus]

Thursday, November 30, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq Study Group report will not call for a specific timetable to withdraw U.S. troops, three sources close to the panel told CNN Thursday.

One official noted a time frame was just "such a thorny issue" for the commissioners to sort through. But one adviser to the study group said the panel will make clear that the U.S. troops "can't be there forever" and recommend President Bush insist that Iraqi Prime Minister Nori al-Malaki meet certain benchmarks to improve the situation on the ground.

A second adviser to the study group said there were five basic options on the table -- ranging from a conservative stay-the-course approach to a more liberal plan offering a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops -- and that commissioners seem to have settled on what insiders jokingly referred to as the "2.5 option" because it was a blend of the various proposals.

"It was a mix-and-match -- a little used from different options," said this adviser.

The adviser acknowledged some critics will now say the study group's recommendations are a "copout or watered down" report, but this official said consensus could not be found on setting a timetable for bringing home U.S. troops.

"There were partisan divisions -- withdrawing troops is a divisive issue," said the adviser, adding that the study group had to be "more realistic than idealistic" because there are no easy solutions to the crisis.

-- CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry
Article

[Michael Tee]

In retrospect, the report's conclusions were foreordained from the moment the members of the commission were chosen.  They didn't bring in any new people, they aren't gonna get any new ideas.  It looks like the wagons have circled.

I have yet to see any reasonable argument against a full pull-out in sixty days.  Probably ending in a fighting withdrawal but a little advance planning could create as many embarcation points as are needed, protected by fortifications,airpower and minefields and the casualties of the withdrawal would be minimized. 

The U.S. has lost this war.  600,000 Iraqis and 3,000 invaders have died in the invasion.  Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. at any point in time.  This is a disaster that was totally preventable and it can be laid at the doorstep on one man and his administration.  There is no reason why these individuals should not be impeached immediately and put on trial for war crimes.  There has got to be some kind of accountability.

[domer70]

One should not be tried criminally for hubris but instead for true villainy. We encounter the world with our worldview, from which good intentions can flow though the project, properly understood, was a misconceived error from the start. No, George Bush should have been "tried" in the crucible of politics and found wanting.

[Michael Tee]

<<One should not be tried criminally for hubris but instead for true villainy.>>

It's a defence to plead that your intentions were good although your actions were criminal?  With a defence like that, you could get away with assassinating the President of the United States of America.

It also appears that you've bought into their defence theory - - who says their intentions were good?  Why did they lie about them to the American people and to the world if they were so good?  And if they weren't lying about WMD, why did they find new reasons to stay on after the ridiculousness of the WMD theory was exposed?  In view of the widespread skepticism and challenges to the theory from the very beginning, and the failure to convince France, Germany, Russia, China and Canada of the need to invade based on the "threat" of WMD, why not investigate how genuine their belief was?  Why not put them on trial?  Don't the families of 600,000 Iraqis killed for nothing deserve at least a trial of the architects of that war?

[Plane]

I have yet to see any reasonable argument against a full pull-out in sixty days.


How about a tripleing death rate ?

Or have you no pity?