December 10, 2006
Sure ... Let Terrorists Establish Peace
Printer FriendlyBy: Rachel Marsden
NEW YORK — I’m not sure why I thought this week’s bipartisan Iraq Study Group report might actually offer some constructive suggestions about speeding up the stabilization of Iraq.
The term “study group” evokes the image of a bunch of guys sitting around at the University of Starbucks between late night pizza binges, jockeying to out-nuance each other and serving up various pie-in-the-sky theories.
After months of “studying,” their message is basically this: We really have no great new ideas or suggestions for Iraq, except to put more power into the hands of some Islamic nutcases.
Whoops, sounds like someone crammed.
While not advocating for an immediate exit, the panel wants American combat troops out of the country by 2008. Now that they have a better idea of when the infidels will be clearing out, I’m sure the jihadists in Iraq will be grateful for the heads-up so they’ll be able to plan a little time with the relatives in Europe, or maybe apply for one of those student-terrorist diversity placements at Yale. One of the study group’s members commented the “U.S. isn’t winning or losing in Iraq,” thereby demonstrating a breathtaking level of nuance that could only emanate from the over inflated windbag of a true academic — or from an orifice belonging to Sen. John Kerry.
This same individual also commented that “all options are on the table,” as though he’s talking about the buffet at his local Red Lobster, when I would think his job was to recommend a few decent dishes.
Unfortunately, both of these brain droppings fell from the mouth of Bob Gates — Bush’s new nominee for Defence Secretary. Not surprisingly, he seems to be one of the few Republican appointees whom the liberal Democrats like.
The panel recommends America place Mideast peace in the hands of Iran and Syria — the same Syria that has been cited for severe human rights abuses and provides cash and cover to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has apparently been busy banning Iranians’ access to online YouTube videos featuring things like frat boys lighting their farts on fire. That’s when he’s not focused on promoting his upcoming conference focusing on whether the Holocaust really happened. (Might I suggest extending an invite to every anti-American’s favourite author and academic, Noam Chomsky, who was once quoted in Australia’s Quadrant Magazine as saying, “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust.”) But hey, whatever distracts Mahmoud from fiddling with those nukes.
So let me get this straight. These two clowns — whose countries represent two of the biggest supporters of terrorism — are the great hope for winning the war on terror? That’s the best a panel with a collective IQ supposedly above that of a zucchini could come up with?
Send a ‘Chamberlain’
I have a better idea. It’s one that will likely achieve the same result, but save a lot of time, money, and pretense: Why don’t we cast someone as America’s Neville Chamberlain, and send him over to the Mideast to present Ahmadinejad with a new “peace treaty” like the UK did with Hitler back in happier times? He can declare peace on Earth upon arrival, call it a day, and get home in time for Monday Night Football.
If this report really is the grand plan that emerges as a result of supposedly intelligent adults “studying,” then maybe it should be left to the kids.
Posted by redguy at December 10, 2006 07:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/642
Comments
Any committee or panel that is purported to be "bipartisan" is a complete farce.
If all sides were represented equally and fairly, then for the panel to come to a consensus is ludicrous. If two people always agree then one is not needed. At most, the panel should present alternative solutions along with the pros and cons of each and that’s it - not present a consensus.
The committee discussed every strategy regarding to how to “escape” but did not discuss even one strategy as to how to win. Think they had a predetermined agenda?
America is not run by committee. America has three separate and equal branches of government – all elected or appointed by those that were elected. We do not have a fourth branch – the Committee branch. The problem is the lines between the three branches have been skewed over the years by liberal Democrats.
As for the panels’ conclusions and the publishing of the report, why don’t we just publish our battle plans and get our defeat and retreat over with that much quicker.
You are absolutely correct. Defining and publishing our exit strategy gives terrorist organizations plenty of time to plan and prepare for their next “soirée”.
“Whoops, sounds like someone crammed.”
Nah. It sounds more like plagiarism to me. Without having read the report myself, what I’ve heard about the Iraq Study Group report are conclusions I’ve heard already from somewhere else. It just sounds more “official” when a “bipartisan panel” with an official sounding name puts it in writing.
Liberal Democrats do not see Iran, Syria and North Korea as evil threats because that would possibly offend the leaders of those nations, which would be politically incorrect. Seeing and acknowledging individuals, groups of people or entire nations for who they really are and what they represent, especially when they are evil personified, is beyond the capacity of liberal Democrats. The only group they are capable of seeing as evil are Republicans.
The first mandate of liberal Democrats is for foreign dictators, thugs and tyrants to like them. Liberal Democrats are like little children playing in the world sandbox. They yearn to be liked by the playground bully and will do anything to attain their approval.
Thank heaven America’s system of government is set up in such a way that the president is not obligated to use the Iraq Study Group report for anything other than fireplace kindling.
I’m all in favor of letting the adults monitoring the world sandbox draw their own conclusions and make decisions accordingly – not liberal Democrats who are too busy building sand castles.
Posted by: LynnJG ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.redstatesusa.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 11, 2006 11:01 AM
We continue to forget that war is not nice, it is dirty and dangerous. We did not defeat the Germans or Japanese by focusing on knocking out individual targets military in nature. To destroy the Jihadists we need to level the area they are in. The local people either help, support, or fight with them. They deserve no level of protection when bullets fly.
Posted by: Frank at December 12, 2006 09:18 AM
A very insightful column - and great comments!
Now all we have to do is convince the ordinary American citizen that all is not lost - even if this "bi-partisan" study says so...along with all the major media outlets. It reminds me of someone constantly mentioning how hot it is on a summer day...perhaps you were doing just fine tolerating the temperature, but as they keep mentioning it over and over and over again, you begin to feel the heat. Just because the media says something over and over again, doesn't make it so!!!! Even if they believe it does.
The panel definitely failed its mission by not giving one option for VICTORY! And the president is right to ignore their recommendations to let us become mired in another Vietnam situation.
Posted by: JASCC at December 12, 2006 12:17 PM
These comments plus Limbaugh and Marsden's commentary's have basically said it all. Yesterday it came across the newswires that Saudi now recommends the entire MIddle East become upgraded with nuclear power plants. That oughto eventually take care of eliminating one problem. Downside would be a loss of oil and probability of a nuclear winter.
Posted by: Mack at December 12, 2006 05:32 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
