MsUnderestimated » Blog Archive » “It Is Not a Serious Document”

Commemorate Philadelphia's World Series VICTORY
with a Phillies Jersey and other Phillies Memorabilia at low prices.

“It Is Not a Serious Document” - Bill Kristol (VIDEO)

December 6th, 2006 at 04:03 by MsUnderestimated

E.D. Hill has Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, on the show to dissect the ISG’s report and presser. Bill gives a quite frank assessment of this report, and says it is not a serious document. He says it frankly made him mad. And rightly so, he questions the value of us working with Syria and/or Iran in soliciting help with the Iraq situation. He also notes that the entire basis of this document is to show that bipartisanship is possible, rather than on a plan for victory in Iraq.

E.D. talks about the group’s recommendations for talks with Syria and Iran, and that possibly they might help us. Bill is not amused.

Bill: But they are utterly unspecific? What is Syria going to do for us? Lee Hamilton said: “Syria is a very influential player in the Middle East.”

Really? Do the other governments in the Middle East have a high regard for Syria? It’s news to me…a little dictatorship, a minority Alawi sect? I don’t think Jordan likes Syria much, I don’t think the Iraqi Government thinks Syria has been very helpful. There’s not much they can do, and they certainly won’t do anything unless they’re scared of us. And they’re not going to be scared of us if we’re withdrawing.

The deep dishonesty of this report, E.D., is in that first recommendation: Draw Americans back from a combat role. That recommendation is never justified as a means towards achieving success in Iraq. It’s merely in there because the American people, understandably, are tired of the war, and they’d love American soldiers to get out sooner rather than later. That is not a serious recommendation.

Here’s part of their final exchange:

Bill: They want bipartisanship. I’m all for bipartisanship. I think the Administration could have done more to get Democrats on board, perhaps, at different stages. They should still try to do so. But the key is to win the war; not to have everyone sitting around Washington feeling good that “hey, we got a bipartisan document!” If we lose this war, we can be as bipartisan as we want.

We are going to have a terrible situation in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, and I think a real threat to U.S. interests and U.S. principles. So, they should have put, in my opinion, winning the war above bipartisanship. If they don’t think the war can be won; fine. I’m happy to engage in that debate. God knows we’ve tried to in our magazine over the last few months to make the case that the war CAN be won and that more troops are necessary. They do not engage that debate, and I think that is deeply irresponsible. If they think the war cannot now be won, then they need to explain that.

E.D.: Or, perhaps that’s the reason the report was written the way it was, without directly stating it. You know, there are a lot of people on that commission, and the bipartisanship that they were looking for, I think certainly came out in the comments that they made.

Yes, perhaps, E.D., they felt that we couldn’t win, but they just didn’t have the guts to come out and say it. It is now being called the “Iraqi Surrender Group.”

Watch Bill & E.D.’s discussion here.

Jay at Stop the ACLU has total coverage.

Choose Options to Share This Post

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

Stop The ACLU
December 7, 2006 at 12:18 am

Iraq Study Group Release Report... Update: Start out by watching the group presser video at MsUnderestimated, then watch her video ...