Quick questions and observations about the Iraq Study Group and its timing.

[brainshrub]

I have some quick questions about the timing and necessity of the Baker Commission.

The Baker Commission (aka The Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission) is a ten-person panel appointed on March 15, 2006, by the United States Congress when it was still dominated by conservative war-supporters, that is charged with delivering an independent assessment of the situation of the Iraq occupation. The panel has no direct authority to change Iraq policy, but will make policy recommendations.

Now that the recommendations are coming out, all I'm wondering is: Don't we already have people on the government payroll who are supposed to give independent assessments on foreign policy?

What the hell is the CIA for? How about the Department of State? What about the UNITED STATES CONGRESS!!!???

Besides, didn't Bush already have a "Plan for Victory" back in November 30th, 2005?

If so, why form the Baker Commission less than four months later when Republicans were still enjoying the afterglow of this photo-op:



And while we are on the subject of timing and strategies for dealing with Iraq - here's a rough time-line for the quagmire thus far:

1. Mislead Congress about the danger Iraq poses. (pre-March 2003)
2. Invade (March 2003)
3. Declare Mission Accomplished (May 2003)
4. Change the reasons why we needed to go into Iraq. (September 2005)
5. Come out with a "Strategy for Victory" (October 2005)
6. Come out with a "Plan for Victory" (November 2005)
7. Baker Commission report to asses the strategy post-facto. (December 2006)

This is the most ass-backwards order for a military engagement I've ever seen.

[brainshrub]

1. kick

[NMDemDist2]

2. back asswards sums it up nicely

hi brainshrub!! :hi: