Iraq Study Group, Fruit Salad and Iran

I am struck by the difference in attitude and questions between the press attending the grand unveiling of the ISG Recommendations and the White House Press Corps.

There were actually some pointed and tough questions at the grand unveiling, such as:

QUESTION: You're certainly a group of distinguished elder statesmen, but tell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said, given that -- as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb; none of you made it out of the Green Zone -- why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq Study Group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start, to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We have some judgments about the way this country works and the way our government works, and some considerable experience within our group on the Middle East.
We recognize that our report is only one, and there will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and be accepted or rejected on its own.
We tried to set forth here achievable goals. It's a very easy thing to look at Iraq and sit down and set out a number of goals that really have no chance of all of being implemented. We took a very pragmatic approach because all of these people up here are pragmatic public officials.
HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war and will at least be a beginning of a consensus here. Because without that consensus in the country, we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
BAKER: Let me add to that that this report by this bunch of has- beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.

It is impossible to impart the sneering tone of Baker's comment. The question was perhaps the most important however glossed over by Hamilton and rejected out of hand by Baker. The Military Adviser's to the ISG were not consulted on the military recommendations and many a military person from John McCain to General Barry McCaffrey has pointed out its tank-sized holes.

Other good question were posed on the reality of their recommendations being accepted in toto (more on that in a bit), the reality of real dialogue with Iran and Syria etc.

On the other hand, the White House press corps and network anchors/talking heads saw the delivery of the WORD, the repudiation of Bush and the confirmation of their every deepest, darkest thought about the Iraq.

It also, in their eyes, justified how bunch of reporters who rarely get out of New York City or the beltway, never get intelligence briefings (except for leaks they print) and have never consulted with a General, Colonel or Master Sargent on the ground in Iraq could know the REAL story of Iraq so well. For them it's not about Iraq per se, it's about vindication of their point of view. One wonders what the reaction would be if the ISG had come out with recommendations to increase the intensity of the war. But they did not and it's a no brainer why.

Commissions, committees and think tanks run to the center, to compromise and away from controversy and decisiveness like dogs run to steak over corn on the cob. Committees do not come up with bold new visions, they promote blinders and more of the same. They ISG report is full of cold war thinking in an asymmetrical war world.

Baker, in the announcement news conference (the Second Noel to the media left, but this time with two wise men and eight sheep) justified the loathsome idea of actually negotiating with the fascist regime in Iran by citing the fact we spoke with the Soviets during the cold war. We sure did; but it was not until we negotiated from the position of a military and economic buildup they could not possibly keep up with was real concessions and eventually the dissolution of the USSR achieved under Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Baker then sat before the Senators the next day and said the plan was "not fruit salad ...where you can just take the parts you like..it's a comprehensive plan."

Well I'll agree that it's not fruit salad and as my old bud used to say, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap either - and this is chicken crap at its worst.