President Bush has the absolute right to toss that report in the trash, and I hope he does exactly that. But, I suspect he won't.

That's such a great point, Beth. I wonder why more people aren't outraged by that. I mean, don't we elect people to do the stuff that these commissions do? So we're doubly wasting tax money, since our elected representatives aren't doing the job either.

Tell us how you really feel, dear - don't hold back!

We didn't elect Alberto Gonzalez, Don Rumsfeld, or anyone in the Dept of the Interior or ICE either. Should we not listen to them? We didnt' elect a single officer in the military. Are their opinions crapola now too?

Opposition on merits is one thing. ad hominem fallacies are something else.

I've been defending it Beth(http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006777.html). I may not like it terribly much. But, honestly, don't you get the impression that the American public is war weary and about to give up the ship entirely? This is a chance to avoid outcomes like we saw in SE Asia with Vietnam and the ignoring of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. To let the US public take a sigh of relief and get beyond that exhaustion so we don't lose all the gains we've made and have spent all those people for nothing.

I don't like how this plan will bring us toward victory. not one f'n bit. I understand how it could advance the cause though. I'll take a victory done in a manner I didn't necessarily agree with over a defeat that leads to a situation I can't tolerate in objective terms any day of the week.

Fine. back to Castle Argghhh!'s Purgatory for ry. But can we have more blankets down there? That Siberian Hamster keeps stealin' mine and eating all the Pringle crumbs.

That was a good counter to a good point I think.

Ry - the Cabinet is in the Constitution - Judges are in the Constitution.

There is no mention of bi-partisan commissions - I think of them as a way for Congress and the Pres to avoid making hard decisions - why do you think there is a commission for closing military bases? That should be determined by our elected officials.

Sorry Beth, but I'm detecting not only a bait and switch but flawed reasoning.

First you say that it's because people aren't elected but now it's because the people who are elected are CS. Which is it?

Is the FBI in the Con(treasury dept is, but is the FBI)? How about the CIA and the NSC? The Joint Cheifs? Child Protective Services? A standing Army? We tossing these because they aren't clearly outlined as musts in the Con too?(Ow, my ear! Ow, that's worse than the Big Boot! Okay, I'll never sass the Lady of Argghhh! like that ever again. Ow-uh! I'll wax the kitchen floor! I'll rake the Leaves of Argghhh! Just please let go!)

More importantly the COn is entirely silent on the issue of calling on expert advice by the President. It neither denies it nor demands it. It's silent on the issue. That's why the President can call together something like the energy commission he did back in 2000. That's why Klinto was able to call together a study group on health care. The Con is a minimalist document. It tells you what you may not do more than what you can do. It does not forbid you from calling on outside advice and so complaining about the un-elected status is very off target.

BRAC is a legislator/non-legislator process. The non-elected come in and testify on the Hill. THe decisions are largely still in the hands of Congress---the elected. But the expertise to make those decisions lays largely outside the ken of Congress---which is why they need the experts. It isn't cowardice that drives the committee-ism of BRAC, but the rare moment of Congresscritters admitting ignorance.

What does being elected have to do with having the expertise? Nada. Okay, lets say it was just Baker doing a phone-conf with The Pres making the same recomendations and Bush chooses one. CS behaviour? It's not really different than writing the ISG report.

What I'm torqued over is that people are taking the ISG as Holy Writ that the Pres MUST follow. It isn't that. It's a list of recomendations. The same as if The Pres had asked the Joint Chiefs---another un-elected committee---to come up with a list of recomendations. Elected/Un-elected has nothing to do with this. It has more to do with that you hate the recomendations and, hate that Bush won't come out and say what you want him to say(whatever that is).

And let's look at this in a long term manner: let's say Bush came out and said this by himself. Would you turn on him(which I suspect many would)? This is a chess game. Look three moves ahead and at many of the potentials.

There's more it than just the report itself. Try this one:http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/12/post_752.html
IT's rather anti-ISG but brings up a critical point: the ISG is about the US general populace more than it is about Iraq itself, and it could be the back door in which the opposition democrats are able to finally get on board.

Most importantly, as I've been arguing with Trias back at Big Boot(y)'s is that it is utterly necessary is to get the waffling 40% back on this bandwagon. 'Stay the course', however right it is, ain't doing that. THe lesson of Vietnam was it doesn't matter how well we do on the battlefield if the politcal will to see it thru crumbles(John knows the name of the Col and got a book signed by him that had a conversation with a Vietnamese counterpart that illustrates that nicely). Only 30% of us are whole heartedly supportive of the war effort. If that 40% goes much more negative on the war it's over. Winning is dependent on that wobbly 40% and they want something that looks like we're leaving. So give them something that looks like we're leaving---but really isn't. Basically what the ISG says is let's look like we're leaving but not leave entirely. It's manipulating the people, but so what. Winning is winning and this is too important to have ideological purity tests on this.

This ISG report isn't Holy Writ. People are acting like it is, but it's only a recomendation paper. Not the committee making policy by their fiat, but giving advice to the Pres. He can circular file all of it if he wants to. Let's not act like the Sheep and pretend that it's Holy Writ.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: