.
WASHINGTON (AFP) March 16 — Lawmakers in Congress unveiled a blue-ribbon panel to help chart the way forward in Iraq amid growing concerns over sectarian unrest and an American public increasingly eager to withdraw US troops.
The independent 10-member panel of prominent Americans — equally divided between Democrats and Republicans — will be chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton.
Lee Hamilton, who was vice chairman of a similar panel that assessed official US response to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, said the panel would “try to answer the question of what’s next in Iraq.”
“I am hopeful that this panel, comprised of honest, ethical and experienced patriots, will offer a realistic and frank assessment of the situation in Iraq and will ultimately lead us to common ground form which we can move forward as a nation.”
Participants include former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Preident Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff Leon Panetta; former CIA director Robert Gates and former Defense Secretary William Perry.
James A. Baker to lead new panel, similar to the first choice of Henry Kissinger to lead 9-11 investigation
The effort is being coordinated with assistance from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas, and the non-partisan United States Institute of Peace.
“The Institute is being responsive to requests by Congress to analyze international issues affecting war and peace,” USIP President Richard Solomon said in a statement this week.
“We look forward to supporting a group that will assess the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq and the region.”
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Fox consigliere hired to guard hen house.
hehehehehe
When I read the headline my first thought was, “That’s like the Godfather heading an independent panel on crime.”
We aren’t going to cut and run despite what the people want. But if this “blue-ribbon” panel of honest, ethical and experienced patriots, offers a realistic and frank assessment of the situation in Iraq – then we can just move our troops over to Iran after giving it a good pounding with air strikes.
Patriotism rules! especially Jim Baker’s version.
Updated Strategy Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril
WASHINGTON, March 15 — An updated version of the Bush administration’s national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.
President reaffirms policy of striking foes first
WASHINGTON — President Bush today plans to issue an updated national-security strategy reaffirming his doctrine of pre-emptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.
grrrrrr
As I said on another thread about this same topic yesterday, the most significant thing I see in this panel is that there are no neocons.
Any idea which other think tanks are involved in this?
Pipes was recess appointed to the USIP by Bush, by all accounts was not well received there, and ultimately left the organization at the end of 2004, over a year ago.
USIP has a generally rightwing cast, but is not known to be part of or sympathetic to neoconservative ideation or policies. Bush appointed Pipes to this group over strong objections in the US Senate and, supposedly, over strong objections coming from the USIP board itself.
link here.
Letter to Pipes from USIP (requested by chairman Solomon)referencing egeregious and insane accusations made by Pipes during his tenure there. Link to site here. (I don’t like to link to this guys site because he’s such an abominable creature, but these bits of info do support my remarks about Pipes no longer being part of USIP, and the fact that he was generally not held in high esteem there, at the minimum.
I understand what you’re saying about his appointment and time spent at USIOP and I agree with your assessment of the ugly hatred of his thoughts. The part that I was stressing is that he is still marketed as being somewhat representative of that organization. Personally, I think we should take all of these illusionists to task for their false claims and misrepresentations.
This is the type guy that through think tanks, Congressional testimony and legend, have been allowed to create what’s now considered common knowledge. I avoid linking to them as well but for the sake of anyone that might not know about them, we need to bring it to light.
In one of my links above, there was another pdf linked at the Peace Institute site that listed the other think tanks and various contributors. I’d say you could compile an excellent diary that would serve as a reference for many of us here as this unfolds.
I’m working on putting together such a diary.
Many thanks for the encouragement and vote of confidence.
It doesn’t matter that there are no neocons on the panel. To put James Baker on it is a mockery. It is the fox guarding the hen house.
I’m no fan of Baker or his criminal cronies, but if it is as I suspect that the empanelling of this group represents a significant move against the neocons by the very people they wrested control of US foreign policy from then I’d regard that as important, if for no other reason than if the neocons can be shunted aside now, it would dramatically lower the possibility of them being able to mount the assualts on Iran they’re so eager for,and signal the beginning of a overall reduction in the militarization of US policy in the Middle East.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Baker opposed the Iraq war, to any significant degree. He’s probably making money off of it. There is a thin line between the neocons…and many republicans, and some democrats for that matter.
You’re right about Baker in the sense that he was not opposed to invading and occupying Iraq as a means of overthrowing Hussein, though he was opposed to the (essentially) unilateral approach being pushed by the neocons. This op-ed by Baker in 2002 is interesting in the way it reveals his advocacy foroverthrowingthe Iraq regime and his reservations about doing it the neocon way.
I’m sure Baker has profited from this war too, as have all the defense industry people.
My central point though is that for the most part the Carlyle gang argued against doing this invasion the way it was done, recognizing that it would be a huge mistake. And, in recognizing the dysfunctionality of the neocon approach, they are now trying vigorously to push the neocons out of power and retake that power for themselves, knowing that the longer the neocons are pulling on the levers of power the worse things will get.
my 1st choice comment cannot be sanitized or made fit for public forum.
my alternate outrage is: Bush lied us into an illegal war, and thousands died. Blood on all thine hands. As the old bard wrote, Out damn spot. But thy hands will not be washed clean.
Isn’t it bizarre we announce a ‘blue ribbon panel’ on the same day we’re raining down DU black on Iraq?
Do we really need to ask what’s next in Iraq?
Do we need a Mr Fix it Jim Baker 111 panel? Fooled me once.
As our country slips away, I have a few questions:
When did we adopt a parliamentary system of government? Oh, forgot we have King George. Beg your pardon, silly me.
Under a parliamentary system when things get out of control, they hide behind a commission. Copycats.
Now, since we do have a parliamentary system and a king, it should be called a Royal Commission of Distinguished Peers of the Realm, and not a panel. Just a suggestion.
Why are the lazy congresscriters (parliamentarians) not doing what they were elected to do? Impeach the king.
…but it’s only going to cost $1.3 million, to start
Not to be too tooo cynical, that $1.3 million is just the retainer for Jim Baker’s fees.
Is that why the debt ceiling was raised to 9 trillion today? Say it ain’t so.
And unlike all commissions that take on lives of their own, this one’s life is designed to be several years long. The mandate is for ‘a forward-looking assessment of the [unfolding] situation in Iraq.’
So the study will run in tandem with the Iraq war – an unfolding situation as far out as one can imagine….
Unless these peers are prophets, to arrive at a forwarding looking assessment of a fluid situation is well…a steep order. But 5 years ago Baker, with O’Connor’s help, did do miracles in Florida.
Irony of ironies!!!, Jim Baker and Sandra Day O’Connor on the same Royal Commission; to do an assessment of what they indirectly had a hand in weaving.
They both gave us this incompetent king. Paint me cynical. It’s a just-in-time pay back.
I say we need to adjust the Cost of war. It just went up.
How much direct influence can this have on a free and independent country? Was something like this figured into the fine print of the contract when Iraq was handed back to the Iraqis?
This indiependent panel will probably figure out how much american industry can make off of this war. they’ve already made, and stolen, billions.
As if they don’t already know!
:<)
My problem is this–when are “we” (and by “we” I mean folks who have long since cashed out who still call themselves Democrats) going to stop giving bi-partisan gloss to these BS moves? Why do they continue to go along with this?
Oh–but I ask this in the wake of the latest Dem (Lee, Conyers, Boxer, Murtha) to stand for something–alone. What was I thinking?