Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (91269)	12/8/2006 2:09:29 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360967

Bush and McCain the biggest losers Bronwen Maddox 09dec06 THE biggest loser from the Iraq Study Group's report is George W.Bush - it has given him a much sharper rebuke than the White House was expecting. It also damages Republican senator John McCain, the loudest advocate of putting more troops into Iraq -- now the most unpopular political position in the US. The report makes McCain look like the nation's maverick, not the next president. There aren't many winners, but they may include senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, who could draw support for their more nuanced positions. British Chancellor Gordon Brown does well, too -- should he become prime minister and want to take British troops out of Iraq quickly, the report gives him full written authorisation. The White House wanted one thing from the bipartisan panel chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton: not to be told to pull US troops out of the conflict. In return, it was prepared to be told off for past mistakes. Few in the White House or on Capitol Hill thought Baker, an adviser to Bush's father, would embarrass the President by overstepping this red line. That was wrong. The report sets out to box in Bush and strip away options, putting "stay the course" with the present 140,000 troops out of reach. It recommends pulling out all US combat troops within 15 months, but insists this is not the same as immediate withdrawal. That is disingenuous. Withdrawal is not a trivial exercise and would take months in any form, not least to protect the troops. Indeed, the generals may prove Bush's best weapon if he chooses to reject the call for withdrawal. Senior military officers sharply criticised the recommendation the panel seems to regard as uncontentious: a fivefold increase, to 20,000, of the number of US troops embedded with the Iraqi forces to train and guide them. To leave small numbers of troops in Iraq, in tiny dispersed units without the protection of a large force, is a recipe for getting them kidnapped or killed, the generals say. The report is even more damaging to McCain than Bush. He has repeatedly called for the US to pour in more troops to get a grip on security. It would be hard to craft a more unpopular position, although parts of the military share McCain's view that the US should finish the job, and that to pull out now would be an insult to those killed, as well as a surrender to turmoil in the region. McCain's supporters have tried to read a more politically appealing position into his words. In a talkshow before the November 7 congressional elections, he said that "if you want to win", you have to commit more troops. The use of the conditional, some suggested, meant he was softening his position. But he wasn't. He has lost no opportunity to make that clear. In the Senate armed services committee, a week after the elections, he attacked General John Abizaid, chief of US Central Command, for suggesting troop levels might rise in the short term -- but only as a means of training Iraqis -- and then fall quickly as they departed. Clinton, who supported the invasion but has been guarded on future tactics, and Obama, who was against it, will both be able to draw support for their positions from the report. At the Senate committee hearings, Clinton was the most impressive interrogator of Abizaid, telling him he was all but contradicting himself on troop levels. There are no clear right answers, the Iraq Study Group says, opening the way for many to discern an endorsement for their views in its text. But there are certainly wrong answers, the report makes clear. And it has not spared Bush, or McCain, the embarrassment of branding their ideas disastrous. theaustralian.news.com.au