The Iraq Surrender Group ~ More thoughts by Frank Gaffney

Townhall ^ | Monday, December 4, 2006 | Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

On Wednesday, an unelected, unaccountable and substantially unqualified commission will formally report what hasn’t already been leaked about its recommendations with respect to the conflict in Iraq. The title of the commission is the Iraq Study Group (ISG). Given the nature of its contribution, a better name would be the Iraq Surrender Group.*

Led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the ISG’s members have reportedly decided that the United States must withdraw its forces from Iraq, that we must start doing so in substantial numbers by 2008 and that we have to open negotiations with Iran and its wholly owned subsidiary, Syria.

President Bush, left, speaks during a joint press conference as Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono looks on in Bogor Palace, outside of Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday, Nov. 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

An early indication of the way in which this bipartisan diktat will be received in official Washington can be seen in the vacuous response of the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Joseph Biden announced over the weekend that the President should accept the surrender commission’s report – even before its complete contents become known.

The good news is that George W. Bush has made known, both publicly and privately, that he has no intention of surrendering to our Islamofascist and other enemies in Iraq. He understands something that has evidently eluded the ISG’s worthies: We are in a global war and that, if we run from Iraq, there is nowhere to hide.

Mr. Bush insists that withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq will be tied to success – not compelled by failure. And he has declared that he will not negotiate with the two countries most responsible for the proxy war (not to be confused with a “civil” war) going on in Iraq today: Iran and its puppet, Syria.

The bad news is that there are persistent leaks to the effect that these Shermanesque statements are to be taken with the same grain of salt as Mr. Bush’s declared determination pre-election to keep Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon for the duration of his term. It is not good for the Free World to have such uncertainty about the word of the President of the United States.

An early indication of whether President Bush will embrace the Baker commission’s plan for surrender may come as early as today [Tuesday] when the man he subsequently selected to replace Mr. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director Robert Gates, appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. Mr. Gates was, until his nomination, a member of the Iraq Study Group and, presumably, was comfortable with the thrust of its findings.

We know for certain that the President’s new Pentagon chief is in favor of at least the most alarming of these – the idea of opening direct negotiations with Iran in the interest of facilitating a “regional approach” to the conflict in Iraq. His enthusiasm for this idea goes back at least to 2004 when he co-chaired with Zbigniew Bzrezinski a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations that endorsed “engaging” Iran.

It can only be hoped that at least some Senators will explore this idea with Mr. Gates. Sadly, most of them seem more interested in getting Mr. Rumsfeld out the door than assuring his relief is up to the job. Still, they have an obligation to examine with care why the nominee thinks the United States can usefully negotiate with a regime like that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad given the latter’s public embrace of the following positions:

• “If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.”

• “The battle that is going on in Palestine today is the frontline of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressor World. It is a battle of destiny that will determine the fate of hundreds of years of conflict in Palestine.” And “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

• “We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Twelfth Imam, whose arrival will be preceded by the apocalypse]. If we work on th[at] basis…all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined.”

• “With the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States.”

  This sampler of the Iranian president’s vitriol is hardly exhaustive. But it is illustrative of an inescapable fact: We are confronting an Iranian regime that is determined to destroy this country and other freedom-loving peoples. It is one thing if Jim Baker and his unaccountable gang have convinced themselves and irresponsible politicians on both sides of the aisle that we must “be willing to negotiate with our enemies” in order to secure the political fig leaf needed to obscure our surrender in Iraq.

  It is an altogether different thing, however, for the President of the United States to embrace such an idea. If the President is, indeed, determined not to surrender in Iraq and, thereby, to avoid inexorably setting in train dire repercussions worldwide, Mr. Bush had better make sure that the man to whom he is entrusting his key national security portfolio, Bob Gates, will follow his direction – not that of Jim Baker.
  
  

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

What is your take on the reason people voted the way they did last month?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

They're largely ill-informed and don't realize the implications and impact that their combined votes have on the National level.

[SF Republican]

This administration likes to operate in secret, or at the very least divulging as little as required by law; the American people do not care too much for that. IMHO
They should have been much more open and upfront about Abu Gray and Gitmo; I think we would have accepted but they were unwilling to trust us so we did not trust them.

[JewishRighter]

An award should be given out to the ISG: The "Nevy" Award, given to the person or group showing the most promise in repeating the fatal mistakes of the past. Special note is given for those who pretend there is no evil to be confronted, that you can do business with totalitarians and that liberty is purchased cheap.

It's a new award from the Neville Chamberlain Institute for Appeasement Studies

[ChinaThreat]

Pure ignorance of reality and treasonous complicity of the media with our enemies and the Democratic party. Most people who vote, are not educated on such complicated issues. Now we all will suffer the consequences. But it is by the people, for the people. I have to respect their vote, but i don't have to like it.

[driftless2]

The unrealistic belief of liberals to believe in the innate goodness of everybody, including those who have pledged to destroy them, leaves America at the mercy of the Islamo-fascists. People like Baker and Hamilton are dangerous. Not to our enemies, to us. It's interesting that the surrender group has chosen to give up Israel in hopes of getting concessions from the I-Fs. It would be comical if it weren't so tragic. I used to laugh at people who thought we were in a 1938 kind of situation. It looks like we probably are. We have many people more than willing to appease every thug in the world for "peace in our time".

[Alberta's Child]

I suspect one big factor in the GOP's demise was that a lot of military families either didn't vote or -- in some cases (Webb in Virginia, for example) -- voted for a Democratic candidate.

In my opinion, this administration blundered badly in the preparations for this war, and the undue reliance on Reserve and National Guard troops in Iraq has really come back to bite them in the @ss.

[GOP_1900AD]

Baker is a total Chamberlain. What a fool.

[lawdude]

"They're largely ill-informed and don't realize the implications and impact that their combined votes have on the National level."

For sure. IMHO, most of the voters are not sufficiently informed to make an informed vote.

For example, my Sis-in-law is a firm believer in abortion and that is her only issue. When I asked her if she would be in favor of a doctor pulling a fetus into the birth canal and cutting into the skull and sucking out the brains, she said, "Absolutely not!"

When I explained that this was the Partial Birth Abortion procedure she was appalled. Other examples are too numerous to recount.

[juliej]

the "independents on the side of the Terrorists" swung the election to the Party of Appeasement. Unfortunately, the INNOCENT will suffer with them.

[juliej]

I am pro life - the ignorance about what actually happens in an abortion is unbelievable.

[ichabod1]

Is that a "certain type of late term abortion?"

[petercooper]

So you have a right to know exactly what the military and the CIA are doing to get terrorists to talk to prevent further attacks during war time? How nice.

[HardStarboard]

>>>They should have been much more open and upfront about Abu Gray and Gitmo; I think we would have accepted but they were unwilling to trust us so we did not trust them. <<<

When you say "we did not trust them"...don't include me, or I suspect the majority of Freepers.

What we didn't trust was the blatant distortion and lying about both of those situations by the Democrats & their willing accomplices in the Mainstream Media....which goes on to this day. { A recent EU minister visitor to Gitmo commented that it had better conditions than in Belgium's jails.}

From your comment.....it seems you swallowed their propaganda. I hope I'm wrong.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Well, a good case in point from my end is my dad. He's getting on in years, but he grew up in a staunchly Democratic household during the FDR and Truman years. In fact, my grandfather worshipped FDR. However, my dad refuses to realize that the Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of the 1940s and 1950s, and that it has been hijacked by Communists, Socialists, and assorted other left-winger radicals.

Although he is generally about as Conservative as I am on most issues, including the Global War on Terrorism and Iraq, he will not vote for anyone other than Democrats since he still believes that they are the party of the "little man."

Consequently, he voted for Webb and other 'Rats on the ballot in Virginia last election, but he never once stopped to think about what his votes meant for altering the balance of power in Washington, DC. He just looks at politics locally, and really has no clue as to how the greater Federal Government (and especially Congress) operates and how a Democrat Congress soon-to-be led by leftwingers will lead this nation into catastrophe.

Needless to say, we can't talk about politics anymore without getting into really nasty arguments.

[Ben Mugged]

These times bring back the importance of things Winston Chirchill said.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

[Man of the Right]

Frank Gaffney is a fun provocateur, but Frank Gaffney never served in combat. Do three combat tours in Iraq, Frank, and you will have walked in our soldiers' shoes.

James Baker is a Bush 41 retainer who was pulled out of retirement to throw Bush 43 and the Republicans a life preserver. If forced to run on Iraq in 2008, we may be looking at a Democrat sweep.

[lawdude]

"Is that a "certain type of late term abortion?""
That is the most common form and is practiced dozens of times a day. Of course you already knew that.

[juliej]

You'd better believe it!