Democrats React Warily to the Baker Report

Time ^ | Dec. 07, 2006 | DOUGLAS WALLER

[Mo1]

With the Bush administration on the defensive in the wake of the strong critique of its Iraq policies by the Iraq Study Group, the Democrats might be expected to be cheering. But key Democrats in Congress are keeping their distance from the report. Critics of the war opponents obviously liked the report's stark portrayal of the deteriorating situation in Iraq and its blunt assessment of failed Bush administration policies there. But while seeking to "pivot off that to put it squarely back in the lap of the President to propose a way forward in Iraq," in the words of one senior Democratic aide, "there's definitely a sense of wariness up here on Capitol Hill."

Take Nancy Pelosi, the future House Speaker. While one of the fiercest congressional critics of Bush and the war, she promised only that her party would give the report's recommendations "full consideration" — not its stamp of approval. Pelosi has been leery of the commission from the start, because she had no hand in picking its Democratic members. Normally legislation setting up such blue- ribbon panels has a clause specifying that congressional Democratic and Republican leaders will have a hand in picking members. But the measure creating this panel, sponsored by GOP Congressman Frank Wolf, left those choices up to the co-chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton. Pelosi "didn't think the commission was constituted properly," says a friend. "That annoyed her."

[LibLieSlayer]

Typical, isn't it!

LLS

[Piranha]

This report was everything the Dems have been yammering about for the last several years

I don't think so. They have been calling for immediate withdrawal from Iran. This report is calling for a short-term increase in troops, a subsequent US withdrawal with no timetable, embracing our enemies in Syria and Iran, and screwing Israel to buy cooperation from the Arab world (and, incidentally, furthering the anti-Jewish interest of Saudi Arabia, Jim Baker's legal client).

[CFC__VRWC]

The Dims know they'll never sell this piece of garbage from the Iraq Surrender Group to the public, not without a massive "re-education" campaign from the DBM. And even then, it could be iffy. That's how ridiculously bad this report and its recommendations are.

So they'll do what they usually do - lie low and let the media go to work, giving the Dims cover for not taking a position while using any opportunity that presents itself to take shots at the GOP, and working on the American people, convincing them that this report is the most significant document to come along since the Magna Carta.

[Joan Kerrey]

Democrats React Warily to the Baker Report

It appears that neither party finds much to like about this report. It's simply not realistic and makes assumptions out of wishful thinking. It infers that the Israeli/Palestinian Arab issues are directly related to our mission in Iraq. It suggests keeping Israel at arms length or out of a regional conference.

I'm not surprised by Baker's pro-Arab stance but I am surprised he actually signed his name on this report. It's second rate and unrealistic in almost every aspect and is a pre-recipe for surrender, accommodation and appeasement. It is as un-American as one can be in my view and a disaster for our children and our grandchildren.

Shame on you Sec. Baker. Your report is totally rejected, TOTALLY!!!!!!!!

[aShepard]

......... Nancy was left out and there are too many Clintonistas in the group..............

And what in the hell was Vernon Jordan doing in that group???

At least they could have picked the stellar Maddie Halfbright, or the infamous Gore-lick!