I think the only conservative consensus remaining is that while it appears to have been a mistake to go into Iraq, it's extremely important for the stability of the region, world and in the best interests of the United States to win the war by installing a stable non-terrorist government.

So a troop surge, found acceptable to the Iraq Study Group, seems to be in the works. I think it may help but only if it's massive and stays a long time.

Any other conservatives want to add to or debate any of these points?

Before the Invasion of Iraq I divided the very moderate conservative side of me wanted to support the war but I was never convinced of the reasoning behind the conflict. Subsequent events proved my reservations to be correct and now the Bush admin has eroded my support.

The Iraq study group report hardly justifies the amount of time and the people who worked on it and the idea of brining Iran and Syria to the table is loony. Given a few hours a bunch of high school students could have done the same thing if not better.

Just my 10 cents in general more conservative people supported the war from the outset but even they seem to be doing back flips now.




[edit on 10-1-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
The Iraq study group report hardly justifies the amount of time and the people who worked on it and the idea of brining Iran and Syria to the table is loony. Given a few a bunch of high school students could have done the same thing if not better.

I have to agree with you there. As they said on some comedy show the commission looked like the cast of the movie Cocoon.

Anyway these blue-ribbon panels seem to be popular in American government, so citing their proposals when you agree with them helps, while just ignoring the ones you don't also helps.