To most people a compromise is an agreement. Two or more parties sit down and they each give up something for a greater agreement. Thus they end up with a part of what they want but not all of it. The misery/goodness is spread equally.
Enter the Baker Report. It's been out two days and the left is celebrating. I haven't seen them this happy since the election of Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. Katie Couric was almost wetting her panties the other night in excitement. Lefty bloggers are going crazy with happiness.
Thus I'm wondering what they gave up in the Baker Report. It was a 'compromise' right? So what did the left give up? We all know that if they had given up something that's all we'd be hearing about in the unbiased MSM is how 'unreasonable' it was.
A better question is what did we get out of it? I would expect that 39 of the 79 articles in the report would be things that I (as a conservative) agree with. So how come I have yet to see anything I like? Why are conservative pundits oddly silent?
Cause we haven't gotten crap. We didn't get anything out of this "compromise" accept ignored. The people who were supposed to represent our side gave up our principles and sold us out. This was more of an embarrassing surrender than a compromise. If both sides are supposed to get something, why aren't I happy?
Get ready for tons of gleeful talk of 'compromise' from the left. They'll tell us that now that we all agree, we go forward from here. The fact that this was a RECOMMENDATION will quickly be forgotten. The fact that we *don't* agree will be ignored. It will become the only way to handle the war in Iraq from here on in (since it mandates the liberal way of doing things.)
Thus from this point in, conservatives will be viewed as the enemy by the political powers that be. Smug liberal political elitists will be quick to remind us that "now that we all agree" the only discussion left is how to implement their ideas.
This stupid Commission was brought to us by a Republican Congress who was supposed to be fighting for our values. The only upshot is that these idiots won't be there to betray us next year.
Good point. I just read a Chuck Hagel piece in my local paper about the commission study and what we need to do going forward in Iraq, and as I read it I just couldn't get my mind around what Hagel thought was a good thing to do, except bail out and run. As to his motive, he squeaked something about a lot of money spent and how we are apparently risking the rest of the world's goodwill and our leadership of it, or something. As if we were president of a treehouse club or Rotary chapter or something, and we'd get tossed and ignored by all the other guys if we didn't show that we were down with them, way cool, and in charge.
Hagel was damn near incoherent, was the main thing I got from reading him. He didn't seem to be plugged into reality at all -- the image I got was of a guy waving his hands in the air, scampering around in circles and yelling "Run away, run away, run away!!"