Giving this more thought, I think Frank Wolf has some serious explaining to do. Right after a September 2005 visit to Iraq, Wolf penned an article in the dominant local media outlet defending the war. Here's his explanation of what he saw during that visit:Having just returned from my third trip to Iraq ... I have now visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq and have seen improvement with each trip I have made. Schools are being renovated. Hospitals and health clinics are being built. Safe drinking water is available in places that it never was before. The new Iraqi army is being constituted. While we still have a long way to go, positive things are happening. Regrettably, they are often overshadowed by the suicide attacks carried out by foreign fighters who have poured into Iraq in hopes of undermining our progress and turning the Iraqi people against us.That's his description - the whole thing. Now, check out his post-election comments on the same visit:
On his third trip to Iraq, in September 2005, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) knew the American mission was imperiled.So, if this image is so striking that it led him to push for a bipartisan commission, why didn't he share it in his original piece? He had even mentioned "hospitals and health clinics," but kept this nightmarish operating room scene a secret. Not even a hint - his sunny description flies in the face of the police state-like hospital he now describes."We were up in Tikrit and went to a hospital, and it was guarded with guns and security to the point they were pushing weapons into women's faces," Wolf said. "I saw we can't be successful if we're going into an operating room with pistols and weapons."
As I noted before, the entire tenor of the 2005 piece contradicts his true thoughts on the situation in Iraq. He said nothing in 2005 about the security situation risking our success in Iraq - though he now admits having such critical thoughts at the time. In 2005, he spoke of a commission that would report on the "underreported" successes and outline "the potential consequences of failure in Iraq." And now the contradiction grows even starker with his dueling descriptions - his own "underreported" observations.
So, Frank Wolf has some explaining to do. Why did he significantly downplay his real security concerns in 2005 to his constituents? Why did he purposefully avoid describing this scene and instead provide an incomplete view of his visit? And why did he wait until after the election to come clean?
I was struck by this section of his 2005 piece:
During my trip I asked everyone I met with -- from members of the Iraqi leadership to senior military officers to State Department personnel -- what "failure" in Iraq would mean to the United States and the world. The responses were chilling. Most agreed there would be civil war, leading to chaos and the creation of another safe harbor for terrorists, reminiscent of Afghanistan in the 1990s. Many said the entire Persian Gulf region would become destabilized, possibly leading to the downfall of the governments of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
This seems like a defense of the "stay the course" policy more than anything else. Look at this following section:
The Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture. No one I talked to during my recent trip believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that they are concerned about. One general told me point-blank that the "center of gravity" for our success in Iraq is the American public.For the United States to stay the course in Iraq the public needs to fully appreciate the progress that has been made . . .
This makes it seem like the motivation for his commission was to justify the war -- to construct an argument for the Administration. The focus seemed to be that the American public needed further convincing.
At the end of the story, though, it quotes a GWU professor who says politics and the situation on the ground will drive the changes in Iraq policy, not what the study group says. "I don't think this group is going to make a big difference."
Pelosi announces Iraq 'Democratic forum'
11/21/2006 @ 6:06 pmIncoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has announced a "Democratic forum" on the Iraq war that will take place early next month, according to a press release issued today by her office.
"Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi announced today that House Democrats will hold a forum to discuss the war in Iraq on Tuesday, December 5," the statement begins. "Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Major General John Batiste will join current and new members of the Democratic Caucus in discussing options for a way forward in Iraq."
Brzezinski is former National Security Advisor to President Carter; Holbrooke is former Assistant Secretary of State under Carter and President Clinton; and Batiste is a retired U.S. Army division commander and a vociferous critic of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Pelosi continues in the statement, "The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq.
"We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq."
Maybe the intent is to minimize the findings of the Wolf group.