fire.jpg

Glenn makes a point well worth emphasizing regarding the WaPo's exploration of the "Iraq Study Group":

Seeking input from the neocons on how to solve the Iraq disaster would be like consulting the serial arsonist who started a deadly, raging fire on how to extinguish it. That actually might make sense if the arsonist were repentant and wanted to help reverse what he unleashed. But if the arsonist were proud of the fire he started and actually wanted to see it rage forever, even more strongly — and, worse, if he were intent on starting whole new fires just like the one destroying everything and everyone in its path– it would be the height of irrationality for those wanting to extinguish the fire to listen to what he has to say.

Unless, of course, you were trying to charge the arsonist with criminal charges and were getting his confession on tape. But I highly doubt that James Baker is intent on doing that, don't you?  So, beyond saving the Republican brand and Junior's sorry behind, and perhaps the hope of preventing a regional conflagration touched off by the civil war in Iraq spilling over the borders to the rest of the Middle East and beyond, what does motivate the ISG?

And isn't that a question we ought to all be asking before their recommendations get issued by fiat from high on the pedestal that the media have assigned to them already without so much as a question as to what motivates them individually and collectively?  Have we learned nothing from the failure to expect accountability over the last few years?  And, if not, isn't it high time we learned that lesson?