HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Well I have to say... I'm glad I waited 24 hours before posting my thoughts on this. It's not so much that the extra time allowed me to rethink my initial impressions; instead, it has given me a chance to confirm them.

We've known for weeks - if not longer - roughly what the report was going to say. Sure, the panel was made up of both Republicans and Democrats, but all of them were supporters of the war at some point, so the range of options they were considering, whether they want to admit it or not, was always limited. Furthermore, because it was a bipartisan panel, their final recommendations were by definition going to be the product of compromise. In a perfect world filled with perfect people, they might have come up with a perfect solution. But that's not the world we live in, so the report was always going to be something less than perfect. And I'm fine with that.

Anyway, because of all of that, my interest in the ISG has always been less about what they proposed and more about how they proposed it. Given that the report was going to be delivered in both a unanimous and bipartisan matter, I've always suspected that how it was written was probably going to tell us more than what it specifically said. The framing of the report would in many ways determine the framing of the media coverage, and the media coverage would then shape the contours of the debate going forward.

So how do things look after 24 hours? Here are the headlines from some of the nation's most important newspaper websites...

Washington Post:

Realists Repudiate Bush Policies for War, Region :

Iraq Study Group's report reflects foreign policy establishment's disdain for "neoconservative" policies long espoused by president and his aides.

NY Times:

Heads of Iraq Group Seek Support of Congress:

The co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group called on Congress to endorse the group’s bipartisan call for a sharp change in course in the Iraq war.

LATimes:

IRAQ POLICY 'NO LONGER VIABLE':

PANEL ADVISES BUSH TO WAGE 'DIPLOMATIC OFFENSIVE'

Boston Globe:

'US policy is not working'

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group yesterday delivered a broad indictment of US strategy in Iraq, recommending that the military mission shift from combat to training local forces and urging the White House to enlist Syria and Iran to help rescue the "grave and deteriorating" situation.

Reuters:

Bush: "We need a new approach":

President Bush said that a new approach was required on Iraq, one day after a scathing report by the Iraq Study Group called for changing U.S. strategy.

I could go on here, but I think you get the point. The debate has shifted. Permanently. But the big question, of course, if what will Bush do? At this point, I've heard many, many people say that its likely that just as with the 9/11 Commission Report, he'll file it away in a desk drawer and get on with his own personal plans.

But I don't think so. Unlike with the 9/11 Commission, the cost of inaction here will be to great. Or perhaps more to the point, inaction here will simply be too obvious. Why? Because unlike with the 9/11 report, you won't have to pay very careful attention to see if we're making progress in Iraq.

The policy has been declared a failure. The situation in Iraq has been labeled "grave and deteriorating." The expectation now will be both for change and progress. And if it doesn't come, there will be only one place to lay the blame: directly at the feet of the White House.

I never had much hope that the ISG would produce a set of simple recommendations that would help us bring this nightmare to an end. But I did have high hopes that their recommendations would help transform the debate. 24 hours later, it looks like it may have done just that.

I'll be back with more on the actual content of the report later this afternoon.