You know, when the Washington Post tells the Baker Commission they're out to lunch on their policy recommendations, you know they have to be out there:

...to embrace the group's proposed "New Diplomatic Offensive" would be to suppose a Middle East very different from what's on the ground.

Start with the supposition that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is somehow central to ending the chaos in Iraq. In fact, even if the two-state solution sought by the Bush administration were achieved, it's difficult to imagine how or why that would cause Sunnis and Shiites to cease their sectarian war in Baghdad or the Baathist-al Qaeda insurgency to stand down. It's no doubt true, as study group chairmen James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton have said, that every Arab leader they met told them that an Israeli-Arab settlement must be the first priority. But the princes and dictators of Riyadh, Cairo and Amman have been delivering that tired line to American envoys for decades: It is their favorite excuse for failing to support U.S. initiatives and for refusing to reform their own moribund autocracies.

Baker is living in the past, and in an alternate reality.

IE Post Patrol reporting another bad post in IE...

Maybe the ISG is "taking one for the team" by providing Democrats with political cover for walking away from the Murtha type proposals.

Or maybe Arab money has purchased the "Diplomatic Offensive" language that exposes the report as a farce.

Or maybe I took too many happy pills today, and there is only lead lining that dark cloud....

MG