<p>"WASHINGTON (CNN) – The United States must change its military and diplomatic strategies to tackle the “grave and deteriorating” situation in Iraq, according to a report from the Iraq Study Group.</p>
<p>The approach must be a “diplomatic offensive,” urged the report presented to President Bush Wednesday, and U.S. combat brigades should be pulled out by early 2008. U.S. troops would evolve into advisers to the Iraqi Army. </p>
<p>As part of the diplomatic initiative, direct talks must be held between the United States and Iran, as well as Syria, according to the bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. (View the complete report – PDF)</p>
<p>“If we don’t talk to them, we don’t see much progress being made,” Hamilton said in presenting the report. “You can’t look at this part of the world and pick and choose which countries you’re going to deal with.” </p>
<p>WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration’s policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said. </p>
<p>In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.</p>
<p>The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. “Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence,” it said.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>I’m sure Mr. Snowjob will parse the difference between “systematically underreporting…to suit the Administration’s policy goals” and lying, cheating, and deception, but it seems to me to be a simple distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>The only nuance is now we know that the Administration (and the military) lie, cheat, and deceive “systematically”. Why is there reason to believe they will be any more forthright in the future?</p>
<p>I was surprised that the report went into so much detail. Does this show that the Commission has no faith in this Administration’s decision making process?</p>
<p>Hey, on an Internet forum like this, we can pronounce words any way we like without fear of ridicule. Nevertheless, I would like to use this space to say something absolutely true about Iraq that has little to do with our outcome there. It’s How To Pronounce The Name Of The Country We’ve Been Fighting In For Over Three Years. Are you ready? The correct pronunciation is “Ear Rock.” That’s right, ear, not eye, then rock, not rack. If you are talking about several inhabitants of that wartorn nation, you call them Ear Rockies, not Ear Rackies. And definitely not Eye Rackies.</p>
<p>Advanced Lesson on Pronunciation For Daring and Intrepid Souls: Now let’s move next door to the Republic of Iran. That country is pronounced “Ear Rahn.” Not Eye Ran, not Ear Ran. Ear Rahn. Its inhabitants are Ear Rahnis. The Arabic and Persian languages do not contain American-type short vowels. Therefore Iranians should NOT be referred to as Eye- or Ear-Rainians.</p>
<p>I know this because I met an Iranian long, long ago who was forthcoming enough to tell me that he found Americans’ inability to pronounce his country’s name offensive. Several years after that I worked for a relief organization in Yemen, and learned the ins and outs of Arabic pronunciation.</p>
<p>Who knows, we might get better results if we begin to pronounce Iraq correctly. It can’t hurt!</p>
<p>Allmusic- say it ain’t so. Driver is gone. Cannot be. Did she run off to be a groupie with the Red Hot Chili Peppers or perhaps saw the light and is a production assistant for Michael Moore.</p>
</p>