Intelligence report: Iraq going to Hell in a handbasket

[Patty O'Furniture]

Bush's biggest poll lead over Kerry is in the area of TWAT (The War Against Terrorism). What that has to do with Iraq, I don't know. But The National Intelligence Council (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html) report looks grim, going so far as to suggest that events may lead tro civil war in Iraq.

Will this finally turn the tide of public opinion and start chipping away at Bush's lead in this one area?

Thoughts?

[Loopydude]

Heh. Bush and TWAT. I like it.

Anyhow, I think those loyal to Bush's TWAT at this point are impervious to data; there's little reason to think anything would sway their vote, because any form of "dissent" (meaning, anything contrary to BushCo's public utterances) is part of a "left-wing conspiracy to undermine the President".

Swing voters? Who can say. They tend to poll one way and vote another.

[Squink]

Thoughts?
That darn CIA is blowing smoke again.
Here's today's straight talk from the straight-shooting leader of the free world: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040916-6.html) In Iraq, there's ongoing acts of violence. This country is headed toward democracy. There's a strong Prime Minister in place. They have a national council. And national elections are scheduled for January. It wasn't all that long ago that Saddam Hussein was in power with his torture chambers and mass graves. And today, this country is headed towards elections.

Freedom is on the march. And that helps us in America because free societies don't export terror. Free societies are hopeful societies, which leads to peace. Free societies will join us in fighting the terrorists, instead of harboring them. No, we're standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq -- it's not only in our self-interest to do so, but when America gives its word, America will keep its word under my administration. (Applause.)
Here's today's good news from Iraq (http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/)
I wonder why Kofi Annan is being such a nattering nabob of negativity? (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/9683035.htm)
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that he feared the continued insecurity - a surge in violence has killed more than 200 people nationwide since last weekend - in Iraq would block elections slated for January. Could it be that, unlike the president, he does NOT have his head stuck in the sand?

[BrainGlutton]

Anyhow, I think those loyal to Bush's TWAT at this point are impervious to data; there's little reason to think anything would sway their vote, because any form of "dissent" (meaning, anything contrary to BushCo's public utterances) is part of a "left-wing conspiracy to undermine the President".

But some of the voters you're describing have relatives serving in Iraq. Some of whom might get killed or injured between now and November. Don't you think that might sway a few votes?

[PatriotX]

It'd be better if it were already declassified and dowloaded to my hd. I doubt it'll be declassified before election day.
If it were, it'd have a hella lot more impact than it will have.
It'll porb'ly only resonate in the Circle Wonk. Of course, there, these things are already fairly common knowledge. So, it makes little difference there that there's an 'official' declaration about the fan and shit.

[Squink]

I doubt it'll be declassified before election day.CBS reported this evening that the administration was asked, and has no intention of declassifying it. There could be some pressure in that direction if next month's Iraqi census goes down the tubes. There's no way for Bush to spin that as Beer and Skittles.

[Loopydude]

But some of the voters you're describing have relatives serving in Iraq. Some of whom might get killed or injured between now and November. Don't you think that might sway a few votes?

Nah. Those dead children are Heroes who fought for Freedom, Justice, and a World Without Terror.

[Spavined Gelding]

If we can lay off the polemics for a moment, from what I can gather from those parts of the intelligence estimate that have been made public, the consensus of the various intel agencies is that there will be very difficult to restore some sort of civil order in Iraq at best, and that civil war is a very real possibility and a probability if something is not done to restore order pretty damn quick. It may well be that the agencies are a little gun shy after giving an estimate in October 2002 that was solid on Iraq having stock piles of chemical and biological weapons and was on the verge of having nuclear weapons. The event showed that the October estimate was just about as wrong as it could be. Now it is possible that the agencies are hedging their bets and staying away from rosie scenarios just because they were so badly burnt before. They may have also learned that if they are going to tell this administration something it doesn’t want to hear the statement needs to be made in terms that are unmistakable. Patty’s characterization of the report as saying that Iraq is well on its way to hell in a hand basket is close to accurate.

The interesting thing is that the President received the report in July. As far as his public announcements and pronouncements are concerned there is no indication that it has had any impact on him at all. Whether this is self-delusion or an attempt to skate through the election before the electorate wakes up is an open question. It is consistent with the State Department’s request to shift money from Iraqi development to the police / occupation mission. As has been discussed on these boards that effort, the disclosure of the obvious fact that Iraq is not going swimmingly and the late date of the request, has angered even some Republican congressmen.

As far as the election is concerned, I doubt that this disclosure that the swamp is getting deeper and the alligators more numerous will make much difference to the true believers who seem to be willing to follow the President into the quagmire on the strength of the President’s commitment to the course he has marked out, as futile as that course may be. For those of us who thing the administration’s policy is based on a recklessness and fecklessness and a deliberate misunderstanding of the problem and wishful thinking the disclosure doesn’t do any thing but confirm out bias. What the effect of all this will be on the body of voters who will decide this election, the people who are willing to elect a President as if they were voting for homecoming king and the people who are genuinely confused and the people who are repulsed by both the President and Senator Kerry, God only knows. I can only hope that a fair number of those fence sitters, summer soldiers and sunshine patriots will connect the dots before November.

[ralph124c]

To the "nattering nabobs of negativism"-isn't that the late Spiro Agnew? Man, for cheap crook from Maryland, that guy could turn a phrase! Maybe the breakup of Iraq is not a bad thing..consider the following:
-Iraq (as a nation) was a creation of the British (and Versailles). It has no legitimacy (the King was murdered by aBaathist mob in 1958)!
-The three main ethnic groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) hate eachother and have long-standing grievences against eachother.
-most of the counry (except the fertile "crescent" between the Tigris ands Euphrates Rivers is barren desert.
-the invasion of Iraq has destroyed the Iraqi Army, whichw was the only force capable of holding the mess together.
So why not rezone the place and set up three ocuntries? As long as the oild keeps flowing, who really cares? The Kurds can have an independent state, and the Shias can flog themselves bloody all they want!
Why is 1919 and the ramblings of Sykes-Picot of any relevance today?

[Tamerlane]

-most of the counry (except the fertile "crescent" between the Tigris ands Euphrates Rivers is barren desert.

~60%. Which is technically most, but not by a lot. In addition to the irrigated lowlands and what remains of the southern marsh, the highlands are also not particularly deserty.

So why not rezone the place and set up three countries? As long as the oild keeps flowing, who really cares? The Kurds can have an independent state, and the Shias can flog themselves bloody all they want!

Because untangling the "Sunni center" is virtually impossible for one thing - the population is mixed, with very large Shi'a minorities in Baghdad in particular. Also unless federated with the other two chunks, its economy would be rather weak, lacking the oil resources of the north and south.

The Kurdish zone would be the easiest to split off, as it is already halfway there. But even if Turkey were willing to tolerate such an event ( and some suggest they might if the alternatives are unpalatable enough, though it certainly isn't their favorite option ), the issue of the Turkmen, Assyrian, and especially recently settled Arab minorities might create real problems. They already have in Kirkuk, which is the political key to the northern region. This has the potential to disrupt your smooth flow of oil from the north.

The Shi'a south is by contrast extremely disorganized and a power struggle between 'Sadrists', SCIRI, and other factions could paralyze the area. In addition the Saudis devoutly fear the destabilizing influence of a Shi'a majority state ( stable or not ) contiguous with their oil-rich, Shi'a majority northeastern province ( and Saudi Shi'a are near-unanimous in following Sistani as a source of emulation ). Not only could you have disruption in southern Iraq's oil flow, but Saudi Arabia's as well.

About the only neighboring country that stands to gain much by fragmentation is Iran. Almost everybody else would be more vulnerable, one way or another ( this also includes the U.S., both in terms of the political hit from perceived failure and the potential/likliehood for increased regional instability ).

SimonX dug up this very nice analysis, which is worth reading ( pdf format ):

http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf?PHPSESSID=92ff63f04b89e1819a45becec8a7a968

- Tamerlane

[BrainGlutton]

-most of the counry (except the fertile "crescent" between the Tigris ands Euphrates Rivers is barren desert.


Nitpick: Actually, the term "Fertile Crescent" traditionally has been used to refer to the whole crescent-shaped swath of (relatively) fertile and non-desert lands extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean -- all of Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

In addition the Saudis devoutly fear the destabilizing influence of a Shi'a majority state ( stable or not ) contiguous with their oil-rich, Shi'a majority northeastern province ( and Saudi Shi'a are near-unanimous in following Sistani as a source of emulation ).

Is there an actual Shi'ite secessionist movement in the Northeastern Province of SA? You imply that but don't make it clear.

[David Simmons]

The interesting thing is that the President received the report in July. As far as his public announcements and pronouncements are concerned there is no indication that it has had any impact on him at all.

Pop psychology is nonsense but I can't escape the feeling that GW shows a lot of the earmarks of someone who was over-criticized early on. Nothing is ever his fault or responsibility it's either ignored or blamed on the CIA.

[Tamerlane]

Is there an actual Shi'ite secessionist movement in the Northeastern Province of SA? You imply that but don't make it clear.

Not terribly active, no. But the potential exists, especially given persistent Saudi harassment of the Shi'a minority ( Iraq and SA were almost mirror images of each other in that respect ). The Najaf theological establishment ( currently headed by Sistani ) dominates the religious life of the SA Shi'a community, which has precious little independent theological status of its own due to Wahhabi repression. So the worry is that a Shi'a state in southern Iraq would start spreading its influence south across the border and help jumpstart secessionism ( or at least breed greater discontent ). For that matter a Shi'a dominated federal Iraq will present some of the same worries.

For the Saudi government, caught between the rock of the Wahabi religious establishment's loathing of the Shi'a and the hard place of a newly dominant Shi'a religious establishment feeling its oats for the first time since the final Ottoman conquest of the area, the danger is acute.

- Tamerlane

[Squink]

To the "nattering nabobs of negativism"-isn't that the late Spiro Agnew? Man, for cheap crook from Maryland, that guy could turn a phrase!FYI, Spiro said it, but William Safire invented (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/jan/09/opinion/20030109opi2.html)the phrase for him.

[pervert]

If we can lay off the polemics for a moment, from what I can gather from those parts of the intelligence estimate that have been made public, the consensus of the various intel agencies is that there will be very difficult to restore some sort of civil order in Iraq at best, and that civil war is a very real possibility and a probability if something is not done to restore order pretty damn quick.Would you mind helping me to see this? The CNN article linked in the OP simply suggests that the situation could range from " ...at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability..." to "At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." " This does not seem to me to indicate any probabilities either way. Simply that the best is not optimal and the worst is dismal.

I appreciate your attempt to remove the polemics. If you could help me with any further insight into the report I would appreciate that as well.

[BrainGlutton]

For the Saudi government, caught between the rock of the Wahabi religious establishment's loathing of the Shi'a and the hard place of a newly dominant Shi'a religious establishment feeling its oats for the first time since the final Ottoman conquest of the area, the danger is acute.

You know, from the perspective of an outsider/infidel, it appears that Wahabbi fudamentalists and Shi'ite fundamentalists have more in common than separates them. Both are devoted to a radical, puritanical vision of traditionalist Islam as the ruling force in society, and they share a common hatred of Western secularism. Why are they enemies? Why don't they join forces? The original split between the Sunni and Shi'a was over who should be Caliph, and what does that matter nowadays? Nobody has even claimed the title since the Ottoman Sultanate was abolished.

[Loopydude]

It might be a bit like asking the Lutherans and Catholics to join forces against the Ottomans in the 16th Century. Not even a common threat can bridge some schisms.

[manhattan]

I eagerly await all the people who think the Plame affair to have been so important to come into this thread insisting that an investigation be started to determine who leaked this classified information to the Times. I further eagerly await all those who castigated the CIA over it's errors regarding Iraq's WMD program progess to caution that this report needs to be treated with some, well, caution.

I'm not dumb enough to hold my breath or anything like that but I'm eagerly awaiting nonetheless, as I have high confidence that the level of intellectual honesty is higher on this board than on other message boards.

[Squink]

I'm not dumb enough to hold my breath or anything like thatMore's the pity ;)
Would you care to tell us whose life was endangered, or whose clandestine operations were compromised by this leak?

[Polerius]

Anyhow, I think those loyal to Bush's TWAT at this point are impervious to data; there's little reason to think anything would sway their vote
Actually, where are the Brutuses and Sam Stones of this board to provide us with some insight as to how they will interpret this news to prove that we need Bush more than ever?

[BrainGlutton]

I eagerly await all the people who think the Plame affair to have been so important to come into this thread insisting that an investigation be started to determine who leaked this classified information to the Times. I further eagerly await all those who castigated the CIA over it's errors regarding Iraq's WMD program progess to caution that this report needs to be treated with some, well, caution.

I'm not dumb enough to hold my breath or anything like that but I'm eagerly awaiting nonetheless, as I have high confidence that the level of intellectual honesty is higher on this board than on other message boards.

Well, you're certainly not setting a good example of intellectual honesty right now, manhattan. I think you know as well as the rest of us that Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent was the sort of secret that was never supposed to be leaked to any unauthorized person under any circumstances; whereas intelligence briefings of the kind cited in the OP often are deliberately partially "leaked" in order to test the wind of public opinion. Furthermore, this particularly leak, unlike the Plame leak, puts no lives in danger. Quite the contrary -- it might help build public support for getting us out of this mess, which would save American lives.

[PatriotX]

SimonX dug up this very nice analysis, which is worth reading ( pdf format ):

http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf?PHPSESSID=92ff63f04b89e1819a45becec8a7a968

- Tamerlane
Wow!
Kudos from Tam! Made my Doper day. :D

[PatriotX]

I eagerly await all the people who think the Plame affair to have been so important to come into this thread insisting that an investigation be started to determine who leaked this classified information to the Times.
since the document wasn't leaked, you may have to eagerly wait a very long time. NYT noted, "The officials declined to discuss the key judgments (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html)..."

I further eagerly await all those who castigated the CIA over it's errors regarding Iraq's WMD program progess to caution that this report needs to be treated with some, well, caution. First, CIA≠NIC. Second The bulk of what was presented in the 1st NIE was correct.
But your right caution shouldbe exercised as always. Look at how closely one had to read the first NIE. One had to read it as if it were a matter of life or death.

I'm not dumb enough to hold my breath or anything like that... Good thing because of what I've noted above- very long time and all that.

[Zoe]

And keep in mind how much things have gone downhill since that report was prepared in July.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=2

Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued other warnings on Wednesday about the American campaign in Iraq, saying the administration's request to divert more than $3 billion to security from the $18.4 billion aid package of last November was a sign of trouble.

"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the committee chairman, Mr. Lugar said, "the slow pace of reconstruction spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."

Less than $1 billion has been spent so far.

It's not just the Democrats that are seeing that the President's "Freedom is on the march" is hyperbolic, to put it as nicely as I can.

[Liberal]

In the event that the OP returns to cull our thoughts:


Bush's biggest poll lead over Kerry is in the area of TWAT (The War Against Terrorism). What that has to do with Iraq, I don't know. But The National Intelligence Council (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html) report looks grim, going so far as to suggest that events may lead tro civil war in Iraq.

Will this finally turn the tide of public opinion and start chipping away at Bush's lead in this one area?

Thoughts?I think it's a typical report from the sky-is-falling network. It is a bleeding heart editorial thinly disquised as news, using rhetorical technique rather than fact to nudge the reader in a particular direction. For example:


The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.Why is that a contrast? It is perfectly possible to make significant progress on one front while losing ground on others. Yet CNN presents a false dilemma.


A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night, and a National Security Council spokesman could not be reached for comment.Why is that worth even mentioning? A CIA spokesman who comments on a "highly classified" document prepared for the president is a rat. And all we can tell abouth the NSC spokesman is that he might have been at a PTA meeting or something. Yet CNN presents this as some onerous evidence that everyone is being hush-hush about something dreadful.


Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.English has articles and other qualifiers for a reason — they help to deobfuscate and clarify. When it suits them, CNN (and other news sources) use them liberally. Some Senate Republicans... Most Senate Republicans... Or in this case, A Senate Republican. CNN quoted only Chuck Hagel. Yet CNN chooses to use a phrase that implies that, for all we know, all Senate Republicans and Democrats denounce blah blah blah.


Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, and other committee members have long argued -- even before the war -- that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.And so? Setting aside another missing qualifier (how many other committee members?), it isn't clear to me what this has to do with the story, and in fact implies that it's pretty old news. It's more like CNN saying, "Hey, look! Here's more proof that Bush is a dodo-head!" Frankly, if all these Republicans were up in arms before the war, where the hell was CNN back when it might have mattered? CNN could have opposed the war when it would have been brave to do so. Yet CNN chooses to pick one out of (for all we know) many pessimistic reports that it happens to see some other source reporting, and pretend it's news.


But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the presidential election in which President Bush's handling of the war is a top issue.And there's the crux of it — its own sting being woefully impotent, CNN hopes to stir something up by painting the Republicans as fiercely fighting each other, when the whole world knows that Karl Rove has wrapped up the Democrats into a knot and thrown them in the trash. Too little too late, CNN. No wonder you're number two.

[BrainGlutton]

Too little too late, CNN. No wonder you're number two.

No, they're not, Liberal. CNN has more viewers than Fox; Fox has higher ratings because, apparently, its viewers spend more hours per week watching it.

[pervert]

No, they're not, Liberal. CNN has more viewers than Fox; Fox has higher ratings because, apparently, its viewers spend more hours per week watching it.
I'm confused. I thought ratings were a rough measure of how many people watch during a specific time period. Your saying that more different people watch CNN, but they do so in small groups? Meanwhile less different people watch Fox, but they do so in large groups. That way any particular measure shows fox with more viewers, but really its just that more of thier viewers are watching.

I'm more confused.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm confused. I thought ratings were a rough measure of how many people watch during a specific time period. Your saying that more different people watch CNN, but they do so in small groups? Meanwhile less different people watch Fox, but they do so in large groups. That way any particular measure shows fox with more viewers, but really its just that more of thier viewers are watching.

I'm more confused.

It's very simple: More people watch CNN than Fox News, but the viewers of Fox are more devoted -- they watch it for more hours per week.

From Extra! (the magazine, print and online, of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), April 2004 (http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/fox-ratings.html):

Reporting on the ratings rivalry between the Fox News Channel (FNC) and CNN is often misleading--and almost always over-hyped.

"Fox Tops CNN as Choice for Cable News," declared one typical headline (Chicago Tribune, 3/24/03). "Fox News Channel Continues to Crush CNN," reported Knight Ridder (Dallas Morning News, 2/3/04) in a column comparing the rivalry to a party primary: "Fox News Channel is winning the Nielsen caucuses." Last summer (8/17/03), the New York Times Magazine declared, looking back at the period of the Iraq invasion, "Fox was--and still is--trouncing CNN in the ratings."

After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN.

But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox.

So what are the media reports talking about? With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households.

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day.

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox, they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox's (Deseret Morning News, 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN's cume was significantly higher than Fox's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax, 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN's 2.2 million.

[pervert]

That's what I thought. But how does that put to lie Liberal's suggestion that CNN is number 2? Isn't the standard measure of such things the ratings?

[Spavined Gelding]

I appreciate your attempt to remove the polemics. If you could help me with any further insight into the report I would appreciate that as well.

The post was based on my understanding of the news broadcast on Thursday evening. Having seen more on the report, or the parts made public, and looking at the parts of the report released by the Administration, not leaked, the analysis is more pessimistic that the initial news reports suggested.

You don’t have to rely on spin and comment to reach that conclusion. All you have to do is read the damned thing. Of course it should be read with a view to the fact that some past NIEs have been about as wrong as they could have been – especially the estimate of October 2002 on Iraq’s unconventional weapons. Some how I keep thinking of the staff officers axiom – that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. This estimate does serve to emphasize that our nation went into this thing with a battle plan that assumed the best case scenario – that US forces (the collation of the willing) would be welcomed as liberators and rescuers, that the whole thing could be funded with oil revenues, that the civil infrastructure could be made operational in short order and that every thing would be hunky-dory and Donald Rumsfelt would be made the Queen of May. The plan didn’t work because it was based on wishful thinking and there was no fall back position. There should have been a Plan B, and a Plan C and yet another plan right through the alphabet. It was throughly predictable that Plan A would fail. That is why there is an axiom, for Pete’s sake.

For those who think that the whole invasion and occupation were handled in a suburb manner, was required for the security of the nation in the face of a clear and present danger and that everything is going just dandy, I can only hope that Senator McCain was wrong last week when he opined a 20 year occupation and that your children and grandchildren will not have to follow the flag into the Iraqi desert. Surely that wasn’t the Plan.

[ITR champion]

II think it's a typical report from the sky-is-falling network. It is a bleeding heart editorial thinly disquised as news, using rhetorical technique rather than fact to nudge the reader in a particular direction.

It seems that by your standards, everything is an editorial and nothing is news.


Why is that a contrast? It is perfectly possible to make significant progress on one front while losing ground on others. Yet CNN presents a false dilemma.

So when was the last time you heard Bush saying "We are making progress in some areas, but losing in other areas"? To hear Bush or his various mouthpieces tell it, only those who are "excessively negative" (Scott McClellan) see anything bad happening in Iraq. So it looks to me like CNN's description of the situation is right on the money.

Why is that worth even mentioning? A CIA spokesman who comments on a "highly classified" document prepared for the president is a rat. And all we can tell abouth the NSC spokesman is that he might have been at a PTA meeting or something. Yet CNN presents this as some onerous evidence that everyone is being hush-hush about something dreadful.

I read the CNN article, and I do not see any sentence which says or suggests what you claim here. Where to they suggest that "something dreadful" is being covered up?

English has articles and other qualifiers for a reason — they help to deobfuscate and clarify. When it suits them, CNN (and other news sources) use them liberally. Some Senate Republicans... Most Senate Republicans... Or in this case, A Senate Republican. CNN quoted only Chuck Hagel. Yet CNN chooses to use a phrase that implies that, for all we know, all Senate Republicans and Democrats denounce blah blah blah.

So what exactly is your complaint? CNN and others shouldn't allowed to use the phrase 'Democrats and Republicans' unless every single members of both party is acting in unsion? Or if not that, then what is the standard you're using to judge them negatively on this, and why is it reasonable to ask that every news organization obey your standard? Face the facts. Everybody regularly describes something as a bipartisan effort even if the only evidence they provide is statements from one or a few people from each party. Explain why CNN should be castigated for this particular instance.

when the whole world knows that Karl Rove has wrapped up the Democrats into a knot and thrown them in the trash.

Cite, please. If the whole world knows it, you obviously won't have any trouble providing some evidence.

[ITR champion]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-4.html

Here's a better cite, of Bush talking in August after he got that report. According to him, there have been "great challenges" but we've "successfully met every one" and in the final analysis everything is just rosy in Iraq. So CNN was absolutely correct when they said that the contents of the report were not compatible with what Bush is telling the country.

[pervert]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-4.html

Here's a better cite, of Bush talking in August after he got that report. According to him, there have been "great challenges" but we've "successfully met every one" and in the final analysis everything is just rosy in Iraq. So CNN was absolutely correct when they said that the contents of the report were not compatible with what Bush is telling the country.
No, it doesn't. It says in the very first paragraph that "America and our allies are fighting a new kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This conflict places great demands on the men and women of our armed forces, including our Guard and Reserve. They have met every test. They've risen to every challenge.". The word 'challenge' is used one other time in an entirely different context. Nowhere in the link does Bush say that we have conquered every challenge. It says simply that we have risen to them.

[Liberal]

It seems that by your standards, everything is an editorial and nothing is news.No it doesn't.


So when was the last time you heard Bush saying "We are making progress in some areas, but losing in other areas"?Constantly. He's constantly saying that there's much more work to do.


So it looks to me like CNN's description of the situation is right on the money.I'm sure it does.


I read the CNN article, and I do not see any sentence which says or suggests what you claim here.I quoted the sentence.


So what exactly is your complaint?You mean, if I repeat it, you'll get it this time?

[ITR champion]

Constantly. He's constantly saying that there's much more work to do.

Oh, do you have a link to a Bush speech that actually acknowledges the truth about what's going on in Iraq? That violence is on the rise, with 90 attacks on our troops daily and God knows how many on the Iraq civilian populace? That a significant chunk of the country is in the hands of insurgents? That the vast majority of the money we sent for reconstruction hasn't been spent? And that a civil war may be imminent? That's orders of magnitude away from just saying "a lot of work needs to be done".

I quoted the sentence.

You quoted this sentence: "CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night, and a National Security Council spokesman could not be reached for comment."

Then you said: "CNN presents this as some onerous evidence that everyone is being hush-hush about something dreadful."

The sentence that you quoted from CNN does not mean the same thing as the sentence that you yourself wrote, at least not when parsed in the English language. As far as I can tell they have no relationship to each other whatsoever. If you think they do mean the same thing, please explain to me how you reached that conclusion. Otherwise provide an example of CNN stating that the CIA and NSC are covering up "something dreadful", or else admit that you lied about what CNN wrote.

You mean, if I repeat it, you'll get it this time?

I asked several questions in that paragraph. Are you capable of answering any of those questions, or are you just going to stick with snarky but meaningless retorts?

[pervert]

For those who think that the whole invasion and occupation were handled in a suburb manner, was required for the security of the nation in the face of a clear and present danger and that everything is going just dandy, I can only hope that Senator McCain was wrong last week when he opined a 20 year occupation and that your children and grandchildren will not have to follow the flag into the Iraqi desert. Surely that wasn’t the Plan.
I really do appreciate your attempt to remove the polemic earlier. but this seems to simply reasert it. Can you name for me a single serious policy thinker who belives that everything is going just dandy? Really?

[pervert]

You don’t have to rely on spin and comment to reach that conclusion. All you have to do is read the damned thing.This seems reasonable. But the report itself is classified. So we cannot read the damned thing. We have a few quotes from a few people who have read it. These quotes are necessarily taken out of context (although not necessarily to the point of falshood) because we don't have the actual report. Everything else. I repeat, everything else is spin. It may be accurate, but it is spin, nonetheless.

[ITR champion]

No, it doesn't. It says in the very first paragraph that "America and our allies are fighting a new kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This conflict places great demands on the men and women of our armed forces, including our Guard and Reserve. They have met every test. They've risen to every challenge.". The word 'challenge' is used one other time in an entirely different context. Nowhere in the link does Bush say that we have conquered every challenge. It says simply that we have risen to them.


To me saying that our forces have "met every test" and "risen to every challenge" means the same thing as saying that our forces have succeeded on our mission in Iraq despite every challenge. Perhaps you were taught a different meaning of the words. Regardless, one of our goals was to create a stable, prosperous, and peaceful democracy in Iraq. We have not achieved that goal, we have not risen to every challenge to that goal from the insurgency, and the report from the NIC indicates that it's very unlikely we will. So I stand by my previous interpretation. Of course, if you don't like that Bush statement, I'm sure there are bloggers out there who will give you plenty of other head in the clouds quotes from the Bush administration.

[BrainGlutton]

That's what I thought. But how does that put to lie Liberal's suggestion that CNN is number 2? Isn't the standard measure of such things the ratings?

There is no "standard measure." CNN has more viewers, and I say that makes CNN number 1, Fox number 2. YMMV.

[pervert]

To me saying that our forces have "met every test" and "risen to every challenge" means the same thing as saying that our forces have succeeded on our mission in Iraq despite every challenge. Perhaps you were taught a different meaning of the words.Perhaps we were. But even so, it seems pretty clear from the rest of that link that Bush was not suggesting that the conflict was over.

Regardless, one of our goals was to create a stable, prosperous, and peaceful democracy in Iraq. We have not achieved that goal, we have not risen to every challenge to that goal from the insurgency, and the report from the NIC indicates that it's very unlikely we will.Can you quote the part of the report which says that this is unlikely? Obviously we have not achieved that goal. No one said we would in this amount of time. Can you name the challenges we have not risen to meet? They shoot at us we shoot at them. Perhaps not the best way to meet their challenge, but meeting it nonetheless.

[BrainGlutton]

Obviously we have not achieved that goal. No one said we would in this amount of time.

Maybe he never actually said so, in so many words, but when we were getting ready to invade Iraq back in February 2003, Bush gave us the definite impression that Iraq would be a stable democracy not long after our victory.

[pervert]

There is no "standard measure." CNN has more viewers, and I say that makes CNN number 1, Fox number 2. YMMV.
No? Cecil's info (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030221.html) suggests

"Despite the changes, Nielsen reports TV viewership as it always has, in terms of rating and share. The rating for a given show is the percentage of households with TVs that tuned in; the share is the percentage of households with their TVs switched on that tune in. "

I understand your nitpick, but it seems a small perversion of the usual way ratings are discussed. If a story says that Fox is leading in the ratings, it means just that. I'm not sure that Liberal was trying to say that CNN had more overall viewers or that they simply had more viewers per minute. I think he simply meant that they were ahead in the ratings. As is commonly meant by Fox is number 1.

You have a different way of measuring news stations. That's cool. But it is disengenuous to suggest that there is not common way to measure such things.

[ITR champion]

No one thought the task would be finished this soon? The Bush administration and the military believed that most of our troops would be coming home by summer of 2003 (cite (http://www.kintera.com/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/bushtroops.htm)), with only a relatively small force left in Iraq to finish the transition. Instead, besides extending the time spent for forces who started the invasion, we've also had to call up reserves who never expected to be sent at all. Timetables for the new government, economic reform, and virtually everything else have been pushed back multiple times, though it rarely makes the news here in the US.

As for "meeting the challenges", that's a matter of how you choose to view it. Six months ago the uprising in Fallujah started. Now according to the recent CSCI report, coalition troops have given up on trying to control Fallujah and the surrounding areas. Al Jarqawi strikes at will and retreats to this insurgent controlled zone, and we can't do anything more than try to lob bombs at him. Every day, insurgent forces attack coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians, oil pipelines, etc... With more than a hundred attacks every day, I find it doubtful that we're pursuing every single attacker when there's that many out there. So I'd say we aren't meeting every challenge, in fact we're retreating when the situation gets too tough and repeatedly accepting more and more violence.

[David Simmons]

As for "meeting the challenges", that's a matter of how you choose to view it. Six months ago the uprising in Fallujah started. Now according to the recent CSCI report, coalition troops have given up on trying to control Fallujah and the surrounding areas. Al Jarqawi strikes at will and retreats to this insurgent controlled zone, and we can't do anything more than try to lob bombs at him. Every day, insurgent forces attack coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians, oil pipelines, etc... With more than a hundred attacks every day, I find it doubtful that we're pursuing every single attacker when there's that many out there. So I'd say we aren't meeting every challenge, in fact we're retreating when the situation gets too tough and repeatedly accepting more and more violence.

The challenges in my book are to prepare an Iraqi police and self defense force that can protect that country. That is essential for any kind of meaningful election I think. And an Iraqi elected government strong enough to stand alone is key to our getting the hell out. If an election can only be held with US troops guarding polling places I don't see how Iraqis will accept it as untainted.

I'm also afraid that I don't see our current administration holding still for an Iraq government that doesn't fit our specification. And I think that's a fact no matter how much the Iraqis might want such a government.

Although there are inumerable differences there also seems to be one outstanding similarity between Iraq and South Vietnam. Every one who is familiar with Iraq that I hear from says that the Iraqis have to be able to stand alone. That was the same story in Viet Nam. However, as McNamara's book made clear Viet Nam forces couldn't do it so they needed our help "for the time being." Then again it was agreed that Viet Nam forces had to stand alone, but they couldn't do it yet so then needed our help "for the time being." We went around that loop for years and that seems to be a disturbing similarity to Iraq.

There are several areas where our troops don't enter. Laughter and sneering greeted Kerry's remark about a more "sensitive" war, but we don't enter Faloujah because of sensitivity to the effect on Muslims in the Middle East. We do everything we can to make it appear that the Iraqi temporary government is free to act as it chooses because of sensitivity to the effect on Iraqis of the appearance of our being the puppet master. GW early on after 9/11 said we were on a "crusade" and people fell all over themselves distancing us from that blunder because of Middle East sensitivity to the word. Anyone who thinks that we don't need to be sensitive to the external effects of our actions is a damned fool. And we have a president who seems to have a tin ear.

[Spavined Gelding]

I really do appreciate your attempt to remove the polemic earlier. but this seems to simply reasert it.

Come on! You have to allow me an occasional out burst of polemic.

A serious policy thinker who publicly says that the US is making steady progress toward a stable, democratic, Western friendly Iraq? Isn’t that the clear import of what our President is saying? Does that square with the apparent thrust of the NIC’s NIC?

Can’t read it because it’s classified. Maybe. But an anonymous government official – a slender fiction for somebody on top of the pile talking to reporters in a press briefing – has said enough to conclude that the report is not good news and that the prospects for a stable, democratic, Western friendly Iraq are not good. I haven’t heard any Administration official stand up on his hind legs and say that the news reports of the NIC NIC are inaccurate in any way and they have had since Wednesday or Thursday to do just that. There is every reason to accept the news reports as an accurate report of what the publicity shy government official did say about the NIE. Just why the Administration would talk about it an not publish at least a redacted version is a little hard to understand.

Incidently, since this thing is in the nature of an admission against interest the circumstantial probability of its reliability is pretty strong. If there was the announcement that there was a secret report that said every thing will be just fine the prejudicial effect would not be there. When the government says they have a secret report that says things are not going well when the President is out on the stump proclaiming that things are progressing toward a stable, democratic and Western friendly Iraq then you tend to sit up and take notice.

[GIGObuster]

Of course we have to notice, I am beginning to think that the biggest, and most important reason why we need to get rid of Bush this November, is that I see an escalating friction of the intelligence community and the current administration. Not good for our security, but good enough for an even worse future Watergate (That case then gave us Hillary, so you guys on the right should think more than twice if you still plan to vote for Bush, better and more capable liberal leaders will come from the prosecution of the scandals brewing)

From allowing spies to control our foreign policy (Chalaby and Israel) to ignoring threats (this report) and outing our spies (not only Plame, but even more recently, an Al-queda informant), this administration is IMO the biggest threat to our security, ignoring all that, and happily voting for this crowd is nonsense, it is even more disturbing to realize that those yahoos will feel VINDICATED and good for doing all that and worse if they win the election.

Voting for Bush is ensuring “we will follow the course”, that one of incompetence.

[pervert]

Come on! You have to allow me an occasional out burst of polemic.Of course. I did not mean to suggest that you could not. I simply did not notice the polemic free part of that last post. ;)

A serious policy thinker who publicly says that the US is making steady progress toward a stable, democratic, Western friendly Iraq?No, a serious policy thinker who believes the situation is dandy. What you are trying to imply is that since the situation could be better, it could not be worse.

Isn’t that the clear import of what our President is saying? Does that square with the apparent thrust of the NIC’s NIC?Well, I don't know. I have not read it. My first impression is that someone talked to some reporter and leaked a few details including the best and worse case scenarios and everyne is jumping to conclusions about the report's measureing of the likelyhood of those scenarios. They are then attempting to claim that Bush has been painting a "Things in Iraq are dandy" picture and claiming that the NIC report contradicts this. Well, yes, it does. It probably also (implicitly) contradicts the existence of Santa Clause*.

Can’t read it because it’s classified. Maybe. But an anonymous government official – a slender fiction for somebody on top of the pile talking to reporters in a press briefing – has said enough to conclude that the report is not good news and that the prospects for a stable, democratic, Western friendly Iraq are not good.Yes! This is what I wanted to ask you about in the first place. Can you point me to a news report which contains the appropriate quotes to back this up. I'm really not challenging you, I'd just like to see the quotes myself and you seem to have seen them.

I haven’t heard any Administration official stand up on his hind legs and say that the news reports of the NIC NIC are inaccurate in any way and they have had since Wednesday or Thursday to do just that.Yes, but they don't do this unless the quotes are completely bogus. Notice how many days it took the White house to suggest that the CBS Killian memos were faked. Silence does not equal agreement.

There is every reason to accept the news reports as an accurate report of what the publicity shy government official did say about the NIE.I agree entirely. I am not trying to say that any news organization made any quotes up. I am simply questioning the characterization of the report based on those quotes.

Just why the Administration would talk about it an not publish at least a redacted version is a little hard to understand.This administration has often tried to hold onto documents which it considers classified and then later release them. Consider this period (the final report is not even finished yet) a period during which they are making sure no secrets are contained in the report. They may not release it in any form. But I suspect that they will. Just MHO.

Incidently, since this thing is in the nature of an admission against interest the circumstantial probability of its reliability is pretty strong. If there was the announcement that there was a secret report that said every thing will be just fine the prejudicial effect would not be there. When the government says they have a secret report that says things are not going well when the President is out on the stump proclaiming that things are progressing toward a stable, democratic and Western friendly Iraq then you tend to sit up and take notice.But again, you have to look at the difference between what the report actually said (or more precisely what we know about what it says) and the characterizations of the various news outlets. What I have seen so far is an estimate for the best and worse case scenarios over the next 18 months. They range from tenuously stable to outright civil war. This estimate does not seem that far off from the speculation that has been flying around this very board for the last couple years.

It would seriously help me if you could show me the article which contains the quote from the anonymous source which says that democratic reforms in Iraq are not likely at all.

And for the record, if there were any official anywhere which tried to claim that "everything is fine" in Iraq I would take notice secret or not. Such a claim (not the inference from profesations of resolve but an actual claim) would definately get my radar tingling.




*How's that for some injected polemic. ;)

[pervert]

No one thought the task would be finished this soon? The Bush administration and the military believed that most of our troops would be coming home by summer of 2003 (cite (http://www.kintera.com/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/bushtroops.htm)), with only a relatively small force left in Iraq to finish the transition.Can you please point me to the portion of the cite which says this?

As for "meeting the challenges", that's a matter of how you choose to view it. Six months ago the uprising in Fallujah started. Now according to the recent CSCI report, coalition troops have given up on trying to control Fallujah and the surrounding areas.Given up, or are they trying to transfer control to Iraqi forces? Can you please site that for me.

Al Jarqawi strikes at will and retreats to this insurgent controlled zone, and we can't do anything more than try to lob bombs at him.And capture arms caches, and capture colegues, and prevent the much larger attacks he would be capable of if we weren't there.

Every day, insurgent forces attack coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians, oil pipelines, etc... With more than a hundred attacks every day, I find it doubtful that we're pursuing every single attacker when there's that many out there. So I'd say we aren't meeting every challenge, in fact we're retreating when the situation gets too tough and repeatedly accepting more and more violence.
Ok, so we are not meeting every single challenge if we are not pursuing every single insurgent. Ok, that is at least a definition we can work with. If you can demonstrate that this is the context in which Bush made the meeting challenges remark, I may concede the point to you.

[pervert]

Maybe he never actually said so, in so many words, but when we were getting ready to invade Iraq back in February 2003, Bush gave us the definite impression that Iraq would be a stable democracy not long after our victory.I'm sorry, but I never got that impression. Maybe it was my unwillingness to think of Bush or his administration as idiots. But I never once got the impression that we would invade and leave Iraq in a few months with a stable functioning democracy. To this day, I cannot understand how so many on the left did get that impression. I'm sure its just me.

[elucidator]

...It would seriously help me if you could show me the article which contains the quote from the anonymous source which says that democratic reforms in Iraq are not likely at all....

Democracy in Iraq was never likely, nor even considered. I keep asking the same uncomfortable question...does anyone really believe that if a free election in Iraq was certain, or even very likely, to elect a theocratic, Shia governance, freely and openly....that we would permit such an election to go forward?

I think that's very unlikely, in the aereodynamic pig sense of unlikely. And if so, that means that we never really considered "democracy" as such, but only a referendum to legitimize a pre-ordained conclusion. And if they can't stack the deck, they won't deal the cards.

[pervert]

Democracy in Iraq was never likely, nor even considered. I keep asking the same uncomfortable question...does anyone really believe that if a free election in Iraq was certain, or even very likely, to elect a theocratic, Shia governance, freely and openly....that we would permit such an election to go forward?

I think that's very unlikely, in the aereodynamic pig sense of unlikely. And if so, that means that we never really considered "democracy" as such, but only a referendum to legitimize a pre-ordained conclusion. And if they can't stack the deck, they won't deal the cards.
I have heard this allegation a couple of times. Where exactly is your evidence? Do we have any statements from government officials that say that any government composed of primarily Shia oficials would have to be toppled?

The answer to your question, BTW, is yes. We would allow a theocratic Shia government. Just MHO, of course. Do you mean a Taliban like regime? How "theocratic" are you talking?

Now, are you comparing the prevention of elections that took place in Vietnam to some scenario you've cooked up for Iraq? I'm not trying to say it could not happen. Just that it is not a forgone conclusion.

[pervert]

I've got to ask you one more question. If a democracy is only a democracy if the people can elect undemocratic facists, then is it also not a democracy if the electorate cannot establish slavery? Are we not a democracy because that issue is off the table?

[Tamerlane]

I have heard this allegation a couple of times. Where exactly is your evidence? Do we have any statements from government officials that say that any government composed of primarily Shia oficials would have to be toppled?

The answer to your question, BTW, is yes. We would allow a theocratic Shia government. Just MHO, of course. Do you mean a Taliban like regime? How "theocratic" are you talking?

Rumsfeld specifically ruled out an "Iranian-style" theocracy back in '03:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2975333.stm

Colin Powell then seemed to reverse course on this in a Meet the Press interview in May of '04:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/

'course could be they just disagree ;).

- Tamerlane

[Squink]

(Fallujah) Given up, or are they trying to transfer control to Iraqi forces? Can you please site that for me.
Allawi lays down his law (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10756110%255E2703,00.html): Displaying clear frustration with the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority from which his unelected interim government inherited the country two months ago, he said that the problems he inherited from US ambassador Paul Bremer included "confusion and the problems of the military and the police".

He also said that he had terminated the unsatisfactory Baathist-led "Fallujah Brigade", installed by US marines five months ago in a deal that brought an uneasy peace to the city.

"We did not want this brigade to persist. It was a wrong concept. We don't want militias to be formed in provinces," he said. "This is what the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) did. We don't agree with what the CPA did."

Fallujah a 'cancer,' Marines say (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9704956.htm?1c) Allawi plans to issue an ultimatum to Fallujah as soon as Iraqi security forces from other parts of the country are ready to lead an assault on the city and maintain security there once it is subdued.

Fallujah's leaders must "either join the rest of Iraq in sharing the progress toward freedom and hopefully democracy, or if they choose not to do so, they become a problem for the government and he will have to take dramatic action," Lt. Gen. James Conway, the outgoing commander, said of Allawi.

"It's a question for the prime minister of how long he wants the cancer that Fallujah has become to potentially infect the rest of this region."

[Spavined Gelding]

The most complete report of the July intelligence estimate I can find is what seems to be the original New York Times article here (www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html). Clearly this isn’t the more or less 50 page report and analysis but right now it is the best we can do. To suggest that the report is not what it is reported to be, to suggest that the report is consistent with what the government and the Administration has been telling the public and the electorate is more than a little obtuse. The Administration has responded, as recited in the Times piece but that response did not address the report; rather it generally dismissed “pessimist” as “hand wringers.”

So why is the NIC report important? Simply because it confirms that the occupation of Iraq is turning into the quagmire that the pessimistic, hand wringing haters of America thought it was going to be when this thing started in 2002. This taken with the conclusion that Saddam was not in cahoots with AlQiada (see the 9/11 commission report), Mr Keye’s conclusion that Saddam had no WMDs, the apparent coming conclusion from the Arms Search guys that Saddam had no stockpiles but had facilities that were capable of producing small quantities of chemicals and biologicals and had ambitions of having nuclear weapons as soon as the world quit watching him, all apparent official government conclusions, all concurred in by the people involved, sort of knock the basis and rational for the invasion and occupation of Iraq into a cocked hat.

[Liberal]

To suggest that the report is not what it is reported to be, to suggest that the report is consistent with what the government and the Administration has been telling the public and the electorate is more than a little obtuse. The Administration has responded, as recited in the Times piece but that response did not address the report; rather it generally dismissed “pessimist” as “hand wringers.”Due respect to my worthy opponent, who recognizes Kent State for the massacre that it was, I believe that your present assertion is simply not accurate. For quite some time (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/), the administration has been warning Americans of the difficulties that lie ahead for Iraq. Sure, he has spun the whole thing as positively as possible, but that is to be expected, just as his opponents spin it all as negatively as possible. I believe that if you are going to call positive spin obtuse, you should call negative spin the same.

[xenophon41]

Lib, just out of curiosity, what would a non-spun evaluation of the Iraq situation look like? Would it be generally positive ("things are lookin' up! Good times a'comin'...") or generally negative ("many parts of the country are under the control of insurgents... the Green Zone is no longer 100% safe...")? And if the non-spun evaluation is generally negative, wouldn't generally negative statements about our prospects in Iraq be more reflective of reality than generally positive statements, and therefore less "obtuse"?

[pervert]

I certainly don't want to speak for Liberal. But I think this is a good question, so I'm going to answer it.
Lib, just out of curiosity, what would a non-spun evaluation of the Iraq situation look like? Would it be generally positive ("things are lookin' up! Good times a'comin'...") or generally negative ("many parts of the country are under the control of insurgents... the Green Zone is no longer 100% safe...")?A good un spun description of the current situation would include both. Clearly there are security problems in Iraq. Clearly though, without Saddam Iraq is closer to a democracy. An unspun report on the current situation would include both.

And if the non-spun evaluation is generally negative, wouldn't generally negative statements about our prospects in Iraq be more reflective of reality than generally positive statements, and therefore less "obtuse"?
I think this depends on the context within which the evaluation is being made. If I am not mistaken, you are now talking about Bush administration statements made at press briefings or even at political rallies. To some extent these statements are aimed at the whole policy rather than a snapshot of the current situation. When Bush says things like "We will win the war..." or "We have resolve..." he is not trying to say that the situation in Iraq is Dandy nor that the work left to do will be easy. He is simply saying that the work he sees as necessary for America to do will be worth the cost. He is not implying that the cost will be negligible.

What I'm saying is that you can have generally positive statements about an issue in which the current situation is generally negative without divorcing either from reality.

[pervert]

The most complete report of the July intelligence estimate I can find is what seems to be the original New York Times article here (www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html).I cannot access that as I am not registered. Again, can you quote me the things NYT quoted (the quotes included as quotes in the article) that support your position. I would appreciate it.

Clearly this isn’t the more or less 50 page report and analysis but right now it is the best we can do.Understood.

To suggest that the report is not what it is reported to be, to suggest that the report is consistent with what the government and the Administration has been telling the public and the electorate is more than a little obtuse.Well, hold on a second. You are confusing two different things here. I am not disputing what is in the report. If I recall correctly, one of the principles who has read it is quoted as saying that it is "pessimistic" about the current situation in Iraq. So, I am not saying that the report claims roses are falling from the sky. But I really need to differentiate the report itself (or what we know of it) from the characterization made by reporters. Given that we don't have the full report, I can make the concession that we accept at face value the quotes from those who have read it. They are necessarily summarizations and thus characterizations, but its all we have. But I'd rather stay away from news characterizations of these characterizations if we can.

Secondly, we are slipping back into the argument about how easy the Bush administration thinks the Iraq campaign will be. I think you need some significant proof that they never felt the Iraq peace would be hard before we can say that 20 to 30 words characterizing a 50 page report is in direct opposition to the administration position.

The Administration has responded, as recited in the Times piece but that response did not address the report; rather it generally dismissed “pessimist” as “hand wringers.”Exactly.

So why is the NIC report important? Simply because it confirms that the occupation of Iraq is turning into the quagmire that the pessimistic, hand wringing haters of America thought it was going to be when this thing started in 2002.Does it really? Again, can you quote the quote which confirms this?

This taken with the conclusion that Saddam was not in cahoots with AlQiada (see the 9/11 commission report), Mr Keye’s conclusion that Saddam had no WMDs, the apparent coming conclusion from the Arms Search guys that Saddam had no stockpiles but had facilities that were capable of producing small quantities of chemicals and biologicals and had ambitions of having nuclear weapons as soon as the world quit watching him, all apparent official government conclusions, all concurred in by the people involved, sort of knock the basis and rational for the invasion and occupation of Iraq into a cocked hat.
Yea, but they don't.

The 9-11 commission concluded that Saddam was not in cahoots on any activity directly targeting America. They also noted that there was a long standing relationship between them. The intelligence about the WMDs was wrong. Everyone (or nearly everyone) got it wrong. Saddam's own military thought they had nukes. And the conclusion that Saddam was protecting what little was left of his WMD program is proof that he was not contained. Not unless you are willing to suggest that sanctions were functioning exactly as planned and that they were going to do so into the foreseeable future. In which case I'd have to ask why you are so attached to the dandy evaluation of that situation. ;)

[pervert]

Allawi lays down his law (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10756110%255E2703,00.html):

Fallujah a 'cancer,' Marines say (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9704956.htm?1c)
Can you point me to the part of those article where it says that America, the Iraqi government or anyone else is giving up on Fallujah? Thanks.

[pervert]

Rumsfeld specifically ruled out an "Iranian-style" theocracy back in '03:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2975333.stm

Colin Powell then seemed to reverse course on this in a Meet the Press interview in May of '04:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/

'course could be they just disagree ;).

- Tamerlane
Of course, what Rumsfeld actually said was "If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."

And what Powell said was "Russert: In those free, open and fair elections, if the Iraqi people choose an Islamic theocracy similar to what we have in Iran, we would accept that?

Powell: We will have to accept what the Iraqi people decide upon. But right now, I think most Iraqis understand that in order to live together in peace as a single nation, they have to have a nation which understands the role of the majority but respects the role of minorities within a country. And they know they have to have, for international acceptability, a country that preserves human rights, that is founded on democracy, that respects the rights of all individuals and respects the rights of women, that respects basic tenets with respect to open speech and meeting fundamental needs of the people and the fundamental standards of human rights that all of us believe in.

Russert: But, Mr. Secretary, if the Iraqis opt for an Islamic theocracy, which could easily become a haven for terrorists, how then do we explain to the 782 who died or the nearly over 4,000 who were wounded or injured that this was worth the fight?

Powell: I don't think that's going to be the case. I think that those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom for the Iraqi people will see that the Iraqi people are interested in creating a democracy. If you look at the same kind of polling that you mentioned earlier, that's what they are interested in, that's what they're looking for.

If you talk to some of the Shia leaders, such as Mr. Sistani and others, Ayatollah Sistani, they are talking about openness and freedom. Surely everybody understands it is a nation that rests on the faith of Islam, but they also know that in order to be successful as a 21st-century country, they have to respect the rights of all individuals and not allow a purely fundamentalist regime to arise in the country. And my sensing of what the Iraqi people want is a democracy with a majority, but with respect for all the minorities, all working together to create the kind of country they'll be proud of."

So, we have Powell saying that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian style theocracy and we have Rumsfeld saying that it won't happen. But yea, they might be disagreeing. ;)

More to the point, however, neither party says that if the Iraqi people decide to create a theocratic government we would put a stop to it.

[elucidator]

....Not unless you are willing to suggest that sanctions were functioning exactly as planned and that they were going to do so into the foreseeable future. In which case I'd have to ask why you are so attached to the dandy evaluation of that situation...

Ask, and it shall be given.....

...But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

"...We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

(emphasis added)

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

[pervert]

Ask, and it shall be given.....http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
...But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

"...We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
Thank you very much. But what changed? Come on, you know. Yes you do.

[elucidator]

Thank you very much. But what changed? Come on, you know. Yes you do.


Hmmmm. Colin Powell surrendered the last shred of his credibility and integrity? No, that was sometime later.... Oooooh! Oooooh! I know! Gotta be 9/11! I get a cookie, right?

If you are going to invoke the Terror Spell, you ought to at least take a swipe at showing the relevence. Are you positing that Powell was convinced of Iraqi involvement with 9/11? Or that something happened on 9/11 to make the Iraqi sanctions regime instantly porous? According to Mr. Powell, from the time abovementioned to the time he gave his presentation at the UN, Iraq's situation are regards to its potential threat changed dramaticly. How, in your estimation, did 9/11 bring this extraordinary circumstance about?

[pervert]

Hmmmm. Colin Powell surrendered the last shred of his credibility and integrity? No, that was sometime later.... Oooooh! Oooooh! I know! Gotta be 9/11! I get a cookie, right?Yes you do! What a good doggie! ;)

If you are going to invoke the Terror Spell, you ought to at least take a swipe at showing the relevence.Well, given your usual posting style, I thought you would appreciate an irreverent swipe.

But just for you I will. Notice in the pre 9-11 statement that Powell did not say perfectly safe, or that there is no danger at all. He specifically used the phrase "strengthened the security" of the region. What changed on 9-11 is that our assesment of how strong the security needs to be changed. Under the old cold war mentality the primary considerations were armies and missles. Since Saddam's army could not invade any of his neighbors and his missles could not reach the U.S., he was not a significant threat. After 9-11, the thinking changed. It was no longer necessary that a country (or organization) have a sophisticated military industrial complex capable of producing ICBMs to be considered a threat.

Now before we start flinging straw at one another and hijack this thread, let me say that I am not going to argue whether this new view of Iraq is correct or not. All I am saying is that the change is not a result of anything other than a change in the international security landscape which resulted from the 9-11 attacks. One could certainly disagree with it. And while denying it or ignoring it makes for very quippy posts, it does not make for reasoned debate.

Just to answer the specifics questions:
Are you positing that Powell was convinced of Iraqi involvement with 9/11?No.

Or that something happened on 9/11 to make the Iraqi sanctions regime instantly porous?No.

According to Mr. Powell, from the time abovementioned to the time he gave his presentation at the UN, Iraq's situation are regards to its potential threat changed dramaticly. How, in your estimation, did 9/11 bring this extraordinary circumstance about?Explained above. The way we measure threats changed. Thomas Barnett called it a system perturbation resulting in a rules set change. Think of it this way. Pre 9-11 Iraq was "safe enough". After 9-11 it was not. Iraq did not have to change. Our tolerance for risk did.

[elucidator]

All very well, but that's not what you asked for. What you asked for was provided. Apparently at the time you thought it was a significant point. If you are now pleased to explain why it isn't a significant point, you are entirely free to do so.

...Thomas Barnett called it a system perturbation resulting in a rules set change...

He very well may. Myself, I think of it as the trajectory of the shit intersecting the locus of the fan. Either that, or its a paradigm shift. And, as has been pointed out before, if this shit perturbing event suddenly made Iraq too much of a risk to tolerate, it also made a number of other nations at least as threatening, if not more so. Thereby, it buggers the question of the urgency and immediacy of the threat from Iraq. The nonexistent threat from Iraq, I hasten to add.

[pervert]

All very well, but that's not what you asked for. What you asked for was provided. Apparently at the time you thought it was a significant point. If you are now pleased to explain why it isn't a significant point, you are entirely free to do so.Yes, partially. But the fact that the sanctions worked well enough before 9-11 does not prove that they should have been adequate after 9-11. Nor does it prove that they would have done so for long enough to vacate the policy of regime change. Finally, what I said to someone else was "Not unless you are willing to suggest that sanctions were functioning exactly as planned and that they were going to do so into the foreseeable future." Your quote certainly proves that Powell thought the sanctions were having a positive effect. It does not prove the other things. It made a good springboard for you to drop the context of those statements and later ones as a cheap shot at Powell though. Well done on that.

He very well may. Myself, I think of it as the trajectory of the shit intersecting the locus of the fan. Either that, or its a paradigm shift.Well, a paradigm shift is similar but not exactly the same thing. 9-11 caused an abrupt change in the international security landscape. Not only for America, bot for many other countries as well.

And, as has been pointed out before, if this shit perturbing event suddenly made Iraq too much of a risk to tolerate, it also made a number of other nations at least as threatening, if not more so. Thereby, it buggers the question of the urgency and immediacy of the threat from Iraq. The nonexistent threat from Iraq, I hasten to add.
Quite. But the urgency and or immediacy of the threat is not the only aspect one must consider. Surely you understand that. Nuanced policies and all that. ;)

[Polerius]

I think it's a typical report from the sky-is-falling network. It is a bleeding heart editorial thinly disquised as news, using rhetorical technique rather than fact to nudge the reader in a particular direction.
Yes, this is only coming from CNN, no one else has the same view of the National Intelligence Council's assessment. And we all know how "bleeding heart liberal" Fox News and the Houston Chronicle are:

"U.S. Stance on Iraq Contrasts with Intelligence (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3922317)
The U.S. National Intelligence Council's assessment of Iraq's future is less optimistic than the scenario drawn by the Bush administration."


"US intelligence report reveals pessimistic outlook on Iraq (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1201175.htm)
The report is clearly at odds with the optimistic assessment the President, George W. Bush, has been putting during his campaign speeches, and today it prompted the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, to accuse President Bush of dishonesty over Iraq."

"US report predicts gloom in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3664136.stm)The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report is at odds with the more upbeat public statements which continue to emerge from the Bush administration."


"Kerry looking for new advantage on Iraq. Lack of stability could strengthen campaign message (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2802885)
Bush used his radio address Saturday to argue that his policies are working and to address concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan ... There is currently plenty of dissonance that threatens to undercut his message ... The classified national intelligence estimate revealed last week said a worst-case scenario would have Iraq plunged into civil war, with hopes for stability tenuous under the most optimistic scenario."


"A classified National Intelligence Estimate (search) prepared for President Bush in late July contains bleak forecasts for Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132748,00.html), which experts said could remain in a tenuous political and security situation for the unforeseen future, FOX News has confirmed.
So, while the White House talks about progress in Iraq, our intelligence community is painting a dark picture of prospects in that country."

[Zoe]

Some Republican Senators, supporters of President Bush, are beginning to express concern about his lack of forthrightness about the situation in Iraq and about his incompetence in handling the restructuring.

Senator John McCain spoke to the issue of Bush's timing and evasiveness:

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=920012551_5301_lead_story

McCain was asked about a report in Sunday's New York Times that U.S. commanders were planning a drive in November or December to retake areas where insurgents have won control. Such a timetable would place the operations after the Nov. 2 election for the White House.

McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to be" about the situation. "The longer we delay with these sanctuaries, the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur and the Iraqi people will suffer because they will be able to operate out of these sanctuaries obviously now with somewhat of impunity," McCain said. (bolding and underlining added)

Isn't this essentially saying that Bush is putting human life at risk for campaign and reelection purposes and that he is being deceitful about it?

Also, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee made note that 18.4 billion was appropriated a year ago for reconstruction of the infrastructure. Only a billion has been spent. Lugar commented on This Week on ABC that this is "the incompetence in the administration."

(According to the article, this is the same funding that Kerry is being criticized for flip-flopping on in his vote.)

Are these guys just more pessimists?

[Patty O'Furniture]

...his lack of forthrightness...

<snip>

...he is being deceitful about it...



I think this is the sort of thing that really burns me up. Zoe is perhaps just being nice by using padded phrases but statements like the above are really just weasely ways of saying "he's lying". Kerry needs to start calling Bush's lies directly to his face (preferrably during a debate) as well as point out his full-reverse spin on the matter.

[pervert]

Isn't this essentially saying that Bush is putting human life at risk for campaign and reelection purposes and that he is being deceitful about it?Well, yes, the news report does seem to imply that. Unfortunately the evidence for it si woefully lacking. This is unfortunate. There are some legitimate complaints about Bush's Iraq policies in that report. That this one is a so thinly veiled smear is regrettable.

The evidence that Bush is hiding something regarding the timing of upcoming offensives? They are in fact upcoming. That's it. No other evidence except that there might be a motive for such disseminations.

(According to the article, this is the same funding that Kerry is being criticized for flip-flopping on in his vote.)No. The funding in question is different. What Senator Biden was trying to say was that Bush is criticizing Kerry for flip flopping on Iraq spending while Bush has failed to spend Iraq spending. Sort of backhandedly implying that Bush is hypocritical or something.

C-SPAN is the only source of news left in the country. Sad really.



Just for the record, guys, read those article very carefully. Note how they use the phrases "contain bleak forcasts" rather than predict a bleak future. The report contains forecasts which are bleak. The fact that it mentions the possibility of civil war is enough to satisfy this sort of language. If the report said that civil war was unlikely, it would still satisfy this sort of language.

[dropzone]

Some Republican Senators, supporters of President Bush, are beginning to express concern about his lack of forthrightness about the situation in Iraq and about his incompetence in handling the restructuring.

Senator John McCain spoke to the issue of Bush's timing and evasiveness...

...Lugar commented on This Week on ABC that this is "the incompetence in the administration."...

...Are these guys just more pessimists?Are they setting themselves up for runs in 2008 by distancing themselves from the Bush administration?

[MMI]

I'm sorry, but I never got that impression. Maybe it was my unwillingness to think of Bush or his administration as idiots. But I never once got the impression that we would invade and leave Iraq in a few months with a stable functioning democracy. To this day, I cannot understand how so many on the left did get that impression. I'm sure its just me.


Right now there are ~140k US troops on the ground in Iraq. The generals who have spoken on the issue (both Shinseki pre-war and Franks recounting his opinion in his book) felt that 250 -300k or more troops would be required for occupation. At the outset of the war the administration felt that by a year ago (Sept '03) they would be able to draw down troop levels to about 30,000 or so in Iraq. My cite is a NATO summary of the situation. I would have preferred a contemporary cite of those projections but google is so weighted towards recent citations that i take what I can get.

Cite: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:67uot0o6z30J:www.naa.be/Docdownload.asp%3FID%3D56+Iraq+troop+levels+pre-war+reduction+30000+projections&hl=en

Prewar cites of the wars costs varied. Wolfowitz put the cost at $100 billion for both war and reconstruction in the (absolutely nightmarishly ridiculous) worst case scenario ($10 billion in the best case). THe administration stated that the Iraqi oil industry would pay for reconstruction, although USAID allowed that maybe 1-2 billion of US taxpayers dollars might be spent. Wolfowitz: "To expect we're going to pay for it all is just wrong."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

When the administration publicly mocks those (including its own professional soldiers) who suggest that an extended occupation with large numbers of troops might be required I personally have no recourse but to assume that the administration believes the occupation will be relatively short and uneventful. When the administration projects that post-war reconstruction will consume no more that 2 billion of US money I have to assume they believe this.

[pervert]

Right now there are ~140k US troops on the ground in Iraq. The generals who have spoken on the issue (both Shinseki pre-war and Franks recounting his opinion in his book) felt that 250 -300k or more troops would be required for occupation.Can you cite this for me or quote the part of Frank's book which says this. Thanks.

At the outset of the war the administration felt that by a year ago (Sept '03) they would be able to draw down troop levels to about 30,000 or so in Iraq. My cite is a NATO summary of the situation. I would have preferred a contemporary cite of those projections but google is so weighted towards recent citations that i take what I can get.I found this in your cite. "Earlier Pentagon plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq to about 30,000 by the autumn have been much too optimistic." Is that what you meant? Does it really say the the one and only plan assumed this? Or does it imply that at least one estimate suggested this?

Prewar cites of the wars costs varied...Wolfowitz and Shenseki have been battling each other for a long time. Before the war during it until Shenseki retired. They conflicted over changes Wolfowitz wanted to make in the force structure of the armed forces. Can you find for me an instance of a general requesting troops and them being denied? Alternatively can you find me an instance of a sitting general saying he was ordered not to ask for more troops?

Look. I agree that many mistakes were made in the runup to the way. Many mistakes were made in the way the aftermath of the war was handled. Partly this is due to the fog of war in general. Partly this is due to the fact taht we really did not expect the Iraqi defence force to crumble so completely so quickly. Partly this is due to the fact that America does not like to be occupiers. So, we are not good at it. And, yes, partly it is due to political bias.

But it is simply disengenuous to suggest that the Bush administration put blinders on and refused to listen to any dissenting voices. You guys don't like it when conservatives suggest that Kerry will "outsource the security of America" why do you insist on making the same mistake in regards to Bush's policies. Both are unnecessary over simplifications.

[ITR champion]

In a thread like this, it is inevitable that questions will be raised about what various leaders and organizations believed at past dates. And to back up assertions about such questions, cites will be provided telling us exactly what was said at what times. But if you respond to any such cite by saying 'Yes person X did say Y at time Z. But how do we know that's all they said? Maybe at time Z, X was also considering some alternate position and they just didn't tell us about it', then you've essentially said that you'll never believe anything about what positions were held by certain people in the past.

You've seen a reference showing that the Pentagon planned to reduce troop levels to 30,000 by Fall of 2003. You say that this fails to qualify as proof because maybe that was just one of many plans under consideration. I think the ball is in your court. Do you have some proof that there were alternate plans developed prior to the invasion, which called for maintaining well over 100,000 troops in the country for many years?

Oh, and if anyone's in the mood for comic relief, try this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer) to see what the hawks were really telling us 20 months ago.

[Squink]

The report contains forecasts which are bleak. The fact that it mentions the possibility of civil war is enough to satisfy this sort of language. If the report said that civil war was unlikely, it would still satisfy this sort of language. :D

Here's Chatham House's recent take on Iraq (http://www.riia.org/). They're all doomy and gloomy too; and it's not just a theoretical exercise.

[MMI]

Can you cite this for me or quote the part of Frank's book which says this. Thanks.


Shinseki Feb 2003 Congressional testimony referenced:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19203.pdf
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/02/26/Nation/Postwar.Occupation.Force.In.Iraq.Could.Be.In.100000s.General.Says-379293.shtml

On Tommy Franks: (via intel dumP ( http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_08_14.shtml#1092580373 ))

My final chart was potentially the most important: PHASE IV STABILITY OPERATIONS.

"The Generated and Running Starts," I explained, "and the Hybrid Concept all project Phase III ending with a maximum of two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq. We will have to stand up a new Iraqi army, and create a constabulary that includes a representative tribal, religious and ethnic mix. It will take time.

"And well-designed and well-funded reconstruction projects that put large numbers of Iraqis to work and quickly meet community needs — and expectations — will be the keys to our success in Phase IV."

"We will want to get Iraqis in charge of Iraq as soon as possible," Don Rumsfeld said. On hearing his words, heads nodded around the table.

"At some point," I said, "we can begin drawing down our force. We'll want to retain a core strength of at least fifty thousand men, and our troop reductions should parallel deployment of representative, professional Iraqi security forces. Our exit strategy will be tied to effective governance by Iraqis, not to a timeline."


So 250k troops is the ballpark occupation force level CentCom required. Speaking to the highest levels of the Government. He didn't get it.



I found this in your cite. "Earlier Pentagon plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq to about 30,000 by the autumn have been much too optimistic." Is that what you meant? Does it really say the the one and only plan assumed this? Or does it imply that at least one estimate suggested this?

Don't know exactly how to respond to this one. I remember the 30k number, that's why I googled for a reference. I don't think I have access to the full litany of Pentagon plans. However, nothing I have seen dazzles me with the variety and depth of contingency planning for OIF. Can you find a cite from Administration/DOD sources in the first half of 2003 publically offering the distinct possibility of an open ended commitment of the majority of the combat brigades in the US military and significant portions of the NG and reserve.


Wolfowitz and Shenseki have been battling each other for a long time. Before the war during it until Shenseki retired. They conflicted over changes Wolfowitz wanted to make in the force structure of the armed forces. Can you find for me an instance of a general requesting troops and them being denied? Alternatively can you find me an instance of a sitting general saying he was ordered not to ask for more troops?

Yes, the new SecDef and his staff clashed with the old school army over transformation. On this issue, Shinseki testified to what he thought force levels for occupation would be - basically what we had in theater at the time, though he said he would defer to theater commanders as to exact force level. Wolfowitz laid the smackdown on him - the admin knew better. As to finding a quote from a general I am not sure there have been a great many generals since Maclellan to publicly berate the CinC for more troops.

Look. I agree that many mistakes were made in the runup to the way. Many mistakes were made in the way the aftermath of the war was handled. Partly this is due to the fog of war in general. Partly this is due to the fact taht we really did not expect the Iraqi defence force to crumble so completely so quickly. Partly this is due to the fact that America does not like to be occupiers. So, we are not good at it. And, yes, partly it is due to political bias.

The chasm between our positions with respect to you last paragraph is probably unbridgeable. However, as I have shown you what indicators I had that the administration thought war would be quick and cheap, with (most of) the boys home by Christmas, it is probably fair for you to show some cites of why you thought administration was selling the war as a tireless, thankless and costly (but oh so necessary) slog over many years.

[PatriotX]

They also noted that there was a long standing relationship between them.And that the 'relationship' mostly consisted of a decade of failures to form a relationship. They'd been trying off and on for more than a decade and failed to accomplish anything significant and meaningful.

And the conclusion that Saddam was protecting what little was left of his WMD program is proof that he was not contained. What does the conclusion that Husein realized the inspections made it was too risky to expand what little was left of his poor excuses for WMD programs demonstrate?

[pervert]

If you don't mind, I'd rather nto rehash the Shinseki debate again. I will if you insist, but otherwise, lets simply agree to disagree as to his motives.

So 250k troops is the ballpark occupation force level CentCom required. Speaking to the highest levels of the Government. He didn't get it. No. Re read your quote. General Franks said "...and the Hybrid Concept all project Phase III ending with a maximum of two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq." That is, the shooting war (phase III) would end with a maximum of 250,000 troops. That is not the ballpark occupation force level. It is the maximum for the shooting war.

Can you find a cite from Administration/DOD sources in the first half of 2003 publically offering the distinct possibility of an open ended commitment of the majority of the combat brigades in the US military and significant portions of the NG and reserve.Well, Does March 2003 count? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-2.html) "We cannot know the duration of this war. Yet we know its outcome; we will prevail. The Iraqi regime will be disarmed. The Iraqi regime will be ended. The Iraqi people will be free. And our world will be more secure and peaceful." Of course this is just George Bush, so he might not be senior enough.

As to finding a quote from a general I am not sure there have been a great many generals since Maclellan to publicly berate the CinC for more troops.Well, your cite is a review of a review of General Franks book. The original review suggests that Franks himself asked for the troop levels they had. do you have the book itself so we could confirm this?

The chasm between our positions with respect to you last paragraph is probably unbridgeable.That is unfortunate. I meant it as an attempt to bridge that gap. I meant it as an acknowledgment that mistakes were made and things could be better.

However, as I have shown you what indicators I had that the administration thought war would be quick and cheap, with (most of) the boys home by Christmas, it is probably fair for you to show some cites of why you thought administration was selling the war as a tireless, thankless and costly (but oh so necessary) slog over many years.Well, I admit I did not follow the news closely enough to have many cites on hand. I quoted the PResident's speech above. The portion I quoted is typical of what I remember him saying during the period in question.

[pervert]

And that the 'relationship' mostly consisted of a decade of failures to form a relationship. They'd been trying off and on for more than a decade and failed to accomplish anything significant and meaningful.Well, wht is meaningful and what is irrelevant may vary from one person to another. What I was trying to do was dispell the ignorance that Iraq and AQ had never heard of each other.

What does the conclusion that Husein realized the inspections made it was too risky to expand what little was left of his poor excuses for WMD programs demonstrate?Exactly the same. That he was biding his time until he could begin work on them again. Containment in the coldwar sense is no longer acceptable. For reasons with which you are certainly familiar.

[pervert]

A couple more cites from the Whitehouse.

George Bush and Tony Blair on the future of Iraq. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030408-1.html) "Coalition forces will remain in Iraq as long as necessary to help the Iraqi people to build their own political institutions and reconstruct their country, but no longer. We look forward to welcoming a liberated Iraq to the international community of nations. We call upon our partners in the international community to join with us in ensuring a democratic and secure future for the Iraqi people.

Condoleeza Rice talking about that summit. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030408-11.html) "They had an opportunity to talk about the progress in the war, which they see as progressing according to plan and progressing well. But everybody wants to caution that theres still a lot of work to do. There is still fighting going on, there are still areas to be liberated. "
and
"Q Do they have a consensus on how much longer the war is going to last?

DR. RICE: I dont think anybody is trying to make a prediction on how much longer. Its going to last as long as it takes, because obviously good progress is being made, but the one thing that everybody is absolutely clear on is, this regime is coming down, Iraq is going to be returned to a -- to the Iraqi people in a way that it can be a good neighbor, can be thoroughly disarmed -- completely disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction, and can be put on a path to democratic development, keeping the territorial integrity of the country."

And in May in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign he said: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html) "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.) "

Perhaps I am looking at the wrong representitive of the administration. but every speech I looked at which mentions Iraq and its future also seems to include the disclaimer about it taking a long time and requireing lots of work.

[BrainGlutton]

Containment in the coldwar sense is no longer acceptable. For reasons with which you are certainly familiar.

Why? We're practicing containment on North Korea and Cuba. Seems to be working, in the sense of maintaining the status quo and avoiding war.

[Squink]

The 9-11 commission concluded that Saddam was not in cahoots on any activity directly targeting America. They also noted that there was a long standing relationship between them. Someone should tell the State Department to get their history revisoneered (w).
Here's State's October 2001 map of Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm).

[Squink]

link fixed:
Someone should tell the State Department to get their history revisoneered (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34115-2004Sep19.html).

[pervert]

Why? We're practicing containment on North Korea and Cuba. Seems to be working, in the sense of maintaining the status quo and avoiding war.
But not in securing the peace. North Korea and Cuba are different entities with regards to international terrorism.

[PatriotX]

Exactly the same. That he was biding his time until he could begin work on them again. It seems that the inspections were effective at putting the kaibosh on the programs.

Containment in the coldwar sense is no longer acceptable. For reasons with which you are certainly familiar.
No, actually I'm not.
Has 'national obliteration' lost its deterrent value when I wasnt looking?

[pervert]

It seems that the inspections were effective at putting the kaibosh on the programs.They were effective at keeping his development programs in nuetral. They were uneffective at elliminating those programs.

No, actually I'm not.
Has 'national obliteration' lost its deterrent value when I wasnt looking?
Yes. What value is this deterant to someone like Al Qaeda? Yea, I know Iraq was not the same as AQ. The argument was that they might use each other. Again, I know, the evidence for this was thin. I'm really not arguing that the Iraq war was the best possible strategy. Simply that it was not the crazy illegal lie it is portrayed as currently.

[PatriotX]

They were effective at keeping his development programs in nuetral. They were uneffective at elliminating those programs.
Weren't at least a few things disbanded and destroyed by inspectors prior to Bush taking office?

Yes. What value is this deterant to someone like Al Qaeda?Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't "Containment in the coldwar sense" meant for the realtions between nations? IIRC, aQ is not a nation.

Yea, I know Iraq was not the same as AQ. The argument was that they might use each other. Again, I know, the evidence for this was thin. I'm really not arguing that the Iraq war was the best possible strategy. Simply that it was not the crazy illegal lie it is portrayed as currently.
Given that the best estimates of the American intel Comm were that it was unlikely Hussein would initiate an atack against the US because it would result in what Dr. Condoleeza Rice called 'national obliteration' I'd have to say that many (if not all) the cries of self-defense are more or less the results of some combination of ignorance or dishonesty.
Any country on the planet could decide to cooperate with aQ. But what's important is which countries would. The Taleban's Afghanistan was one of the countries on the planet with the least to lose. Most politicos have at least a modicum of interest in self-preservation.

[pervert]

Weren't at least a few things disbanded and destroyed by inspectors prior to Bush taking office?Sure, but again, if you follow the conversation you and I are having on this, you asked what Saddam's continued efforts to protect what was left of his WMD program. I simply said that it proved he would continue the program when or if sanctions ever slacked.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't "Containment in the coldwar sense" meant for the realtions between nations? IIRC, aQ is not a nation.No. Containment was not meant merely to define relationships between nations and peace and security be damned. Containment was a strategy for securing peace and security when the primary threat to that security was nations. You see, once everyone realizes that nations conventional armies are not the main threat to peace anymore, a new doctrine is necessary.

Given that the best estimates of the American intel Comm were that it was unlikely Hussein would initiate an atack against the US because it would result in what Dr. Condoleeza Rice called 'national obliteration' I'd have to say that many (if not all) the cries of self-defense are more or less the results of some combination of ignorance or dishonesty.But they are not since the actors by which such an attack might have taken place were not to be deterred by such a threat. Again, after more than a decade of thwarting international sanctions designed to disarm him, what makes you think Saddam was going to be as responsible with WMDs as the Soviet Union?

Any country on the planet could decide to cooperate with aQ. But what's important is which countries would. The Taleban's Afghanistan was one of the countries on the planet with the least to lose. Most politicos have at least a modicum of interest in self-preservation.Quite so. Any country could. But most countries won't. In fact, most countries are so unlikely to do so that it is silly to say that they could. I agree that no laws of physics would be violated if France, say, decided to support AQ. But that is so unlikely, that we should worry about aliens first.

What was unique about the Taliban that they had the least to lose?

[elucidator]

... Again, after more than a decade of thwarting international sanctions designed to disarm him, what makes you think Saddam was going to be as responsible with WMDs as the Soviet Union?...

The fact that he didn't have them?

[pervert]

The fact that he didn't have them?
That would have lasted for a while, yes. How many of your grandchildren would you trust to it?

[pervert]

And just so you don't get in a tizzy and because I know you might not have read much of the thread, we were discussing the hypothetical development of new WMDs. Especially whether or not sanctions were the best long term solution for the problem posed by the fact that Saddam clearly wanted them.

[BrainGlutton]

And just so you don't get in a tizzy and because I know you might not have read much of the thread, we were discussing the hypothetical development of new WMDs. Especially whether or not sanctions were the best long term solution for the problem posed by the fact that Saddam clearly wanted them.

As my mother used to say, "Some bulls want horns but they die butt-headed." The political environment Hussein had to live with -- just prior to the invasion -- made it practically impossible he would ever again have the chance to build up an arsenal of WMDs if he should live and rule as long as Castro.

[MMI]

Pervert: On the "mistakes were made" front - my issue with this is that as is a statement that "mistakes were made" doesn't really mean anything except as a vague gesture in the direction of accountability. By leaving it at that level neither analysis nor corrective action can be perceived or judged. Do you know what the problems/mistakes/oopsies were? Do they?

As to George Bush's/the administration's willingness to debate and discuss the issue of IRaq pre-war I think that on their part it was limited to a search for some formula, some set of issues or terms on which they could get authority to go in.

I also read the statements of Bush and Rice you reference as being rather pro-forma "blood, sweat, tears, yadda yadda yadda". Certainly none of their budget contained any hints of long term activity. I also have a hard time imagining that the current state of the military wrt stop-loss and ongoing NG/reserve utilization was part of the plan. Nor that long-term general military impotence outside of Iraq was ever in the cards.

[pervert]

As my mother used to say, "Some bulls want horns but they die butt-headed." The political environment Hussein had to live with -- just prior to the invasion -- made it practically impossible he would ever again have the chance to build up an arsenal of WMDs if he should live and rule as long as Castro.No, it was the military environment he lived in. The only thing whihc kept him from having stockpiles of weapons was the presence of troops on his border which kept the inspectors moving throughout his country. But even then, he was working like mad* to thwart the inspectors efforts to find the remnants of his development programs. So, unless you are prepared to say the the inspection regime would have remained as strong as it was and possibly got stronger for the rest of Saddam's life as well as his sons, you have to admit the possibility that Saddam's regime was a threat to the world which nothing but an invasion could cure.

[pervert]

Pervert: On the "mistakes were made" front - my issue with this is that as is a statement that "mistakes were made" doesn't really mean anything except as a vague gesture in the direction of accountability. By leaving it at that level neither analysis nor corrective action can be perceived or judged. Do you know what the problems/mistakes/oopsies were? Do they?Well, yes, I think so. JMHO. As I said, I have a pretty long list of problems with the war. And I respect the opinion of others who have other problems with it. All I am arguing is that not every aspect of the war was a mistake. Not everything occuring in Iraq right now is bad. And that some very positive things may indeed come out of this war.

As to George Bush's/the administration's willingness to debate and discuss the issue of IRaq pre-war I think that on their part it was limited to a search for some formula, some set of issues or terms on which they could get authority to go in.Yes. Politically, the Bush administration was committed to ousting the Iraqi regime. They offered a few chances to Saddam to leave the country. His refusal left, in their opinion no option but to invade. As I said, I have several problems with how this was handled. But the basic premise that Saddam was a threat (although in hindsight not as immediate a threat as we thought) shoudl not be one of them.

I also read the statements of Bush and Rice you reference as being rather pro-forma "blood, sweat, tears, yadda yadda yadda".Perhaps, but don't you think it is disengenuous to simply ignore it and say that they have been claiming the war would be short all this time?

Certainly none of their budget contained any hints of long term activity.Well, the yearly budgets did not, but the supplementary requests for funding did. They asked for more money very early than would have been necessary for a short war. They certainly did not try to sneak the funding from anywhere or lie about. They simply asked for the funding off budget. Again, I have problems with this as well. But it is not correct to say that they claim a short war plan and then run to congress for more money when they realize it will take longer than they thought.

I also have a hard time imagining that the current state of the military wrt stop-loss and ongoing NG/reserve utilization was part of the plan. Nor that long-term general military impotence outside of Iraq was ever in the cards.I'm not sure what you mean by "military impotence". And you have to be more specific about your time frame when you say that using the National Guard was not part of the plan. Our military has relied on the National Guard for a long time for any sizeable deployments. As soon as the number of troops going to Iraq went over 50,000 or so, there was an implicit inclusion of the National Guard.

Do you mean that this was not the exact plan back in 2002? Ok, maybe your right. I don't know. But the plan has always been to evolve the plan, so to speak.

[elucidator]

Which appears to be the thrust of your argument: that if you can plausibly aver any threat, however remote, then you have justified the invasion as unavoidable. I should be pleased that the threat to my grandchildren is removed by The Leader's bold and decisive action.

That would have lasted for a while, yes. How many of your grandchildren would you trust to it?

I confess, to my shame, that I had given very little thought to those grandchildren, other than concern for how they might manage the vast holdings of the estate. I suppose, if I had given it any real thought, I might likely have dismissed the notion that a man of Saddam's advanced years might cast a shadow over their lives. Yes, I very well might.

Is this it, then? The case for immediate and urgent action, at enormous cost, is based on clairovoyance and divination? Peering into Saddam's mind and sorting the contents, you assure me of dire threat at some point in the future? Is there a Nostradamus quatrain you would care to cite, or do you prefer the more classical approach of scrying with entrails?

[elucidator]

.... But the plan has always been to evolve the plan, so to speak.

Ah! I see! An improvisational approach, it might be politely called. "Making it up as we go along" is another way. "Clueless bumbling and fervent prayer" also describes it pretty well.

[pervert]

Ah! I see! An improvisational approach, it might be politely called. "Making it up as we go along" is another way. "Clueless bumbling and fervent prayer" also describes it pretty well.
No, it would be closer to call it flip flopping. Oh wait, that's the other guy.

[pervert]

Which appears to be the thrust of your argument: that if you can plausibly aver any threat, however remote, then you have justified the invasion as unavoidable. I should be pleased that the threat to my grandchildren is removed by The Leader's bold and decisive action.Which was not my argument at all. Again, I am only arguing that the position which considers the war in Iraq to have been justified is not ridiculous. I realize it is more fun to simply not tolerate opinions different from your own. But it really is not necessary. And it is not conducive to a meaningful debate.

I confess, to my shame, that I had given very little thought to those grandchildren, other than concern for how they might manage the vast holdings of the estate. I suppose, if I had given it any real thought, I might likely have dismissed the notion that a man of Saddam's advanced years might cast a shadow over their lives. Yes, I very well might.As you know very well, the response to your snide response was itself snide. I assume from your habit of snideness that you are able to take it. If I am wrong about that let me know.

Is this it, then? The case for immediate and urgent action, at enormous cost, is based on clairovoyance and divination? Peering into Saddam's mind and sorting the contents, you assure me of dire threat at some point in the future? Is there a Nostradamus quatrain you would care to cite, or do you prefer the more classical approach of scrying with entrails?Not at all. And Again since I know you are loath to actually read the thread, the point was a small one concerning the evidence found since the invasion that Saddam was not in possession of WMD stockpiles, but he was, in fact, protecting what was left of his development program. That is he had every intention of developing WMDs as soon as possible. Precisely as Bush alleged. Precisely as alleged in the Congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq.

It was not a complete and whole defence of the entire Iraqi operation. I appreciate your attempts to shorten the argument for the war. I assume you will not object the next time the Bush campaign does the exact same thing to Kerry's arguments against it.

[elucidator]

Bush: ...yes, we'll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]


Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]

[pervert]

Right. He proposed the resolution before he withdrew it.


Oh, crackers, that's the other guy again. ;)

[Sevastopol]

the point was a small one concerning the evidence found since the invasion that Saddam was not in possession of WMD stockpiles, but he was, in fact, protecting what was left of his development program. That is he had every intention of developing WMDs as soon as possible. Precisely as Bush alleged. Precisely as alleged in the Congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq.



And isn't that just the way? Bush bravely claims this and that about Iraq. To the dismay of his detractors, one (1) of them is finally borne out:

- That he had every intention of developing WMD as soon as possible;

and wouldn't you know it. It is the one claim Bush made that is not susceptible to empirical evidence. What jolly bad luck that is.

[pervert]

And isn't that just the way? Bush bravely claims this and that about Iraq. To the dismay of his detractors, one (1) of them is finally borne out:

- That he had every intention of developing WMD as soon as possible;

and wouldn't you know it. It is the one claim Bush made that is not susceptible to empirical evidence. What jolly bad luck that is.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What about this claim is not subject to empirical evidence? This subject only came up in this thread because evidence of it was being discussed, and the question was asked what it was evidence of.

[Sevastopol]

Take a moment. Let's think about 2 modern concepts, shall we? I think we should:

- Empirical

&

- Intention

...
Good.

[vibrotronica]

pervert, if it weren't for the moral bankruptcy you demonstrate in defending a lie used to start an unneccesary war of aggression which has killed thousands, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and distracted the country I love at a time of crisis, your semantic contortions and flip flops might actually be funny. But, unlike you, I still retain a moral compass, understanding of history, and sense of decorum, so I do not find it funny.

[MMI]

Well, yes, I think so. JMHO. As I said, I have a pretty long list of problems with the war. And I respect the opinion of others who have other problems with it. All I am arguing is that not every aspect of the war was a mistake. Not everything occuring in Iraq right now is bad. And that some very positive things may indeed come out of this war.

Here's to hope!

Yes. Politically, the Bush administration was committed to ousting the Iraqi regime. They offered a few chances to Saddam to leave the country. His refusal left, in their opinion no option but to invade. As I said, I have several problems with how this was handled. But the basic premise that Saddam was a threat (although in hindsight not as immediate a threat as we thought) shoudl not be one of them.

IIRC Congressional authority was based on the goal of disarming/verification of disarmament, not ousting the mofo. And again, prior to the invasion we announced (to some of our allies suprise) that we would be occupying Iraq even if Saddam and sons fled the country prior to our invasion.


Well, the yearly budgets did not, but the supplementary requests for funding did. They asked for more money very early than would have been necessary for a short war. They certainly did not try to sneak the funding from anywhere or lie about. They simply asked for the funding off budget. Again, I have problems with this as well. But it is not correct to say that they claim a short war plan and then run to congress for more money when they realize it will take longer than they thought.

1. Planning for Iraq almost certainly siphoned off Afghanistan war money. Probably illegally.
2. How much have they requested for 05? wow, that much.
3. The admin is currently trying to shift reconstruction funds to security, most likely to avoid having to ask for more money.
4. At least some of the supplemental funding they have sought in the form of a slush fund - which has the reasonable effect of being flexible and the unreasonable effect of being opaque
5. Seeking the funding off-budget and not including costs in deficit projections is not exactly being up front about the costs. Rather deceptive I'd say.

I'm not sure what you mean by "military impotence". And you have to be more specific about your time frame when you say that using the National Guard was not part of the plan. Our military has relied on the National Guard for a long time for any sizeable deployments. As soon as the number of troops going to Iraq went over 50,000 or so, there was an implicit inclusion of the National Guard.

Riiiggghht. I will cheerfully agree that post vietnam our forces have been structured in such a way that the reserves and guard components are necessary for any major deployment, mostly to avoid being back-doored into an open-ended military commitment without much national debate and hand-wringing over whether the issues were sufficiently critical for such a mobilization.

Do you feel that the current ongoing mobilization of the reserve and national guard is sustainable over the course of the next 4-6 years and that the administration even hinted that significant portions of the guard would be overseas for those lengths of time?

Do you mean that this was not the exact plan back in 2002? Ok, maybe your right. I don't know. But the plan has always been to evolve the plan, so to speak.

Actually, the extent, adequacies and/or existence of "THE PLAN" is the heart and soul of the "mistakes were made" issue. I am not sure that going from 30k troops in country by Sept 03 to 150k troops for several years can be considered a mere evolution, a wee tweak in an otherwise adequate performance.

[pervert]

IIRC Congressional authority was based on the goal of disarming/verification of disarmament, not ousting the mofo.No. It included this paragraph: "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;" It was the long standing policy of the American government that the Regime of Sadaam had to go.

[QUIOTE] And again, prior to the invasion we announced (to some of our allies suprise) that we would be occupying Iraq even if Saddam and sons fled the country prior to our invasion.[/QUOTE]No, we anounced that we would invade unless he acceeded to our demands one of which was that he leave. As I recall he never offered to leave. He offered, or it was suggested that he might offer, to give up power.

1. Planning for Iraq almost certainly siphoned off Afghanistan war money. Probably illegally.No.

2. How much have they requested for 05? wow, that much. They have not done so yet. They are still spending the funds they requested for 04. Again, I agree that the budgetary tricks they are pulling are objectionable. But they are not lies or deceptions.

3. The admin is currently trying to shift reconstruction funds to security, most likely to avoid having to ask for more money.Possibly because one of the difficulties in spending the reconstruction funds is the security situation.

4. At least some of the supplemental funding they have sought in the form of a slush fund - which has the reasonable effect of being flexible and the unreasonable effect of being opaqueI don't know about this.

5. Seeking the funding off-budget and not including costs in deficit projections is not exactly being up front about the costs. Rather deceptive I'd say.No, it is simply seeking the funding under a different law. I agree it is not the way I'd rather it would be done. But that is the way they chose to do it. They are not hiding their plans to ask for many tens of billions of dollars.

Riiiggghht. I will cheerfully agree that post vietnam our forces have been structured in such a way that the reserves and guard components are necessary for any major deployment, mostly to avoid being back-doored into an open-ended military commitment without much national debate and hand-wringing over whether the issues were sufficiently critical for such a mobilization.I don't understand this point. Are you saying that our current force structure was designed to prevent large troop deployments?

Do you feel that the current ongoing mobilization of the reserve and national guard is sustainable over the course of the next 4-6 years and that the administration even hinted that significant portions of the guard would be overseas for those lengths of time?Yes.

Actually, the extent, adequacies and/or existence of "THE PLAN" is the heart and soul of the "mistakes were made" issue. I am not sure that going from 30k troops in country by Sept 03 to 150k troops for several years can be considered a mere evolution, a wee tweak in an otherwise adequate performance.
I understand that this is the heart of your argument. But you have to realize that the extent of your objection requires elevating the 30K number beyond reasonable proportions. One wildly optimistic estimate was that low. You are now saying that this was the one and only plan. I am saying that the fact that we shipped a couple hundred thousand troops over there in the first place proves that it was not.

[pervert]

Take a moment. Let's think about 2 modern concepts, shall we? I think we should:

- Empirical

&

- Intention

...
Good.
Let's add another shall we? Actions. Actions leave evidence. Actions demonstrate intentions. Now, you may believe that Sadaam was protecting the last of his chemical and biological weapons development program so that he could put them in a museum. But I think in that case it is not me who has their head somewhere it does not belong. ;)

[pervert]

pervert, if it weren't for the moral bankruptcy you demonstrate in defending a lie used to start an unneccesary war of aggression which has killed thousands, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and distracted the country I love at a time of crisis, your semantic contortions and flip flops might actually be funny. But, unlike you, I still retain a moral compass, understanding of history, and sense of decorum, so I do not find it funny.
Again, and for the fifth* time. I am not trying to justify the war. I am merely saying that those whose opinion it is that the war was justified are not idiots. It is sophistry to the extreme to think so.

The next time you see Kerry try to explain a complex issue and then you hear Bush reduce it to ridiculously simple attack (to applause often enough) remember this post of yours. It is exactly the same thing. It is the problem which denies this country we both love very much the needed rational debate about these issues.



*for the record I did not count. It just feels like five times.

[BrainGlutton]

I've lost track -- what's the debate here? Is it the question of whether Iraq is "going to Hell in a handbasket" or not? Or is it the question of whether the Bush Admin is presenting the situation honestly to the American people? Or both?

[PatriotX]

Actions demonstrate intentions. There's a step missing.
Intentions are inferred from actions. Sometimes the inferences are correct and sometimes they are not.

[pervert]

There's a step missing.
Intentions are inferred from actions. Sometimes the inferences are correct and sometimes they are not.
I want you to take this post an apply the logic in it to our discussion about incompetence in the other thread.

Meanwhile you are quite correct. I was speaking od demonstration in the sense of inference. That is a strong link. I did not mean demonstration in the sense of logical proof.

[Sevastopol]

Let's add another shall we? Actions. Actions leave evidence. Actions demonstrate intentions. Now, you may believe that Sadaam was protecting the last of his chemical and biological weapons development program so that he could put them in a museum...

Circumstantial evidence and conjecture. In the anti-Iraq case. I consult the archives and I find this not to be a novelty.

Said 'protected programs' also lack that happy quality of verification by empirical evidence.

[pervert]

Circumstantial evidence and conjecture. In the anti-Iraq case. I consult the archives and I find this not to be a novelty.

Said 'protected programs' also lack that happy quality of verification by empirical evidence.
I'm sorry, what the heck are you talking about. The conversation you tripped into started when SimonX and I were discussion a small portion of the 9-11 commission report which said that Sadaam had been able to keep some aspects of his WMD development programs extant. We were arguing a small point about what this was evidence of. Specifically wether this was evidence of the success of the inspection regime or that Sadaam might pose a threat in the future. You tripped in with irelevant attacks and wild ramblings. Would you care to join the discussion or are you married to the practice of loonacy.

[Sevastopol]

I'd advise you, pervert against personal insults like that in the preceding post. Not only are they against the rules, they are also a strong indicator of a weak argument by the person.

In your penultimate post, you in effect agree that there is no empirical evidence available to support claims concerning SH's intentions. That was my point, so I don't see why you are arguing.

There is no attack coming from my part, nor rambling. Several other posts show other people clearly and immediately understood my point. Again your wild claims mostly suggest a weak argument on your part.

As to what the recent report's claims are evidence of: Answer, without objective evidence, nothing at all. I think it is uncontroversial at this point to consider any pro-war claims from the current administration as being due the most acute scepticism.

Look where giving credence to hyperbolic and circumstanial argument has got us to date.

[pervert]

I'd advise you, pervert against personal insults like that in the preceding post. Not only are they against the rules, they are also a strong indicator of a weak argument by the person.Fair enough, but I was calling your argument loony, not you.

In your penultimate post, you in effect agree that there is no empirical evidence available to support claims concerning SH's intentions. That was my point, so I don't see why you are arguing.Because I did not and you did not. Seriously, I have no idea what you mean by this. Which penultimate post are you refering to?

There is no attack coming from my part, nor rambling. Several other posts show other people clearly and immediately understood my point. Again your wild claims mostly suggest a weak argument on your part. Really? It looks to me like I am the only one responding to you. Unless you mean you were kidding or joking in some way. In which case I did not understand you.

As to what the recent report's claims are evidence of: Answer, without objective evidence, nothing at all.he report we were talking about was the 9-11 commission report. Are you claiming that it is false?

I think it is uncontroversial at this point to consider any pro-war claims from the current administration as being due the most acute scepticism.

Look where giving credence to hyperbolic and circumstanial argument has got us to date.Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could give an example or some how illustrate what you are trying to say. Seriously, it does not seem to parse correctly to me.

[Abe]

Pervert, what are you going on about? I honestly don't have a clue.

Yes, we appear to understand Sevastopol's point, that is probably why it has not been challenged. What we have no clue about is what you are driving at-- including the latest post, which contains no arguments, no information, no evidence, and nothing I can make sense of.

Come on, you've been doing this quite a bit in GD and it's just not a good way to discuss. You're clearly capable of making good points and have done so already, so I humbly suggest you cease your equivocation and stick to the facts -- discussions of hypothetical intent and revisionism aren't very good materials, especially not when combined with a desire to have the last word.

[Sevastopol]

Me!
I think it is uncontroversial at this point to consider any pro-war claims from the current administration as being due the most acute scepticism.

Look where giving credence to hyperbolic and circumstanial argument has got us to date.

No-one takes Bush's word for it nowadays.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Actions. Actions leave evidence. Actions demonstrate intentions. Now, you may believe that Sadaam was protecting the last of his chemical and biological weapons development program so that he could put them in a museum.

This is a circumstantial argument for Saddam's intentions. It is where pervert allows that the claim does not turn on empirical evidence.

And it is a weaker case than it appears, nonetheless. What is this - "protecting ...his...program" - ? The administration has an uncanny knack of making claims independently of any empirical evidence. How is it that this 'protecting his program' did not yield any products, plans, equipment, bunkers or any material thing at all?

[vibrotronica]

Again, and for the fifth* time. I am not trying to justify the war. I am merely saying that those whose opinion it is that the war was justified are not idiots. It is sophistry to the extreme to think so.

The next time you see Kerry try to explain a complex issue and then you hear Bush reduce it to ridiculously simple attack (to applause often enough) remember this post of yours. It is exactly the same thing. It is the problem which denies this country we both love very much the needed rational debate about these issues.
I'm not saying they are idiots, I'm saying that they are either liars or that they have been so taken in by lies that they can no longer tell the difference between lies and truth. What you are attempting to do is to obscure the facts in qualifications and specious arguments and attempt to blur the line between facts and lies.

Here are the facts:

Bush said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, they were such a great threat that we had to immediately invade.

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was no prospect of Iraq developing any. Therefore there was no reason to immediately invade Iraq.

President Bush lied to start a war.

The danger to the republic, Mr. pervert, is no longer in the reduction of complex arguments being reduced to simple one-liners. The danger to the republic is that lies will continue to be given equal weight to truth.

[pervert]

This is a circumstantial argument for Saddam's intentions. It is where pervert allows that the claim does not turn on empirical evidence.What exactly is it about the tools and papers found by the weapons inspectors which you do not find empirical.

And it is a weaker case than it appears, nonetheless. What is this - "protecting ...his...program" - ? The administration has an uncanny knack of making claims independently of any empirical evidence. How is it that this 'protecting his program' did not yield any products, plans, equipment, bunkers or any material thing at all?But they did produce such things.


Go back and look at the statment by Spavined Gelding in post #55 "...Mr Keye’s conclusion that Saddam had no WMDs, the apparent coming conclusion from the Arms Search guys that Saddam had no stockpiles but had facilities that were capable of producing small quantities of chemicals and biologicals and had ambitions of having nuclear weapons as soon as the world quit watching him..."

This is what started the whole thing. SimonX and I got into a brief exchange about what these sorts of things might be evidence of. Into this exchange sevastopol stepped claiming that there was no evidence or that it was not empirical. I'm still not sure which because of the snide way he chose to make his point. The discussion got somewhat twisted around by myself and elucidator by the sidetrack of whether or not the sanctions were prefferable to war and the snide way we both decided to discuss that.

But the fact remains that sevastapol keeps saying something about my argument which is not true and keeps trying to make a point about the upcoming Keyes report (which I confused with the 9-11 commission report, my bad). Specifically that it contains not evidence or that the evidence is nor empirical.

Yes, we appear to understand Sevastopol's point, that is probably why it has not been challenged. What we have no clue about is what you are driving at-- including the latest post, which contains no arguments, no information, no evidence, and nothing I can make sense of.I really hope so. Please explain it to me.

I am simply driving at the point that support for the war, and President Bush is not necessarily irrational. There are valid reasons for both. My only purpose in these discussion has become one of reducing the vitriol. I'm not trying to trick you or convince you that Bush is right. Merely that demonizing the other side of the debate is not necessary or even desireable.

vibrotronica: Right, they are not idiots just duped. Big difference. Thank you. Just so you know there is another possibility that you may have missed.

[MMI]

BraingluttonThis particular digression/hijack concerns whether the intelligence report/analysis is bad news or merely an overly negative spin on the (expectedly) difficult task of bringing freedom, democracy, and puppies to the Iraqi people. My vague memories was of promised Iraqi democracy free, bloodless, and yesterday. Pervert[/i] remembers preparation for hardship at a Churchillian level.

[b]Pervert: Rereading through your Rice/Bush/Blair quotes it seems to me that Rice at least is referring to the "major combat operations" part of the war, not what we now refer to as the occupation. Bush at the "MIssion Accomplished" speech is certainly referring to the post-combat phase expected after May 2003, the reconstruction.

With regards to my 30k fetish. It is certainly the optimistic figure. But the pessimistic figure I have found is 60k troops at around the same time frame. Can you find a more reasonable (in hindsight) median or worst case troop levels from an administration source prior to March 2003?

The other half of the issue is money. Wolfowitz did bound the military effort's price and the administration did specify an upper limit to amount of US taxpayers dollars to be spent on reconstruction. Just the most recent bucket of reconstruction funds is ten times what the prewar maximum specified, and if the total military expenditure ends up at less than two and a half to three times Wolfowitz's maximum we will either have been lucky or bugged out of Iraq. We are already comfortably over his maximum now.

The reason I find the budgeting practices deceptive is that refusing to speculate on how much it may cost for the day after tomorrow does not allow anyone, including that branch of government constitutionally mandated with oversight of such things to make any sort of rational decision. Every vote comes down to "If you don't pass this bill right now our troops won't have food, gas, or bullets and will probably die horribly and it will be all your fault. We refuse to speculate irresponsibly on how much we may need next year. A lot can happen in a year." Further more, not including at least ballpark predictions in say, deficit prognostications renderst that number meaningless.

Wrt the national guard/reserve thing. I think the idea was to make it impossible to deploy the military in a large, enduring way without being up front about the costs and impacts, to make sure that a debate will happen. To avoid being backdoored into a war started on false premises or a small quick conflict that escalates without further opportunity for discussion. A lovely idea, though obviously not totally effective.

[pervert]

BraingluttonThis particular digression/hijack concerns whether the intelligence report/analysis is bad news or merely an overly negative spin on the (expectedly) difficult task of bringing freedom, democracy, and puppies to the Iraqi people. My vague memories was of promised Iraqi democracy free, bloodless, and yesterday. Pervert[/i] remembers preparation for hardship at a Churchillian level.Well, please don't accuse me of comparing Bush to Churchill. I am defending the administration's position in here, but I am not trying to sactify it.

[b]Pervert: Rereading through your Rice/Bush/Blair quotes it seems to me that Rice at least is referring to the "major combat operations" part of the war, not what we now refer to as the occupation. Bush at the "MIssion Accomplished" speech is certainly referring to the post-combat phase expected after May 2003, the reconstruction.That's correct. That is because of the time frame and the fact that I chose to link ot remarks by those people. The shooting war was what they were talking about at the time.

With regards to my 30k fetish. It is certainly the optimistic figure. But the pessimistic figure I have found is 60k troops at around the same time frame. Can you find a more reasonable (in hindsight) median or worst case troop levels from an administration source prior to March 2003?I would have had trouble. But luckilly, Abe found a reference for me. Here. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm) "Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward."

The reason I find the budgeting practices deceptive is that refusing to speculate on how much it may cost for the day after tomorrow does not allow anyone, including that branch of government constitutionally mandated with oversight of such things to make any sort of rational decision.I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I also think that publishing every internal memo with an estimate confuses the issue in the same way. INHO congress should ask a few departments, not individuals, but departments to estimate thier spending needs and work with that. I agree that the administration keeping the needs secret is not useful. But I also think that using select internal estimates as proof of deception is not useful either.

Every vote comes down to "If you don't pass this bill right now our troops won't have food, gas, or bullets and will probably die horribly and it will be all your fault.Quite right. Teddy Roosevelt originated this political strategy. It has worked ever since. Congress needs a new tool to combat it.

Wrt the national guard/reserve thing. I think the idea was to make it impossible to deploy the military in a large, enduring way without being up front about the costs and impacts, to make sure that a debate will happen. To avoid being backdoored into a war started on false premises or a small quick conflict that escalates without further opportunity for discussion. A lovely idea, though obviously not totally effective.I don't think that was the case at all. I don't think structuring the military with a dependance on the National Guard was anything more than a cost issue. After the fall of the Soviets, the pressure to produce a "peace dividend" became intense. The closure of military bases and reduction in the size of the standing army simply required that any large undertaking rely on significant numbers of the National Guard. This policy has been well understood by the public since the first Gulf War. It is certainly arguable that the public was mislead concerning the duration of this war. But I don't think one can make the argument that nobody thought the National Guard would be used in Iraq.

[MMI]

I am pretty sure that the force restructuring which put large quantities of logistical and support structures in the reserves/national guard, rather than having the reserves and national guard being additional semi-ready combat forces for emergency uses was post Vietnam, not post Cold war.

[pervert]

I am pretty sure that the force restructuring which put large quantities of logistical and support structures in the reserves/national guard, rather than having the reserves and national guard being additional semi-ready combat forces for emergency uses was post Vietnam, not post Cold war.
Well, post cold war is post vietnam. ;)

Seriously, you may have a point. This may certainly be one of the advantages cited at one time for structuring the military the way it is. I had never heard that argument though. I am not, however, an expert, so it could just be my ignorance.

[Abe]

I really hope so. Please explain it to me.

What is to explain? The poster was asking for REAL evidence, not speculations of intent or revisionist accounts, but real documented information as opposed to more bla-bla and spin-apologies such as we have got from our leaders to date.

I am simply driving at the point that support for the war, and President Bush is not necessarily irrational.

It's not irrational, but it is either uninformed OR it relies on other issues in spite of the information (conservatism, Republicanism, abortion, tax cuts, whatever).

There are valid reasons for both.

No, to be precise there are some valid reasons for one side, and a host of reasons on the other side the validity of which have been shredded time and time again. You keep choosing specific little topics to nitpick and equivocate over, and I think most of us are getting a bit frustrated with the process.

My only purpose in these discussion has become one of reducing the vitriol. I'm not trying to trick you or convince you that Bush is right. Merely that demonizing the other side of the debate is not necessary or even desireable.

What vitriol? What demonization? I've asked you this in another thread and you admitted to a wrong impression. Your manifest purpose in these discussions (as far as I can see) has been to nibble at the edges of the documented reasoning provided in support of the arguments that the administration tried to mislead everyone on this war (chiefly on its necessity, but also cost and requirements), that several serious errors were made in the process, that an administration exists that operates chiefly on propaganda and manipulated intelligence, etc.

I don't see anyone going ape-shit at the administration as you imply, but given the position you are building for yourself with these constant attempts to confuse the issues, I am beginning to suspect the reason you can't leave honest criticisms alone. Hopefully I am wrong.

By the way, wouldn't you agree that it appears that General Shinseki and others were right regarding the troop requirements for war and occupation? After a lot of equivocation, I don't know if you have accepted the several cites provided so far, nor have you commented on the way Rumsfeld repressed criticisms and alternate suggestions (from his own generals to the State Department's 14 volume recommendations on Iraq).

[vibrotronica]

vibrotronica: Right, they are not idiots just duped. Big difference. Thank you. Just so you know there is another possibility that you may have missed.
I didn't miss the other possibility. I weighed the available evidence and determined that the "other possibility"--that the war was justified because Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed an immenent threat--was based on lies.

[pervert]

I didn't miss the other possibility. I weighed the available evidence and determined that the "other possibility"--that the war was justified because Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed an immenent threat--was based on lies.
Well, then you missed the argument since the begining of the year. Also you do not seem to have listened carefully to the president's speeches or to the resolution passed by congress nor, regretfully, the 9-11 commission report.


What vitriol? What demonization?
It's not irrational, but it is either uninformed OR it relies on other issues in spite of the information (conservatism, Republicanism, abortion, tax cuts, whatever).

Your manifest purpose in these discussions (as far as I can see) has been to nibble at the edges of the documented reasoning provided in support of the arguments that the administration tried to mislead everyone on this war (chiefly on its necessity, but also cost and requirements), that several serious errors were made in the process, that an administration exists that operates chiefly on propaganda and manipulated intelligence, etc.But the reasoning that supports this characterization is blown out of purportion to its significance.

Shinseki made an off the cuff remark that the Iraq occupation would require several hundred thousand troops. The administration castigated him and said the number was closer to 100,000. Dispite the fact that they were both talking about American troops and not counting allies or Iraqis, the currently 130,000 Americans is routinely added to the 30,000 allies and 100,000 or so Iraqis to say that Shinseki was right and the administration was wrong. And to say further that the administration should have taken Shinseki's off the cuff remark more seriously.

An economic advisor named Lindsey speaking about the resiliancy of the economy makes another off the cuff remark that the economy could withstand it even if the Iraq war cost 2% of GDP or $100 to $200 billion dollars. The administration castigated him and said comparing it with the first gulf war, it was more likely to cost $60 billion. They were both talking about the buildup and first month of the shooting war. But Lindsey's comments constantly get repeated as if they were a serious analysis which was ignored by the administration. Again, to show that the administration has been trying to con Americans about the possible cost of the war.

The claim that the administration has misled America about the difficulty of the upcoming war is simply a lie. Every speech or statement I have seen from an administration official has included wording to the opposite effect. This is all dismissed as "blah blah blah".

There are serious and important criticisms about the way this government is handling the war in Iraq. They do not amount to fraud, incompetence, or malfesance. The continued claim that they do drowns out the serious discussion and makes it impossible to get any sort of reform which could prevent this in the future.

I don't see anyone going ape-shit at the administration as you imply...I know you don't. I really don't expect you to. You see the equivocations and accusations as true, so you do not see them as over the top. I was only able to see my similar (not the same but similar) attempts to demonize Clinton for what they were years afterward.

By the way, wouldn't you agree that it appears that General Shinseki and others were right regarding the troop requirements for war and occupation?No. General Shinseki's original number was indeed quite high. I don't know of any serious estimate that thinks that we need 300,000 American troops in addition to our allies and the Iraqis. Kerry is certainly not claiming that.

After a lot of equivocation, I don't know if you have accepted the several cites provided so far, nor have you commented on the way Rumsfeld repressed criticisms and alternate suggestions (from his own generals to the State Department's 14 volume recommendations on Iraq).I have not looked into the state department's recomendation and its dismisal. I remember one cite which mentioned it, but whick did so perfunctorialy. That is the General said he was told to ignore the report. But it was not clear from the context if he was told to ignore the report in its entirety or if he was merely told to ignore the provisions about de Bathifying the Iraqi army.

Again, I agree that a criticism can be made that disbanding the entire army was a mistake. But there is an equally good point to be made that removing the Bathists from authority and rebuilding the Iraqi army from scratch has its advantages. As I recall, the interim government did not like the Bathist general put back in power by the CPA to handle Fallujah.

My point is that this issue is not as simple as some of the cites and some of the posters would like. It would be nice if our political opponents were almost exclusively evil. It would be even nicer if our political friends were even mostly good. But in practice it does not work that way. And concentrating on the idea that Bush lied and covered up, and mishandled the war does not allow us to expend effort on fixing the system which caused the things which legitimately did go wrong.

[vibrotronica]

Why should I listen closely to the President's speeches? He's a proven liar. He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened our existence. He lied. Why should I believe anything that comes out of his lying mouth?

[pervert]

Why should I listen closely to the President's speeches? He's a proven liar. He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened our existence. He lied. Why should I believe anything that comes out of his lying mouth?

Abe can you change the content of the lie in question and hear this exact same thing from 8 years ago? Does this not count as vitriol?

[vibrotronica]

Yes, pervert, this is vitrol. A lot of people are getting killed, and a whole lot more are going to get killed because of this lie. Don't play the put-upon conservative martyr and don't try to drag Clinton into this. This is much too serious. George W. Bush lied to start a war, then he fucked up the war. You sully yourself trying to defend this abomination. Wake up. Grow a conscience.

[pervert]

Yes, pervert, this is vitrol. A lot of people are getting killed, and a whole lot more are going to get killed because of this lie. Don't play the put-upon conservative martyr and don't try to drag Clinton into this. This is much too serious. George W. Bush lied to start a war, then he fucked up the war. You sully yourself trying to defend this abomination. Wake up. Grow a conscience.
Sigh. I know I shouldn't, but I am powerless before your rhetoric.

1) A lot of people are getting killed because of terrorism.

2) I am not playing the put upon anything. I have never accused anyone of demonizing me.

3) I am not dragging clinton into this. I am pointing out that your last post has been seen before almost word for word. It was trite sophistry then. It still is.

4) Your right this issue is much too serious to allow it to be derailed by rhetoric as empty and baseless as yours.

5) George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.

6) The war may have become difficult. But it is far from fucked up.

7) I am quite awake, and I have a fully functioning conscience.

Fear not. I will not trouble you further. Rave on and I will discuss the issues with people who can.

I tell you what, though. Prove me to be the raving loonatic. Simply link to a past post of yours where you provided evidence for your rant. In this thread would be preferable, but anywhere else in GD would do. It has to be a calm examination of the facts, and it has to present some sort of link (not necessarily an encoded link, it could be a mention of the book, study, or news article) to that evidence.

[Merijeek]

Yes, pervert, this is vitrol. A lot of people are getting killed, and a whole lot more are going to get killed because of this lie. Don't play the put-upon conservative martyr and don't try to drag Clinton into this. This is much too serious. George W. Bush lied to start a war, then he fucked up the war. You sully yourself trying to defend this abomination. Wake up. Grow a conscience.

Pfft.

A whiney 'but Clinton...' is pretty much the final fallback position of any Righty (or someone for some reason defending the current 'administration') defending a hopeless position.

1600+ posts and you haven't noticed, yet?

-Joe, looking forward to many more years of mental contortions

[elucidator]

Not quite. You demand "fairness", which you apparently define as giving your position every concievable benefit of any doubt. When our leaders suggest the war will be a long hard slog, then clearly they are speaking with entire candor. When they suggest such things as "cakewalk" and "greeted as liberators", we are advised to treat such with bemusement. Similarly, when a military leader suggests something you find disagreeable, you advise us that he is speaking informally, an "off the cuff" remark to be batted aside. These are rhetorical devices, acceptable in polite company, but little more than that.

But this one:

...5) George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying....

simply won't wash. If GeeDubya was indulging himself in bit of political horseshit in support of a highway maintenance bill, that would be one thing. But he was talking about war. No other question carries as much gravity and demands the same level of candor. You may satisfy yourself that a strict definition of "liar" need not apply. But it still falls woefully short of the mark.

I've said before: I am reluctant to be led into war, but I'm damned if I'll stand for being bullshitted into war. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

[pervert]

You demand "fairness", which you apparently define as giving your position every concievable benefit of any doubt.I have never once defined fairness this way. You made that up.

When our leaders suggest the war will be a long hard slog, then clearly they are speaking with entire candor. When they suggest such things as "cakewalk" and "greeted as liberators", we are advised to treat such with bemusement.I have never addressed a situation when any of our leaders used the terms cakewalk or even the infamous "greeted as liberators". Thus I have never said we should treat them with bemusement.

Similarly, when a military leader suggests something you find disagreeable, you advise us that he is speaking informally, an "off the cuff" remark to be batted aside. These are rhetorical devices, acceptable in polite company, but little more than that.No, the rhetorical device is quoting Lindsey or Shinseki years after the fact as if thier numbers were detailed analyses of the situation and saying any criticism given them at the time proves malfesance of some sort. I merely pointed out that the comments were not as they were being characterized.

...5) George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying....
simply won't wash.[/QUOTE]I am quite aware of the arguments in favor of calling the claim of WMDs a lie. I agree that the subject matter is more important that lying about a blow job. I don't think you have ever heard me argue otherwise. And just for the record, I was not comparing Bush's lie to Clintons lie. I was comparing the rhetoric surrounding both. Clinton's supporters were correct that lying about a blow job is not really our business and not very important anyway. Bush's supporters are correct that Bush's statements may have been incorrect, but they were not lies. My only point is that by demonizing either side you reduce debate to incoherant babbling. You don't have to give either side a pass. but you do have to give both sides the benifit of the doubt. And you have to accept simpler explanations when they are offered.

You may satisfy yourself that a strict definition of "liar" need not apply. But it still falls woefully short of the mark.There seems to be some hope here. What did you mean by this. I did not apply a label to what George Bush did, so I'm not sure in what way my label could have fallen short.



Pfft.

A whiney 'but Clinton...' is pretty much the final fallback position of any Righty (or someone for some reason defending the current 'administration') defending a hopeless position. Again, just to underline the point. I was not drawing any parallels between Bush's prevarications and Clinton's. I was trying to draw a parallel between the rhetoric about them. Can you honestly read vibrotronica's post and tell me you have not heard the exact same sentiment from republicans about Clinton? Please do not lump me in with the rightys you seem to be familiar with. I am not one of them.

[vibrotronica]

My rhetoric is not empty and baseless. I'm calling a spade a spade. George Bush lied to start a war. Period. No amount of hand waving and equivocation will make it go away. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The facts have been examined in calm manner for two years. The debate is over. Here are the results of that examination: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Bush lied to start a war, and then he fucked up the war he lied to start. You want to call for a cite? Find me some nuclear weapons in Iraq.

I've been far too nice for too long on this issue. I've been civil in entertaining rediculous arguments and conspiracy theories from the war's supporters for too long. I don't know why this thread finally broke me, but it did.

...and on preview, I see elucidator has called you out on the issue of your point number 5. "He just said things that weren't true! That's not the same as lying!" Hogwash. How do you live with yourself?

[Latro]

I've been far too nice for too long on this issue. I've been civil in entertaining rediculous arguments and conspiracy theories from the war's supporters for too long. ...and <snippety>

Hogwash. How do you live with yourself?

Brava! Brava!

[pervert]

I've been far too nice for too long on this issue.
Assuming this to be true for a moment, can you point me to an example? I could not find one searching the first 2 pages of your recent posts.



Note the benifit of the doubt, elucidator?

[Loopydude]

vib - I've found the "Ignore" feature to be a wonderfully useful thing. There are a number of intelligent and informed conservatives in these forums who are capable of making very cogent, enlightening arguments, and I find sparring with them to be an edifying experience. They do piss me off sometimes, but in a good way. Fighting ignorance is certainly not about always hearing what you want to hear.

Then there's the idiots. Sparring with these idiots is a gigantic waste of time, as they do not seek spirited and thoughful debate, but rather to commit acts of dialectical vandalism as a means of disrupting the dissemination of information contrary to their world-view, or sometimes merely to be a nuisance. Inevitably, the conversation degenerates into brainlessly reflexive gainsaying, "yeah, but Clinton" deflections, refusal to acknowledge facts that disagree with ideological nonsense, or, most frustratingly, the use of "Cite!" as a means of rhetorical harassment and distraction, when cites are superfluous, or the information needed could easily be obtained through ubiquetous sources.

I can't use a certain word for fear of censure, but you know what I'm talking about. Again, the best course of action is to IGNORE. Engagement only encourages the vandalism and perpetuates it.

[Merijeek]

Then there's the idiots. Sparring with these idiots is a gigantic waste of time, as they do not seek spirited and thoughful debate, but rather to commit acts of dialectical vandalism as a means of disrupting the dissemination of information contrary to their world-view, or sometimes merely to be a nuisance. Inevitably, the conversation degenerates into brainlessly reflexive gainsaying, "yeah, but Clinton" deflections, refusal to acknowledge facts that disagree with ideological nonsense, or, most frustratingly, the use of "Cite!" as a means of rhetorical harassment and distraction, when cites are superfluous, or the information needed could easily be obtained through ubiquetous sources.

I can't use a certain word for fear of censure, but you know what I'm talking about. Again, the best course of action is to IGNORE. Engagement only encourages the vandalism and perpetuates it.

You're forgetting one little thing.

The use of "Cite!" isn't simply an inconvenience. It's something used to either get the other guy put forward effort in reponse to a five-character request.

Really, people like that aren't interested in facts, they're just trying for a war of attrition. I'm actually pretty amazed by (and feel pity for) the people who actually make the effort to provide those cites again and again.

Maybe it's optimism or something, but I can't see why they do it over and over again. It's not like they're actually going to change the minds of those people who are acting that way...

-Joe

[PatriotX]

He didn't technically lie. He was merely dishonest in a matter of lives and deaths?

[pervert]

He didn't technically lie. He was merely dishonest in a matter of lives and deaths?
Well, no, he was merely mistaken in a matter of lives and deaths.

[Merijeek]

Well, no, he was merely mistaken in a matter of lives and deaths.

Anyone else experience actual physical pain at this line?

-Joe

[Loopydude]

You're forgetting one little thing.

The use of "Cite!" isn't simply an inconvenience. It's something used to either get the other guy put forward effort in reponse to a five-character request.

Really, people like that aren't interested in facts, they're just trying for a war of attrition. I'm actually pretty amazed by (and feel pity for) the people who actually make the effort to provide those cites again and again.

Maybe it's optimism or something, but I can't see why they do it over and over again. It's not like they're actually going to change the minds of those people who are acting that way...

-Joe

Excellent point. Frankly, I'm going to start ignoring the "Cite!" bait from now on, too, unless I think it's absolutely warranted. Life's too short for this bullshit; we all really need to feel we have the right to tell the "Cite!"-nik piss off and look it up his/her pestering self, without thinking we've copped out on making a reasonable argument. Calling a spade a spade (substituting for another word) means sometimes you have to recognize a nuisance for who he or she is and shrug them off. I see far too many people here succumbing to their own good principles and throwing their pearls before the swine, when those pearls just wind up floating in a festering mess with the rest of the garbage some try to pass off as debate. It's nearly always a wasted effort, and those who that effort is bestowed upon don't deserve it.

[PatriotX]

Well, no, he was merely mistaken in a matter of lives and deaths.
Are you saying that the 'overplaying' of the intelligence was not intentional?

[elucidator]

Ooopsy! Soldiers go die-die! Ooooh, darn! Well, time to clear some brush!

[Squink]

Excellent point. Frankly, I'm going to start ignoring the "Cite!" bait from now on, too, unless I think it's absolutely warranted.Sure, why would anyone actually want to know about the evidence behind claims that a country is behaving illegally before deciding to bomb the hell out of them? It's so much easier to ignore inconvenient facts, and blunder on with bullshit. That's what got us into the last war, and here you stand, ready to do it again. Score one for the liars.

[pervert]

Are you saying that the 'overplaying' of the intelligence was not intentional?No, but it was not dishonest.

[pervert]

SimonX I am sort of replying with one liners to you because that is how you are replying to me. If you would really like to go into detail about whether or not the administration lied as opposed to was wrong we can. I don't want to reopen that can of worms unless you are sure.

vibrotronicaThe same goes for you. You stepped in here claiming that I was imorally ignoring evidence or something without examining or pointing to any of the evidence I was presenting. I chose to respond in kind. In that last post where I listed objections I was not trying to say that those items were truth beyond debate. If I recall correctly, you are the one who has claimed that debate is not warranted. All I was trying to do was show you how ignorant it is to make unsupported asserions of a volitile character.

For the rest of you, I did not bring Clinton into this debate. I have taken exception to those who have done this in the past. I would appreciate if you did not lump me in with them.

Ooopsy! Soldiers go die-die! Ooooh, darn! Well, time to clear some brush!Usually I get your jokes. I cannot understand this one. Unless you are making fun of someone for thinking that dead soldiers are not an important consideration. I know it spoils the joke to explain it, but was that it?

[vibrotronica]

I've been replying to you with one-liners because you have nothing of any substance to contribute. The "evidence you've been presenting" is crap. Your tactic is delay, hem and haw, wave your hands and pretend George W. Bush didn't lie to start a war and then proceed to fuck the war up. You aren't fighting ignorance, you're perpetuating it. And the reason you're perpetutating lies and ignorance is in order to try and prop up an immoral and failed leader because you think politics is like a football game. As long as your side wins, everything's great. There are real lives at stake, pervert. Real people are dying for these lies that you refuse to recognize and continue to defend. Take a step back. Look at yourself. You read what you've been posting. You ask yourself whether a country which could not launch a single airplane in its own defense was a threat to the United States. Seriously, do you believe what you've been saying? At what point does your rhetoric and equivocation end, pervert? How many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's a lie? How much longer do you have to go on defending these lies? When does shame kick in?

[pervert]

I've been replying to you with one-liners because you have nothing of any substance to contribute. The "evidence you've been presenting" is crap.I hate to break it to you, but this is not a refutation of my evidence. I'll cop to the plea that I have been teasing you. But before that, I was having a pretty good conversation with MMI, and Abe. Can you please point me to the post of yours where you presented a rational refutation or even examination of evidence? Third request and all.

Your tactic is delay, hem and haw, wave your hands and pretend George W. Bush didn't lie to start a war and then proceed to fuck the war up.I have no idea what a tactic of delay would accomplish on a message board. I'm not even sure what that means. And for the record, I am not really interested in proving the George Bush did not lie. I am primarily only interested in proving that the point is debatable.

You aren't fighting ignorance, you're perpetuating it.I feel differently.

And the reason you're perpetutating lies and ignorance is in order to try and prop up an immoral and failed leader because you think politics is like a football game.Not at all. I hate football. I do enjoy debating, however. Primarily becaust it allow me to learn things. For instance I have learned that you refuse to point to a single instance of anything even resembling an examination of evidence. Also, and on a more serious note, I learned in this very thread that quite a few intelligence organizations are not hopeful for the future of Iraq. What have you learned?

As long as your side wins, everything's great.I'm not even sure who you are arguing with here. I really don't think I have ever posted anyting resempling this. Is is possibly a strawman?

There are real lives at stake, pervert. Real people are dying for these lies that you refuse to recognize and continue to defend.Yes, they are. Thousands on 9-11 and hundreds more since then. The issue of what to do about it is so important the we should discuss it rather than yell at each other. It makes it easier to discuss if we respect each others right to an opinion.

Take a step back. Look at yourself. You read what you've been posting. You ask yourself whether a country which could not launch a single airplane in its own defense was a threat to the United States.No of course not. No country without a significant military industrial complex could have possible launced a large attack agains the United States. It is unthinkable. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you believe what you've been saying?Honestly, only some of it. Some of it has been simply rhetoric intended to get you and a few others to pony up with some good information. But yes I have made a good faith effort to debate some of the issues which have come up in this thread. If you really don't think I have, perhaps you could pit me. I have only been pitted once and could use another.

At what point does your rhetoric and equivocation end, pervert?At the point where yours does. Again, point me to a post of yours in which you examine the evidence in this thread and I will appologize.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's a lie? How much longer do you have to go on defending these lies? When does shame kick in?This is the crux of the problem, vibrotronica. You expect me to feel shame for expressing my opinion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion when that is your attitude? And if you no longer want a rational discussion, why are you here?

I tell you what. I'll agree to stop responding to you if you agree to stop sniping at me after your response to this post. Fair enough?









Have I made my point to you yet Abe?

[Abe]

Have I made my point to you yet Abe?

I don't believe so. Like a number of other posters have already indicated, I too am wondering whether it is worth the time to reply in good faith to this endless equivocation and apology, on top of which you added the argumentum ad hominem that I am biased for holding a point of view I have supported with abundant evidence when you have not shown my arguments or (respected) citations to be flawed in a concrete way.

I could appreciate your points far more if you weren't so highly selective in your responses, and if you didn't focus on a few select issues in an attempt to invalidate the much larger argument -- which you claim you are not necessarily contesting, then you say that you are. For example, the first time you directly addressed me, you merely asked whether I thought more manpower would have made a difference in the war and occupation, after I had just provided a couple of mega-posts citing respected analyses suggesting that it almost certainly would have (on top of which it is rather counter-intuitive to think otherwise). You then continued to equivocate from there, in essence starting a new debate on the same topic, apparently ignoring most of the materials provided and points argued up to that point, and dismissing several points with what appears to be obfuscation or spinning of the available materials.

However, I will reply if I have time, here and in the other thread where I think we are having a discussion, because you do have some good points -- I simply disagree with your apologetic and often shifting take on the matter, and what appears to be your willingness to excuse any and all displays of ineptitude and dishonesty on the part of the most suspect administration in decades. As I am preparing a rather important response for the Hong Kong government I am a bit tied down with some deadlines over the next few days, but given the chance I'll be back.

[Sevastopol]

I'm with Abe & vibotronica on this.

pervert, time to change your mission statement.

[MEBuckner]

vib - I've found the "Ignore" feature to be a wonderfully useful thing. There are a number of intelligent and informed conservatives in these forums who are capable of making very cogent, enlightening arguments, and I find sparring with them to be an edifying experience. They do piss me off sometimes, but in a good way. Fighting ignorance is certainly not about always hearing what you want to hear.

Then there's the idiots. Sparring with these idiots is a gigantic waste of time, as they do not seek spirited and thoughful debate, but rather to commit acts of dialectical vandalism as a means of disrupting the dissemination of information contrary to their world-view, or sometimes merely to be a nuisance. Inevitably, the conversation degenerates into brainlessly reflexive gainsaying, "yeah, but Clinton" deflections, refusal to acknowledge facts that disagree with ideological nonsense, or, most frustratingly, the use of "Cite!" as a means of rhetorical harassment and distraction, when cites are superfluous, or the information needed could easily be obtained through ubiquetous sources.

I can't use a certain word for fear of censure, but you know what I'm talking about. Again, the best course of action is to IGNORE. Engagement only encourages the vandalism and perpetuates it.
Moderator's Note: Loopydude, QUIT TALKING ABOUT YOUR IGNORE LIST!

[Loopydude]

Moderator's Note: Loopydude, QUIT TALKING ABOUT YOUR IGNORE LIST!

Got it. This post was made prior to reading your warning. It won't happen again, and I'm very sorry. I didn't realise until your warning that this was a prohibited activity.

[David Simmons]

Are you saying that the 'overplaying' of the intelligence was not intentional?

No, but it was not dishonest.

Doesn't this response get the point across that you guys are shoveling sand upstream?

It seems to me that honesty would have compelled GE, Rummy et al to say something to the effect that they preferred to err on the side of what they considered the safe course of action even though the intelligence information contained a lot of caveats allowing interpretations that didn't require war.

Omitting the caveats, in my view, is lying by omission. There is even an expression for it - half truth - and in so vital a matter as going to war I think it is indefensible. I think that ttere was no imminent threat requiring immediate war. The UN weapons inspectors were in the country and looking hard and not finding anything. There negative results have been amply proven. Saddam had no ties with 9/11 as the Commission said and all the other justifications used by GW have been shown to have as much substance as one of his oil ventures.

[Loopydude]

When you couple the highly suspicious and evidentially discredited pretense for the war with the fact that regime change in Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html) has been an explicit goal of the neoconservative movement, how is it still that the burden should be on Bush's adversaries to further prove he was lying? Aren't we far past the point where mendacity is the most plausible explanation, and the onus should now on BushCo to provide compelling evidence to the contrary? And yet they staunchly refuse! Every time the point is made, they lamely excuse themselves with little more than "Saddam was bad, so it's OK anyway." This is not sufficient justification for starting a full-blown war and killing tens of thousands of people (many of them American soldiers).

[David Simmons]

When you couple the highly suspicious and evidentially discredited pretense for the war with the fact that regime change in Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html) has been an explicit goal of the neoconservative movement, how is it still that the burden should be on Bush's adversaries to further prove he was lying?

How about the colossal flip-flop from GW's campaign statements that he wasn't into "nation building" followed by his Iraq war justification-du-jour of getting rid of Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq and by extension the middle east?

The intelligence report has sort of disappeared from the news and this thread. I can't see how any war supporter can consider the report as anything but an indictment of the conduct of the war. As with GW's projects in general throughout his life, the war today is characterised by spur of the moment spasms showing little advance examination of their possible side effects and rosy assessments followed by Pollyanaesque projections of future events.

[PatriotX]

SimonX I am sort of replying with one liners to you because that is how you are replying to me. If you would really like to go into detail about whether or not the administration lied as opposed to was wrong we can. I don't want to reopen that can of worms unless you are sure. I'm not at all offended. This is a very, very specific point. I'm not sure it needs pages of dialogue at a time to be discussed.

You're saying that Team Bush intentionally 'overplayed' the intel in an honest way?


AFAICT, overplay is a synonym for stretching the truth. You seem to be making the case that Team Bush stretched the truth honestly (whatever that means).
I am curious about how 'overplay' differs from 'exaggerate'.

Would you agree with this formulation?
Team Bush intentionally presented a case that was something other than forthright in a matter of lives and deaths?

[PatriotX]

The intelligence report has sort of disappeared from the news and this thread.
This NIE (like the one that was used to justify the invasion) was just a guess.

[David Simmons]

This NIE (like the one that was used to justify the invasion) was just a guess.

Actually I think GW and Rummy cherry picked the intelligence reports, omitting the cons and inflating the pros. Of course that can't really be called dishonest.;)

Intelligence output resembles a horoscope or the output of a fortune teller in some ways. You can read almost anything you want to into it. Everything that is reported to the intelligence gatherers is stated with an assessment of its reliability. The use that is made of the report is quite dependent upon the biases of the user.

[pervert]

I'm not at all offended. This is a very, very specific point. I'm not sure it needs pages of dialogue at a time to be discussed.Fair enough.

You're saying that Team Bush intentionally 'overplayed' the intel in an honest way?Sort of. I'm not sure "over"played is the right word, but its close. What I was refering to was the fact that they clearly did not include the intelligence caveats in thier political rhetoric. If I am not mistaken, several of the intelligence reports that went to Congress did contain those caveats. Some of them were even made public at the time. Am I misremembering this part?

The point I'm trying to make is that when the intelligence says "We cannot be sure, but the most likely scenario is that Saddam has WMD." The Bush administration would make public statements like "We are confident that Saddam has WMD." And even more forceful statements to that effect. I agree this can be characterized as over emphasizing the negative while underemphasizing the positive. Clearly it was done for political reasons. But is this really the same as a dishonest coverup? Or the creation of facts from nowhere?

AFAICT, overplay is a synonym for stretching the truth. You seem to be making the case that Team Bush stretched the truth honestly (whatever that means).No. I'm not.

I am curious about how 'overplay' differs from 'exaggerate'. It differs in degrees. To exaggerate is to "to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth" to overplay is to "exaggerate one's acting". One can overplay a part without going beyond the bounds of truth.

Let me see if an example would make this clearer. If the administration had said "Saddam has ICBMs poised and ready to strike the continental United States." That would have been a lie. Instead they said things like "Saddam has or will have WMD and may give them to terrorist organizations willing to use them to attack Americans." The first is beyond all bounds. The second may be an exaggeration, perhaps IYO a dishonest exaggeration. However, there is a point to be made that the two are qualitatively different. A point which gets lost with rhetoric like "Bush led us to war with lies."

Would you agree with this formulation?
Team Bush intentionally presented a case that was something other than forthright in a matter of lives and deaths?No. I think thier position was pretty forthright. It was, however, incorrect. My dictionary show forthright as "characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion " I never found the administration to be very evasive and certainly not indirect. They tried to make the case that Saddam was a danger pretty forcefully. Wasn't one of the earlier complaints that their rhetoric lacked sublety?

Perhaps this "The Bush administration intentionally presented a case that turned out to be inaccurate in a matter of lives and deaths. They did so in a way which was intended to portray more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence." How's that?

[vibrotronica]

The question "do you have no shame, pervert?" was just answered by your last post. The answer is no. You have thrown your lot in with the liars.

[pervert]

I don't believe so.I meant about the vitriol. Not about the other issues. I am not vain enought to think I have proved any of them beyond all doubt.

Like a number of other posters have already indicated, I too am wondering whether it is worth the time to reply in good faith to this endless equivocation and apology, on top of which you added the argumentum ad hominem that I am biased for holding a point of view I have supported with abundant evidence when you have not shown my arguments or (respected) citations to be flawed in a concrete way.I have to appologize to you. Could you please point out to me where I did this? Also the post in which you gave evidence? Are you talking about another thread? We have been discussing similar issues accross a couple threads now, and I may have missed something. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I did go back and read this thread, and I can't see what you are refering to. I probably just missed it.

For example,[...]Assuming you are talking about the other thread, (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are both correct and incorrect. It seems I did miss several large posts by yourself with evidence relevant to the question I asked. However, the question had to do with popular vs governmental support in MENA for America. I appologize for missing your earlier posts. I stayed out of that thread for some time. I only posted to ask that question because you and SimonX seemd to have quite a bit of info about it. I should have read your earlier posts more carefully. The discussion that errupted between me and SimonX included a question about troop levels, but it was mostly about other things.

[PatriotX]

Sort of. I'm not sure "over"played is the right word, but its close. What I was refering to was the fact that they clearly did not include the intelligence caveats in thier political rhetoric. More than just did not include, they made statements directly contradictory to the existence of such caveats ('without a doubt' etc).

If I am not mistaken, several of the intelligence reports that went to Congress did contain those caveats. Some of them were even made public at the time. Am I misremembering this part? What went to Congress and what was made public are not necessarily the same things as what Team Bush presented (esp what they presented to the electorate).

The point I'm trying to make is that when the intelligence says "We cannot be sure, but the most likely scenario is that Saddam has WMD." The Bush administration would make public statements like "We are confident that Saddam has WMD." And even more forceful statements to that effect. I agree this can be characterized as over emphasizing the negative while underemphasizing the positive. Clearly it was done for political reasons. But is this really the same as a dishonest coverup? Or the creation of facts from nowhere? The real question is, "Is it being honest?" Is it honest to deny the existence of caveats?


It differs in degrees. To exaggerate is to "to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth" to overplay is to "exaggerate one's acting". One can overplay a part without going beyond the bounds of truth. The NIE had caveats and Team Bush presented 'without a doubt' but that's not an exaggeration?

Let's try these in the original sentence.

George Bush may have overplayed intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.

George Bush may have enlarged the intel beyond the bounds of the truth for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.

George Bush may have exaggerated his acting {of(?)/in(?)/for(?)} the intelligence for political purposes. That is not the same thing as lying.

I'm not sure how to fit the meaning of overplay that applies to c-grade actors and stage plays into the sentence. Obviously, you've chosen the meaning of overplay that refers to roles, but instead of a role, we're discussing intel.

No. I think thier position was pretty forthright. As you chose the meaning of overplay that you were using, allow me to specify the meaning of forthright that I was using. I was using it as a synonym of candid and honest.

As in, "Team Bush intentionally presented a case that was something other than candid and honest in a matter of lives and deaths?"

Clearly they intentionally and blatantly denied the validity of caveats.

"They did so in a way which was intended to portray more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence."
How 'bout
"They did so in a way which was intended to engender more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence."

I mean, in this instance what else does 'for political purposes' mean other than 'in an attempt to persuade'?

[pervert]

SimonX I'm sorry, but I don't want to defend the details of that post I made listing various perversions of vibrotronica's assertiions. They were intended more as an example of the opposite to her assertions rather than a rigorous statement of my positions. As such, I used the word overplayed when another would have been better. I really meant it as the opposite of downplay rather than anything else.

In that vein, let me concentrate one part of your last post. If you would like to go over any of the other issues, we can but I would like the chance to reword some of them.

More than just did not include, they made statements directly contradictory to the existence of such caveats ('without a doubt' etc).

Clearly they intentionally and blatantly denied the validity of caveats.

Allow me to cite the statements. I know you've seen them. But I wanted to refresh my memory.

Bush on the eve of war March 17 2003. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html) "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

Rumsfeld the previous August. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

So, "leaves no doubt" and "there is no doubt" made in public speeches to you means that there are no caveats or provisos in the intelligence reports used to make this assesment. Correct? Your sure they are not merely rhetorical devices intended to emphasise the point the speaker is making? Or are you saying that without the inclusion of "nods" to the caveats something less than honest is being done?

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not trying to convince you that Bush spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am only interested in dispelling the idea that those who believe the president acted in good faith, and perhaps more importantly, those who are not sure are not necessarily dishonest themselves simply because of thier doubts.

[pervert]

I meant to add this.

How 'bout
"They did so in a way which was intended to engender more confidence in their evidence than was warranted by that evidence."

I mean, in this instance what else does 'for political purposes' mean other than 'in an attempt to persuade'?
I can agree with that. I think portray is a better word because it conotates the communication of thier own beliefs. Engender implies an attempt to create the belief in others, but it might also imply that the belief did not exist inside the administration. Your not ready to defend that part are you?

[PatriotX]

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not trying to convince you that Bush spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am only interested in dispelling the idea that those who believe the president acted in good faith, and perhaps more importantly, those who are not sure are not necessarily dishonest themselves simply because of thier doubts.
After I reread it once or twice I think I got it. You're saying that in good faith, someone could conclude that Team Bush was acting in good faith? And that in good faith someone could have doubts about the idea that TB didn't act act in good faith?
If this is so, then I have to say that I agree with you. I've yet to see any reason to doubt whether any American I come into contact with wants anything but the best for our country. That desire's pretty much just a given, IMHO.
That people've been so moved as to've acted out of character (this may exclude Ms Coulter) is merely a sign of a passion for American Liberty. Though, such outbursts are still unfortunate. Sometimes, in some people, passion may crowd out the imagination necessary to see how some one else could actually, really and truly see things differently than they do. I can see how one could be tempted to assume that these other people 'know better' and were just pretending and acting otherwise for ulterior motives.
Anyway, I'm not convinced you're any more dishonest than myself (whatever that means).

I can agree with that. I think portray is a better word because it conotates the communication of thier own beliefs. It just begs for the question, "Why'd they choose to portray it that way?"

Engender implies an attempt to create the belief in others, but it might also imply that the belief did not exist inside the administration. Your not ready to defend that part are you? I'm not sure that engender really has any bearing or has anything to say about the beliefs of the engenderer.

Plain and simple they oversold the threat to the US from Iraq.
As far as we could tell Iraq was drawing a line short of attacking the US. And, Iraq was unlikely to iniate an attack on the US with banned weapons (directly or by proxy). These very salient points are not only conspicuously absent from the case made by TB, but are also variously contradicted.

Team Bush repeatedly used 'pre-emption'. Pre-emption means an attack in th eface of an imminent threat. Preventive war is the kind of war against a threat that has yet to become imminent. This was intentional. GWB himself said of Hussein, "He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." When asked point blank, our SECDEF maintained that although he knew the terms were distinct, he didn't know the difference between 'em.

Justifying these direct and implied claims of urgency, they 'adapted' the concept of 'imminent threat'. {GOP lackeys even asked me to write letters encouraging Congress to back Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. I wrote back suggesting that as preemption has been widely accepted as a legit casus belli for centuries there's no need for a special letter writing campaign.}

All of the various inaccuracies, mis-statements and (as Mr McClellan said) "imprecise" statements etc. demonstrate an intentional, concerted effort to create a stronger case than what was warranted. Regardless of what they believed, whether or not these people believed they were justified in making such a case is pert near only relevant to distinguishing between perfidy and mendacity. If they didn't realize that the case they were making was stronger than what was justified by the evidence, then they are incompetent.

[Rashak Mani]

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not trying to convince you that Bush spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am only interested in dispelling the idea that those who believe the president acted in good faith, and perhaps more importantly, those who are not sure are not necessarily dishonest themselves simply because of thier doubts.

Good point... very true.

Still the "people" are cutting Bush a lot of slack. After all there were no WMD, no flowers and no easy liberation. Even if he did an "honest" good faith mistake... his judgement should be challenged. His ability to actually take in opposing views is certainly questionable. The costs in military and financial terms of Iraq were badly underestimated too. Finally the fact that he keeps saying its good despite everything.

At some moment it should dawn that politics and money are being given more importance than security and military issues. That the focus isn't given into efforts that really matter. I'm not talking about the population as a whole... but a few percentage points would be neat.

[Spavined Gelding]

Still the "people" are cutting Bush a lot of slack.
It has been said before and bears repeating, there is a fair argument that a significant portion of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, health policy, faith-based policy and nearly every other policy you can think of has been based on wishful thinking, posturing and disregard of inconvenient facts. I just don’t understand how people can have so much emotional investment in this administration that they continue, like the indulgent parent of an irresponsible child, to cut him so much slack.

[Rashak Mani]

It has been said before and bears repeating, there is a fair argument that a significant portion of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, health policy, faith-based policy and nearly every other policy you can think of has been based on wishful thinking, posturing and disregard of inconvenient facts. I just don’t understand how people can have so much emotional investment in this administration that they continue, like the indulgent parent of an irresponsible child, to cut him so much slack.

That is why I admire the american economic and political systems... they work despite Bush ! Now how much more they can take is another problem.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Any in other news, Colin Powell doesn't subscribe to the administration's rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52400-2004Sep26.html). He also peed in Rumsfeld's Cheerios:

He acknowledged that "yes, it's getting worse, and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the elections."

But he rejected the notion, put forward recently by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, that it would be sufficient to hold elections in most, but not all, of Iraq.



When asked about the intelligence report (remember the OP?), he suggested that he probably would have written it the same way:

Powell, on Fox News, said the CIA report "wasn't a terribly shocking assessment. It was something that I could have written myself."

[Squink]

The Iraqi census, which was supposed to pave the way for free and democratic elections this January, has been scrapped: The Iraqi census planned for October 12th prior to the election in January has been canceled. A top executive governmental official declared: "The census was postponed to an undetermined date, which is quite disappointing. If a state cannot conduct a census, how will it conduct the election?"
The main reason for the cancellation is suspected to be lack of security although no reason was given in the announcement. Iraq's temporary government reported that the census would be the basis for the elections in January of 2005. No Iraqi Census- Fate of Elections and Kirkuk Unknown (http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=12889)
(For those who don't believe the Turkish press, the same information is buried in this Reuters article: Rumsfeld Arrives in Iraq (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=600236&section=news))

The UN said we needed this census before there could be elections. The lack of new census data was the excuse we used to blow off last year's French insistance on early elections. Now we're stuck with the worst of both worlds; no census, late elections.
It'll take a miracle to convince anyone in Iraq that the coming elections are anything but a sham. That makes the CIA's grim projections of a failed state and civil war more likely than ever.

[PatriotX]

Damn!

I was really hoping that the elections could somehow be pulled off. IIRC, al Sistani is pretty adamant about the elections. Also IIRC, there was a oush for a census and local elections earlier this year that was stifled by the CPA.

If al Sistani decides to openly oppose the Interim Gov/US then things could get even more ugly.
Not good. Not good.