Iraq General Thread

[kapkomet]

I read a bunch of stuff on this today, mostly by right wing bloggers. A lot of it seem's to be conspiracy theory type stuff. I think if there were even a remote chance that Iraq sent there WMD's to Syria, George Bush would be talking about it and trying to use it to back the war in Iraq and even invade Syria.

No he wouldn't. Quit reading your "left wing blogs" to get the "facts" on George W. Bush's policies. There are so many reasons for things that most of us are not even aware of.

 

 

[GoSox05]

No he wouldn't. Quit reading your "left wing blogs" to get the "facts" on George W. Bush's policies. There are so many reasons for things that most of us are not even aware of.

 

 

What should I be reading to get the facts on George Bush's glorious policies? Maybe I should watch more Fox News or maybe Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

[Rex Kickass]

If you are being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are George W. Bush - why would you not believe it?

 

So, again, the data/intelligence all pointed to these issues. Everyone was being fed the same lines of what turned out to be bulls***. Now, having said that, at one time, Saddam had this technology, or the means to make it. That's always conveniently never brought up.

 

Now, next, re: my first sentance, you're going to tell me that it was GWB (or his administration) that was forcing people to lie about this stuff. I absolutely don't think that's true. The intelligence supported it. Period. Once we got in there, our intelligence was proven to be junk, although I still say most of this is sitting in Syria today.

 

I'm not saying the GWB was forcing people to lie about this stuff. I am saying that there was a lot of intelligence about this stuff. Some intelligence supported what the administration claimed. Some did not. In fact, it was far from an abundance of intelligence - it wasn't even really a consensus we know now. What I'm saying is that the administration cherry picked what intelligence was presented to Congress and it did not present opposing viewpoints that might question the validity of the stronger intelligence.

 

Saddam had the technology, true. We gave a lot of it to him. We also destroyed and dismantled it. He never restarted his programs seriously after GW1. He created the appearance of doing so... because the appearance of doing so, had been a more effective weapon after 1991 than the actual weapons themselves.

[BigSqwert]

I may have to go see this.

 

http://tinyurl.com/2sj5c4

 

 

The trailer is worth taking a peak at also.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Rex Kickass]

Anyone remember "Let's wait til September and hear what General Petraeus has to say about the Surge?" Turns out he'll be reading from a script written for him.

 

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

 

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

 

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

 

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

 

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "

[EvilMonkey]

Anyone remember "Let's wait til September and hear what General Petraeus has to say about the Surge?" Turns out he'll be reading from a script written for him.

Who are these 'officials'? Can they name someone, or are they making it up?

[kapkomet]

Two things:

 

Seeing as how the military is controlled by the executive branch, why is this a surprise? But then again, you all want to say that the "good news" is a lie anyway... this is nothing but trying to spin anything positive into a negative before it even happens.

 

And two, even the left is saying that there is "signficant progress" on the ground over there. Again, this is spin to nullify any "good news".

 

Let's face it. If we get favorable results, the Democratic party loses. And also, as usual, the economy has to go in the s***ter for the Democrats to win - hence the seizing of the housing market - OH OH OH OH OH we NEED A gov't BAILOUT! It all goes back to the need to bail out stupid people who *GASP* didn't know their rates were going to go UP!

 

Please.

[BigSqwert]

Two things:

 

Seeing as how the military is controlled by the executive branch, why is this a surprise? But then again, you all want to say that the "good news" is a lie anyway... this is nothing but trying to spin anything positive into a negative before it even happens.

 

And two, even the left is saying that there is "signficant progress" on the ground over there. Again, this is spin to nullify any "good news".

 

Let's face it. If we get favorable results, the Democratic party loses. And also, as usual, the economy has to go in the s***ter for the Democrats to win - hence the seizing of the housing market - OH OH OH OH OH we NEED A gov't BAILOUT! It all goes back to the need to bail out stupid people who *GASP* didn't know their rates were going to go UP!

 

Please.

Please Kap. When you keep reading stories like this (LINK) is there really any true progress? Lets face it, the country of Iraq is in chaos. They barely have running water and electricity. Garbage is rarely picked up. We are decades away from having that country remotely resemble a modern day western democracy.

Edited August 15, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

You can't clean it up when it's not secure. And by all accounts, it's becoming more and more secure. It's up to them to do what they will with it.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You can't clean it up when it's not secure. And by all accounts, it's becoming more and more secure. It's up to them to do what they will with it.

By all accounts? I have seen no accounts saying its more secure. IN fact, every story I've read says its pretty much the same old story. Can you provide some "accounts" saying that it is somehow safer or more secure?

 

[Balta1701]

By all accounts? I have seen no accounts saying its more secure. IN fact, every story I've read says its pretty much the same old story. Can you provide some "accounts" saying that it is somehow safer or more secure?

Money says we're about to see a link to the Pollack/O'Hanlon piece.

[NorthSideSox72]

Money says we're about to see a link to the Pollack/O'Hanlon piece.

I'm not sure I've seen that. But I'd like to (unless Pollack and O'Hanlan are just Bushie hacks).

 

[StrangeSox]

Billy Krystal was just there and he said that things are getting better!

[NorthSideSox72]

Billy Krystal was just there and he said that things are getting better!

Who? Is that the guy who started the southern version of White Castle or something?

 

[StrangeSox]

Who? Is that the guy who started the southern version of White Castle or something?

 

I butchered his name: Bill Kristol, editor of the "weekly standard." Very conservative. He was on the Daily Show the other day and said things were better (still not anywhere near good).

[Rex Kickass]

On NPR last week, a Republican senatory said that Petraeus said that they have "tactical momentum."

 

Military victories are great, but that's not going to signify a real victory in this theater. A stable government will. Iraq, sadly, has no real working government. Honestly, we need better focus on political objectives in Iraq. Without it, we have lost - no matter if our military wins.

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure I've seen that. But I'd like to (unless Pollack and O'Hanlan are just Bushie hacks).

It was an NYT piece a week or so ago that got heavy publicity in the media where 2 Brookings institute guys spent 7 days in Iraq and came back & started saying everything was great, and naturally Brookings is the only well known left leaning think tank so therefore they must have been war critics. Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com absolutely demolished it here.

[BigSqwert]

Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com absolutely demolished it here.

Good read. Thanks for the link.

[kapkomet]

Money says we're about to see a link to the Pollack/O'Hanlon piece.

Look at Nuke's pieces... can you get any more first hand then that?

 

[kapkomet]

On NPR last week, a Republican senatory said that Petraeus said that they have "tactical momentum."

 

Military victories are great, but that's not going to signify a real victory in this theater. A stable government will. Iraq, sadly, has no real working government. Honestly, we need better focus on political objectives in Iraq. Without it, we have lost - no matter if our military wins.

And that is the issue... all we can do is provide the platform - THEY have to do it.

[kapkomet]

By all accounts? I have seen no accounts saying its more secure. IN fact, every story I've read says its pretty much the same old story. Can you provide some "accounts" saying that it is somehow safer or more secure?

There's been NY Times pieces about things "getting better" on the ground.

 

If the NYT reports it, it must be true. Come on now!

 

[Balta1701]

And that is the issue... all we can do is provide the platform - THEY have to do it.

But look, even if I were to accept the claim that the military situation was improving (I don't, and could spend time backing that claim up if I had the time), what in the world even suggests that the political situation is even close to improving? The Shi'ite groups in the south are basically already starting up a civil war in anticipation of the British leaving. Half of Mailiki's cabinet and a huge chunk of parliament are boycotting the government. The U.S. had to stretch more than an olympic gymnast just to try to say their govenrment was meeting a few of its benchmarks. Reconstruction continues to go backwards, not forwards. More and more of the country's infrastructure is being blown up (they had another MInnesota yesterday) and their power grid is on the verge of collapse. The U.S. is no longer saying it has confidence in the Maliki government. And when Maliki took a visit to Iran a few days ago, the U.S. used that as an opportunity to do an end-run aorund him and bomb Sadr city.

 

There has not been any political progress at all in the last few months, or even really in the past few years. The situation is simply becoming more factionalized as each group prepares for the inevitable civil war. Even if the military situation was making progress, the political situation, which so many people seem to agree is more important, is simply getting worse.

[NorthSideSox72]

Look at Nuke's pieces... can you get any more first hand then that?

I do take his pieces into account, along with a couple other people I know who spend time over there (one military, one journalist). And I guess I don't see Nuke's saying that one sector is quieter, at night, to be much of an indication. Especially when the other two say it hasn't changed.

 

I want to read that NYT piece you are all referring to, and the salon.com follow up, and see what it says.

 

I'd also be curious to see what the civilian death rates have been doing the last couple months. I haven't seen those numbers lately.

[Balta1701]

I do take his pieces into account, along with a couple other people I know who spend time over there (one military, one journalist). And I guess I don't see Nuke's saying that one sector is quieter, at night, to be much of an indication. Especially when the other two say it hasn't changed.

 

I want to read that NYT piece you are all referring to, and the salon.com follow up, and see what it says.

 

I'd also be curious to see what the civilian death rates have been doing the last couple months. I haven't seen those numbers lately.

Yahoo for the official version

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the country's brutal civil conflict rose by more than a third in July despite a five-month-old surge in US troop levels, government figures showed Wednesday.

 

At least 1,652 civilians were killed in Iraq in July, 33 percent more than in the previous month, according to figures compiled by the Iraqi health, defence and interior ministries and made available to AFP.

McClatchey for the usually more correct challenge of the official version:

And while top U.S. officials insist that 50 percent of the capital is now under effective U.S. or government control, compared with 8 percent in February, statistics indicate that the improvement in violence is at best mixed.

 

U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim. The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yahoo for the official version

McClatchey for the usually more correct challenge of the official version:

Ech. Doesn't sound any better to me.