Bush line on Iraq questioned

[segovius]

Reuters (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5240190)

Last week Bush made some unequivocal statements about the Iraq situation on the occasion of the visit of ex_Saddam henchman and alleged executioner Allawi. According to Reuters, Pentagon and Congressional staff have noticed that the facts are (once again) wildly at variance.

Just one example from a very interesting article:

Bush claim: "100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are
already at work"

Fact: only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before levels reach Bush's claim.

The article also discusses the shambles that is the upcoming electoral preparations.

The status of election planning in Iraq is also in question. Of the $232 million in Iraqi funds set aside for the Iraqi electoral commission, it has received a mere $7 million, according to House Appropriations Committee staff.

The schedule is already way behind and the bulk of it has been pencilled in to be achieved during Ramadan. Do they know what they are doing at all ?

Ramadan in the ME is a time when virtually nothing can be done in peacetime - this year will undoubtedly see a major escalation in hostilities.

They aren't going to make it. This is why they let Rummy off the leash to float the idea of the elections being minimised or postponed. Either that or they never intended to have them - which is what the insurgents will claim (to great advantage) if they don't go ahead.

Bush is losing the WOT on the ground and now he's losing the psychological/propaganda war too. It's not that the 'terrorists' have a penetrating insight into western psychology - it's just that this admin fumbles every play. They can't win and the insurgents can't lose.

[tonton]

This is the funniest quote from that article:

The White House defended its figures, and a senior administration official defined "fully trained" as having gone through "initial basic operations training." :lol:

How can anyone take these guys seriously? I mean really. They just lie through their teeth and then "clarify" by redefining well-known terms like "fully".

"Are the nurses in your hospital fully trained?"
"yes"
"Did they go through Nursing School?"
"no"
"What? Then how can they be 'fully trained' nurses?"
"They took High School biology."

Thanks for that clarification. :rolleyes:

The sad thing though is that they say all these things with a straight face. And Americans keep swallowing the bullshit. And the ones who make up these logical gems actually appear to be swallowing their own shit.

[segovius]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It may in fact turn out an accurate quote!

The White House may only intend to "fully train" Iraqis on that "initial basic" level. So there you have it.

Actually not in this case:

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralised training to date, despite earlier claims they had.....

[Gilsch]

It's one lie after another with these guys. The Reps seem to think people are idiots that won't get the real information on their own. That and the ridiculously bad job the so-called "Liberal media" does of presenting actual facts makes for a pretty ill-informed populace. It's working thus far though. :???:

Last week on Crossfire they had a Rep. called Rohrabacher(?) from California. The guy blamed the media for basically "over-reporting" on Iraq. With the huge grin and in between giggles he said:But American media just is focusing on, yes, there's a car bomb today. There's a -- somebody killed over here or somebody get their head cut off over here. It was sad to watch. Then he said: They have one or two incidents a day. One or two incidents a day. Not even attacks, but incidents. :no:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Gilsch
The Reps seem to think people are idiots that won't get the real information on their own. That and the ridiculously bad job the so-called "Liberal media" does of presenting actual facts makes for a pretty ill-informed populace. It's working thus far though. :???:

You better believe this is EXACTLY what the Republicans are banking on. They KNOW that the sleepwalking majority only knows two things, Iraq is responsible for 9/11 and John Kerry is a flip flopper.

George Bush will win all three debates. Mainly because he'll really only say two things, over and over again:

1. "The American people are safer."

2. " 9/11"

John Kerry, however, will fail because he will articulate in great detail his position on the issues. Sad, but true.

[Towel]

Originally posted by Gilsch
. Then he said: One or two incidents a day. Not even attacks, but incidents. :no: One or two incidents a day. Mmm-hmm. Or, say, eighty-seven (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/09/05/us_assault_likely_before_jan_elections/) . That's right, an average of 87 attacks per day during the month of August, the most since we won the war back in May 2003. Talk about through the looking glass. Do these guys really inhabit the same universe as us, or do they just assume we're all idiots?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Towel
One or two incidents a day. Mmm-hmm. Or, say, eighty-seven (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/09/05/us_assault_likely_before_jan_elections/) . That's right, an average of 87 attacks per day during the month of August, the most since we won the war back in May 2003. Talk about through the looking glass. Do these guys really inhabit the same universe as us, or do they just assume we're all idiots?

I've been wondering the same thing for months...:no:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Towel
One or two incidents a day. Mmm-hmm. Or, say, eighty-seven (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/09/05/us_assault_likely_before_jan_elections/) . That's right, an average of 87 attacks per day during the month of August, the most since we won the war back in May 2003. Talk about through the looking glass. Do these guys really inhabit the same universe as us, or do they just assume we're all idiots?

I read an interesting article a while back - unfortunately I can't remember where - but basically the gist was that historically there are (generally) two kinds of leader: one type that identifies problems and attempts to fix them - this is the bedrock of their politics, they stand or fall by how successful they are at fixing the problems they address. Churchill was of this type - he states a problem exactly as it is in bald terms (I have nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears....) and then takes responsibility for his actions in relation to it. This type are the great leaders if they succeed.

The second type don't even got here - too risky, after all they may fail. This type just repeat what they want to be the truth over and over and over till people believe it. These types are not Statesman but essential 'magical thinkers' - they actually believe that if they say something it makes it true. Often they justify this with recourse to God in some way.

Of course they usually back it up with a little totalitarianism and weight the dice a bit with sundry removals of people's rights. Hitler was obviously of this type and so, according to the article, are Bush and Blair- although of course Hitler was a lot more sophisticated in his mechanisms of control and had some personal charisma to build on which is lacking in Bush/Blair's case. To balance it though they have a wider and more effective mass media so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

[Northgate]

Powell Alienates Key Ally Allawi, Calls Him Liar

Powell says Iraq is "getting worse" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=1&u=/chitribts/20040927/ts_chicagotrib/powelliraqisgettingworse).

How can we have an administration that contradicts the statements of key allies? It's so irresponsible. [Using Cheney logic, that is.]

[jimmac]

Here's what Edward Kennedy has to say about Iraq. For my money it pretty much sums things up :


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/kennedy.iraq.ap/index.html