Iraq Report

[Lurch]

A new report was just leaked that is surprisingly critical of my main man.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016743/

Some interesting tidbits on the Iraq situation:

[QUOTE]At worst, the official said, were “trend lines that would point to a civil war.” The official said it “would be fair” to call the document “pessimistic.”[QUOTE]

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.

“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the ’dancing in the street crowd,’ that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,” Lugar said. “The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

[Cowperson]

“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the ’dancing in the street crowd,’ that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,” Lugar said. “The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

The same ideology that cut through the UN crap and got the conflict done, rightly or wrongly, is also the same ideology that assumed flowers would be tossed in the streets in jubilation and therefore inadequately planned for the opposite.

Only Ann Coulter is out there saying the post-war management of the situation has been effective. Even Bush concedes "miscalculations."

A terrific, reasoned, column at Newsweek by Middle East expert Fareed Zacharia on the potential of a civil war in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973045/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 16 2004, 02:37 PM
“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the ’dancing in the street crowd,’ that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,” Lugar said. “The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

The same ideology that cut through the UN crap and got the conflict done, rightly or wrongly, is also the same ideology that assumed flowers would be tossed in the streets in jubilation and therefore inadequately planned for the opposite.

Only Ann Coulter is out there saying the post-war management of the situation has been effective. Even Bush concedes "miscalculations."

A terrific, reasoned, column at Newsweek by Middle East expert Fareed Zacharia on the potential of a civil war in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973045/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

So in other words unraveling? :P

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On+Sep 16 2004, 02:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Sep 16 2004, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 16 2004, 02:37 PM
“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the ’dancing in the street crowd,’ that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,” Lugar said. “The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

The same ideology that cut through the UN crap and got the conflict done, rightly or wrongly, is also the same ideology that assumed flowers would be tossed in the streets in jubilation and therefore inadequately planned for the opposite.

Only Ann Coulter is out there saying the post-war management of the situation has been effective. Even Bush concedes "miscalculations."

A terrific, reasoned, column at Newsweek by Middle East expert Fareed Zacharia on the potential of a civil war in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973045/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

So in other words unraveling? :P [/b][/quote]
As Zacharia notes, it could go that way or it could go another way but it ain't a bed of roses.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

In reading my thread title, it is a little disturbing what some on this board might infer. It does not mean I hope the situation unravels into civil war - rather, I hope Bush's image of a competent, decisive leader unravels as more and more people point out that he screwed the pooch in a huge way in Iraq. I think the most important quotes in the article are the critical ones from ranking Republicans that the war planning was pitiful, short-sighted and ineffective. In a perfect world, the Iraq situation will be resolved very shortly, regardless of who wins the election.

As for the Newsweek article, is your implication that the report asked for by Bush and prepared by the US government is not credible? BTW, I recognize the irony from both sides of the fence of saying this report is not credible. Finally, I love the phrase in Cow's response: "Got the conflict done". It sounds like a contract negotiation, very a propos at this time!!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 16 2004, 02:57 PM
In reading my thread title, it is a little disturbing what some on this board might infer. It does not mean I hope the situation unravels into civil war - rather, I hope Bush's image of a competent, decisive leader unravels as more and more people point out that he screwed the pooch in a huge way in Iraq. I think the most important quotes in the article are the critical ones from ranking Republicans that the war planning was pitiful, short-sighted and ineffective. In a perfect world, the Iraq situation will be resolved very shortly, regardless of who wins the election.

As for the Newsweek article, is your implication that the report asked for by Bush and prepared by the US government is not credible? BTW, I recognize the irony from both sides of the fence of saying this report is not credible. Finally, I love the phrase in Cow's response: "Got the conflict done". It sounds like a contract negotiation, very a propos at this time!!

The only thing I've seen from John Kerry is the "Nixon Promise," a pledge to leave in "due time."

Kerry says he'll leave Iraq by the end of his first four year term but that's about two and a half times longer than the USA has been there to date, even if he could pull it off in that time frame.

Having said that, it seems unlikely the Bush camp would be able to internationalize this even if its in the global interest to do so. I would readily concede simply changing the President might make that possibility far more likely.

As for the Newsweek article, is your implication that the report asked for by Bush and prepared by the US government is not credible?

Nope. I was just adding a further opinion to the mix.

Cowperson

[octothorp]

State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.

Well, I hate to harp on an old point about the real motives for the war, but how does producing oil become a priority over other reconstruction efforts such as schools and hospitals. Obviously the oil is going to be crucial so that Iraq has revenue of its own, but when the US has been unable to spend 17 billion of it's reconstruction money thus far, I really doubt that oil revenue does much for Iraqis at this point.

Also interesting to note the bit at the bottom about some of the money being diverted to helping victims of violence in the Dafur. Great for the US. I really wish other western governments (such as our own) would be a little more vocal about this problem. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government was smart enough to launch this genocide campaign at a time when no government in the western world wanted to get involved in another Arab conflict.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 16 2004, 02:37 PM

A terrific, reasoned, column at Newsweek by Middle East expert Fareed Zacharia on the potential of a civil war in Iraq.

If you thought this column was good you should wade through his book The Future of Freedom. Brilliant is the only word to describe it. He nails down democracy with sledgehammer effect, showing in a non-partisan way, that what we think of democracy does not fit for all situations (nee cultures). For a "left wing wacko" he sure knows his stuff.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 16 2004, 03:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 16 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 16 2004, 02:37 PM

A terrific, reasoned, column at Newsweek by Middle East expert Fareed Zacharia on the potential of a civil war in Iraq.

If you thought this column was good you should wade through his book The Future of Freedom. Brilliant is the only word to describe it. He nails down democracy with sledgehammer effect, showing in a non-partisan way, that what we think of democracy does not fit for all situations (nee cultures). For a "left wing wacko" he sure knows his stuff. [/b][/quote]
Did we just agree on something?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 16 2004, 03:44 PM

Did we just agree on something?

Cowperson

Yes. I mean NO! I mean...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Not wanting to hijack this topic but, what ramifications is this going to have on the election in America? Bush and Co. have been using their effectiveness in their repsonse to 9/11 and the battle against terrorism. Military intervention in Iraq was a big step for the administration and this has blown up in their faces. Iraq is now a festering sore on the Bush administration that no one wants exposed. Is this the turning point in this election campaign that the Democrats have been waiting for? Can the Democrats manage to drop the ball on this gift that is being handed to them? They have run possibly the worst election campaign in American history to date, but can they honestly screw this up? The Bush administration were the ones pushing to get into Iraq to "stablize" the region. What they have done is take containment, toss it out the window, and create chaos for a country they had aspirations of saving from tyrany. How is this going to play with the international community? How is this going to play with the media as the international community has a hayday with this? How is the Bush campaign going to try and spin this and do damage control?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 16 2004, 03:58 PM
Not wanting to hijack this topic but, what ramifications is this going to have on the election in America? Bush and Co. have been using their effectiveness in their repsonse to 9/11 and the battle against terrorism. Military intervention in Iraq was a big step for the administration and this has blown up in their faces. Iraq is now a festering sore on the Bush administration that no one wants exposed. Is this the turning point in this election campaign that the Democrats have been waiting for? Can the Democrats manage to drop the ball on this gift that is being handed to them? They have run possibly the worst election campaign in American history to date, but can they honestly screw this up? The Bush administration were the ones pushing to get into Iraq to "stablize" the region. What they have done is take containment, toss it out the window, and create chaos for a country they had aspirations of saving from tyrany. How is this going to play with the international community? How is this going to play with the media as the international community has a hayday with this? How is the Bush campaign going to try and spin this and do damage control?

Well, you've passed the milestone of 1000 American bodies and the nightly news has clear evidence of continued disturbances and violence in Iraq.

And Bush continues to lead the polls.

The report cited seems to merely reinforce an unsettled Iraq that voters can clearly see with their own eyes anytime they flip on a television.

Impact? None. A lot of polls seem to indicate voters are tired of Vietnam and Iraq and want to talk about social security and the like.

You would "need" a terror attack inside the USA to impact the election at this point. Or an actual civil war in Iraq rather than the theory it might happen. My opinion.

As Zacharia notes - the insurrection looks more like a bunch of anti-democracy crazies than anything resembling a civil war.

A reaction from the Democrats in the original New York Times article:

The committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, one of the harshest critics of the Iraq policies, was far more outspoken. "The president has frequently described Iraq as, quote, 'the central front of the war on terror,' " Mr. Biden went on. "Well by that definition, success in Iraq is a key standard by which to measure the war on terror. And by that measure, I think the war on terror is in trouble."

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 16 2004, 02:57 PM
In reading my thread title, it is a little disturbing what some on this board might infer. It does not mean I hope the situation unravels into civil war - rather, I hope Bush's image of a competent, decisive leader unravels as more and more people point out that he screwed the pooch in a huge way in Iraq.

When I read your title it was interpreted as you intended.

Kerry still hasn't given us a viable alternative.

[sbailey924]

"...only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent."

I found this interesting. It seems like they just don't care too much to me.