quote:The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
**** On Democracy ****
But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
**** The Insurgents ****
Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
**** Leaving Iraq ****
"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word — necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.
**** Self-Sustaning Economy? ****
"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.
Sounds like we're leaving Iraq in pretty bad shape.
I hated the way we got into this war. But I wouldn't want us to leave Iraq until we finish the job; and that means giving the Iraqi people the security, prosperity, and freedom we promised them.
An immature withdraw would mirror the type of short-sighted foreign policy we adopted earlier when we propped up Saddam to create "regional stability" in the Middle East.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this will be worse, in the long run, than if we'd never gone there at all.
If this is true (and I sincerely hope it is not), I believe George W. Bush should be impeached and turned over to the World Court to face charges of war crimes.
Every person to serve as a senior member of his Administration having anything to do with the war should be investigated and held pending charges.
And they should all be bankrupted to give even partial repayment of the US citizens for this mad adventure they promoted.
Every member of Congress who voted in favor of the war should be given an official reprimand and should have to face an early election to see if they should retain their seats.
I believe this "lowered expectations" cr@p is (again, if it is true), is a betrayal of our armed forces and encourages the enemy and, in the Chief Executive, amounts to something just short of treason.
In fact, since I've been arguing against high expectations all along and getting accused of being a traitor and abetting our enemies, I have to say that I will wear that label just as soon as George W. Bush does. If he admits it, I'll join him.
<sits back>
<waits>
I predict that in two days time, the conservative airwaves will be filled with explanations of how this is: 1) the fault of liberals in the US undercutting the President. 2) the fault of the Iraqi people for not doing more to serve their own best interests 3) A "good thing" because the only kind of regime that could ever really be stable in the Arab world is an Islamic Republic, and we knew that all along.
If this is true, George Bush is just a joke. A man who didn't know what he was doing, who managed to pull the wool over a country's eyes. His name will become a derogatory verb used to describe the logical end result of a privileged upbringing mixed with Texas "shoot from the hip" style, and playing to people's baser instincts.
Scholarly books will be written titled things like:
Bush's America: What went wrong?
Descent into madness: 8 Years that Shook a Nation.
Never Again! How America Recovered itself from itself.
posted
I agree 100% with what you said Bob. In fact I think I'd write the book you don't. This is a complete joke. It's good to have high expectations, but not when they are obviously outside of a timetable your running on. Speaking of which, wasn't Bush always saying how there was no timetable, and we'd get out of Iraq when they were free peoples, or something along those lines? Along with leaving the Iraqi people to devour themselves, or for someone with enough military power to stand up and make the country a virtual slave state, (which is what there was in the first place, before American troops gave their lives to a false purpose, far out of reach of the objective they came to accomplish.) the enemeys of democratic reasoning, and justice, gain the upper hand, and a dramatic moral boost to their cause.
quote: But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
This is a major BS excuse. Just because you take away a ruler that imposes laws, doesn't mean the cultures of the imprisoned people will change. Especially in only 2 or 3 years.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope the U.S. officials sourced in the article are mistaken about President Bush's intentions.
It sounds like President Bush is still committed to stay the course:
quote:The terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve. That will not happen on my watch. Withdrawing our troops from Iraq prematurely would betray the Iraqi people, and would cause others to question America's commitment to spreading freedom and winning the war on terror. So we will honor the fallen by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, and by doing so we will ensure that freedom and peace prevail. President's Radio Address 8/13/05
posted
If it were two years from now, you'd see the opposite, I think Republicans would run from him as if he were the plague.
But as it is, I doubt anything will change. Liberals will jump on this as proof they were right all along. Critics of Liberals will be even more pissed at them for not stopping Bush to begin with. Conservatives will protect Bush and support the war, claiming we are going to still leave Iraq better than we found it.
I'm not as concerned now with laying blame, I think it's pretty clear who is to blame, harping on it won't fix the problem. There will be plenty of time later for us to affix punishment for potential crimes.
What should be done now is:
1. Figure out what condition Iraq needs to be in before a withdrawel is acceptable to us. And it can't just be acceptable to us. It needs to be acceptable to the Iraqis too.
2. How can we stop something like this from ever happening again. The War Powers issue needs to be solved once and for all. The entire issue of police actions, wars (declared or not), and hostilities in general demands attention. The President still claims he did not need congressional approval before he sent troops in. He made it logistically and politically impossible for the Congress to remove troops from Iraq.
Only the Congress has the power to declare war, yet Bush has declared we are fighting the war on terror. Not legally admissible no, but still, this is a crisis of government. Would this war have ever happened in Bush really needed clear congressional approval before commencing hostilities? More stringent ammendments need to be made to the War Powers resolution.
By letting that issue go, and smoothing it over with blame laying, we're just setting ourselves up for a repeat in the future.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today. It read "Quagmire Accomplished".
And that's exactly what it is. And even when American troops leave, the Iraqi people will still have to live in that quagmire. Meanwhile, certain very limited segments of the US business community will be laughing all the way to the bank. Who was it who said that "war is good business"?
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I'm sorry, but Bush is not guilty of war crimes. Starting an un-necessary war, yes. Giving the spoils thereof to his cronies, yes. Alienating most of the world and making the US a rather despised nation, yes. But he is not guilty of ordering deliberate massacres of civilians, first use of weapons of mass destruction, or breaches of human rights. And more to the point, he is not guilty of being head of a defeated nation, occupied by a victor who wants to make an example of him.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe he is guilty of deceiving the public. What a deeply foolish act this war was from the very beginning. They should have lowered expectations when it first started!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, he may be guilty of ordering breaches of human rights. We just don't have solid enough evidence that the torture commands truly rest at the top.
To my mind, it should be up to the World Court to decide if Bush is a war criminal. I just want to see him up on charges and have to actually face them.
I think our country needs that, and deserves it, for letting him do this to us.
Our rallying cry should be "never again!" How sad that America has to go through that painful experience.
But, perhaps, one good thing may come from it. A change to the War Powers act is indeed required and I hope the GOP-controlled Congress has the sense to see the writing on the wall and start drafting a Constitutional Amendment sooner, rather than later.
Meanwhile, I doubt he'll ever even be in danger of impeachment or have to face an international court. The GOP is too good at rallying around their guy, right or wrong. But I tell you right now that is the end of that Grand Old Party as we know it today.
Maybe it'll turn into something better.
But I doubt it.
Personally, I'd like to see the DNC obliterated at the same time.
I'd like to see this country's politics splinter into myriad small factions with none of them ever able to hold a dominant control of Congress without forming a coalition.
And, personally, I think we have been hoodwinked by some manipulative scum. Blaming this on Halliburton is not far off. If only we as a people weren't also to blame.
Bush should resign. I'm sorry, but this is the worst thing ever perpetrated by a sitting President. It surpasses Watergate by at least an order of magnitude.
Again...if it is true.
Of course, today's Washington Post has the story as well. I'll be very curious to see what Bush does with this. It could all just be an opportunity for him to come out as the one stalwart who is going to keep plugging away even if there are nay-sayers all around him.
posted
war is good for buisness is one of the Ferengi Rule's of acquisition, also one rule before it, peace is also good for buisness. o.0
Personally what I'ld like is some Admiral to break away from the states leading the fleet to DC and arresting Bush... and happened to be named Captain Sheridan...
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
It turned us into an Occupying Armed Force.
History shows that sons are quick to take up arms against alien invaders and occupiers, especially ones of a totally different Religion.
Should Bush be impeached?
No.
It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
An unwinable war and gas prices doubling?
Hey.
America.
This is EXACTLY what you voted for.
Enron was his #1 campaign contributor from Governer to first term Prez.
Ha ha HA!
Fighting a war on terrorism, while encouraging Americans to buy the biggest gas guzzlers than can afford on credit?
Remember when Cheney LAUGHED at the thought of conservation?
Gas in my City has jumped like .30 cents in three weeks.
Iraq.
We shouldn't have gone and now we can't leave.
We as Americans have to give the Iraqi people what we promised them. A better way of Life.
posted
The scary thing to me, is that a large portion, probably 40% at least, of the American people still don't think anything bad has happened. They like Bush, are glad the voted for him, and still support him and the way of life he upholds.
If that many people can't learn from the monumental mistake that has been made, it doesn't bode well for us as a whole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a lot of American voters are also to blame for buying into Bush's lies. However, the fact that he was re-elected does not let him or any members of his administration off the hook for accussations of falsifying evidence, lies about our reasons for going to war, or anything else.
That would be like saying "Sure, I lied to you, but it's your fault for believing me."
The thing is, isn't this based on an anonymous leak from some official in the administration? That's far different than an actual public admission that things aren't going so great. Bush seems to still be "staying the course" last I heard.
posted
You don't have to be THAT dramatic adam (that was a weird sentence for me to type, as my name is Adam).
The damage done by Bush can be fixed over the next two presidencies. It won't be easy, but goodwill can be earned back through honesty and being a good neighbor. If we got involved with European efforts to be more aggressive in ending poverty and war in Africa they would forgive a lot of what they are angry about, and we'd do a lot more good for the world, (not to mention ourselves, for the selfish people out there who thinks Africa is simply charity).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The scary thing to me, is that a large portion, probably 40% at least, of the American people still don't think anything bad has happened. They like Bush, are glad the voted for him, and still support him and the way of life he upholds."
I could see how people could regret voting for him in the 2000 election, but since 2004, he hasn't made any huge decisions that could make people change their mind on voting for him, right?
If someone voted for him in 2000, and then they didn't like the Iraq war, which they didn't know he'd do during election season, they have a reason to regret their vote. But since the 2004 election season, he hasn't made any policy changes or done anything against what he was campaigning for, so I don't really see how people could regret voting for him in the 2004 election, unless they suddenly realized that they thought the Iraq war was a bad idea.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's made a number of huge decisions, mainly to not do things, or to support policy changes that failed so badly the administration is trying to make people forget they tried.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's only since the last election that we have solid proof that he lied about our reasons for going to war. But if you suspected that already and voted for him anyway, I can't see why you'd change your mind. He's also made a lot of really suspect appointments, and has been much more up-front in his submitted legislation about his big-business interests. (See the latest energy bill for an example.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
Truest words you ever posted, Thor.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember kids, always vote for the losing candidate of the two main parties so that you still get to complain as much as you want! 3rd party candidates don't count though, you vote-wasters.
quote: It would be more logical to impeach America, because after they found out that there were NO weapons of Mass destruction, meaning the entire reason for our invasion was FALSE, America RE-ELECTED the man.
I have yet to see anything that shows that Bush did not believe there were WMD. He was clearly wrong, but I think that he sincerely believed that. So did the vast majority of America. Further, I saw little difference between Kerry and Bush's 2004 election plans for Iraq. Both said they would stay and "finish the job". A job that I think is impossible to finish. The war in Iraq was not an issue that factored into my vote for Bush. Support for the war from both parties, not voting for Bush, is what makes America responsible.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush may have believed Iraq had WMDs, but there have been various reports that the administration was ignoring intelligence reports which didn't match those beliefs and requesting intelligence based on that belief instead of basing belief about WMDs on actual intelligence. And yes, I'm too lazy to find links for that.
I agree that there wasn't enough difference between Kerry and Bush's Iraq plans. I think one of Kerry's big mistakes was answering Yes to the "If you knew then what we know now" question about his Iraq vote.
posted
We have definite proof that Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney, among others, were either incompetent in keeping appraised of intelligence on Iraq (an unlikely possibility), or intentionally mislead the American public and foreign allies about our intelligence on Iraq.
For one specific example, take a look at the fiasco with the aluminum tubes. Our nuclear experts, speaking for the entire energy department, had a devastating case against them being for refinement of nuclear material (including an obvious alternative use). However, both Rice and Cheney said there were no other uses for the tubes, and that Iraq getting the tubes meant they were going to use the tubes for nuclear refinement.
Coincidentally, these are the same tubes that were the only solid piece of "evidence" in the National Intelligence Assessment that formed the basis for the war, which should tell you something about how pathetic our other "evidence" was.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't fire the man for being wrong. I would fire him for:
1) not admiting he was wrong. 2) not considering the possibility in the first place 3) impugning the "patriotism" of anyone who considered the possibility he was wrong.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the Bush administration would publically anounce anything like this. These are the people who said that they expected to be met with smiles and parades, that the fighting would take 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but not 6 months and have yet to say that this was wrong or majorly alter the military requirements of their plans, so our forces were inadequate to secure the borders and have been running raids but lack the forces to hold places after they've raided them, making it necesarry to pull out and raid them again and again.
They're the people who kept pushing the WMD excuse long after it was clear that this was false and have not admitted it, but rather simply shifted to other excuses.
They keep claiming victory - "Mission Accomplished" and all that. In June the Vice-President said that the insurgency was in it's last throws. In July, Donald Rumsfeld confirmed this assesment. Last week the commander there said that the insurgency no longer had the ability to carry out major operations, just before a huge attack killed over 30 people and the mayor of Baghdad was deposed.
They'll never come out and say this, but it's possible that we'll wake up one day and this is what they'll have done. Why shouldn't they leave this war as dishonestly and with as poor execution and results as they entered it?
He went to war touting WMD of Hussein even on the State of the Nation speech.
And he was wrong.
If I go into my neighbors house and shoot the owner then claim I thought he had a cannon aimed at my house, I will be arrested...especially when there is no cannon to be found.
Does it matter whether or not I believed there was a cannon aimed at my house? No.
This administration began a war, and used as their excuse, at least during the begining, that the enemy was a threat to us. This has been proven wrong.
Even President Bush's most recent explanation is flawed. He claimed that "There might have been WMD and there might have been a connection between Hussein and terrorists, which might have resulted in an arrangement that might have led to an attack on the US."
There are an awful lot of "Mights" in that explanation. Far to many to start a War which "Might" be over quickly, after which thier nationals "might" be thrilled to help us rebuild thier country with the aid of exhiled Iraqi's whom we "might" be able to trust.
Did he get any of those "mights" correct other than the "war" part being over quickly, and by war we mean a ground offensive against regular troops.
In the real world, not the one of elitist cronyism, if you are this wrong, yes, you get fired!!!!
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And they did definitely lie about WMD. They said they knew what they didn't know. That's a lie.
The biggest WMD argument for the war, Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. made definite claims about things that could not have happened. Even he has said that the information must have been fraudulent and called for an investigation of how he was given it (said investigation has not yet come into being).
And even if you ignore this and the Downing Street memos that show that the Bush administration regarded war in Iraq as inevitible following 9/11 and that they were deliberately fitting the intelligence to this end, the choice still comes down to either they were lying or they were really freakin' incompetent and unwilling to admit that they were wrong. The second option still isn't something our leaders should be allowed. "He wasn't lying, he's just really bad at his job." is not a slogan I'm going to rally behind.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So after reading this thread I realize that the people who have always hated Bush still hate Bush. What a big surprise. I also realize that if you are wrong about anything that makes you a traitorous liar except of course if you are a Democrat President, like Bill Clinton, who was a complete liar, sent thousands of civilians to their death, risked hundreds of American troops for a distraction from Lewinsky, and now we learn that he knew that Atta was in the country running a terrorist cell and he did nothing to stop him. Why? Because terrorism to Democrats is nothing more than a police matter. Gorelick is the idiot who set up the walls between the intelligence agencies so they can't communicate and who did the Democrats appoint to investigate this idiocy? Gorelick. So Bush is the one to blame for everything? Right. That makes so much sense.
The last paragraph is one of the most telling.. "Ms. Goudreau, for one, found the discussion useful. By the end, she said, editors were acknowledging that even in their own hometowns, "we're more likely to focus on people who are killed than on the positive news out of a school."
So maybe it is more, using the current definition of lying, that the press is lying than Bush is.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I can concede the point that I knew people who hate Bush will hate Bush no matter what happens
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but I can get ticked off about how his administration has provable deceived me in order to achieve its own ends.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
what exactly are those ends? So far I have heard that he wants to destroy America. I'm not exactly sure why he would want to do that though
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, we invaded Iraq. So then what do you think the real motivation is? We will take over Iraq? We are stealing all of their oil? How does this benefit Bush and his cronies?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time a sensible criticism of the president comes up, his supporters will dismiss it with "You just hate Bush." What a big surprise.
I must of missed where somebody said Clinton was perfect or did no wrong, too. Oh, maybe it was that strawman in the corner. And of course, if Clinton went after terrorists it was just as a distraction from a scandal, but if he didn't then all the terrorism later was his fault. Convenient, that.
If the issue here was just "Bush lied about something" I honestly wouldn't care. He's a politician, and I do expect a certain amount of lies, or at least half-truths and evasiveness, from any politician regardless of party affiliation. But the issue is that he led us into a war that was unneccessary, has destabilized an already volatile region, is creating more terrorists and anti-US sentiment, stretched our armed forces very thin, killed thousands, etc, etc, etc. So, yeah, I think he's doing a pretty crappy job as president.
posted
Eh, don't really care what the administration's motivation to deceive me in order to do so was. Pressed to speculate, I'd say likely your standard case of obsession with the obvious correctness of things one has already decided would be good and must be right, which is what drives many intelligent and/or ambitious people to lie to defend their baubles of choice.
But it doesn't really matter. For whichever reason the administration did it, they perpetuated gross lies in order to do so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: what exactly are those ends? So far I have heard that he wants to destroy America. I'm not exactly sure why he would want to do that though
Who said that? I must be a pretty bad reader, to have missed these exagerated claims you expect your opponents to defend. What's that, Ctrl-F? You say "destroy" isn't in any of the previous posts? How odd.
posted
The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen. The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future. Other than Iraq what area over there has become more destabilized? Terrorists have existed before, and will exist after Bush is President. Terrorists are not created by Bush. Terrorists are created by thugs and madmen who teach children from birth how to hate. Imagine the possibilities of a free Iraq. Imagine what could happen with a democratic Iraq. Or you can just hate Bush.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely believe that it's in our best interests to stay in Iraq now that we're there and help to build that country into something stable. I question, though, the assertion that invading Iraq in the first place was necessary for our future. What are your reasons for thinking that, DarkKnight?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, just as we should imagine what could happen with a democratic Afghanistan instead of the warlord-ruled drug state currently in place . . . maybe we should invade . . .
When the public eye drops from Iraq, the US will drop support like hot potatos, just as Bush has done again and again.
If Bush had put forward a different case for invasion of Iraq, I would have supported it. I still think the invasion of Iraq was necessary in the near future, though the Bush administration has botched the follow up badly.
However necessary the invasion of Iraq may or may not have been, that does not justify the abuse of secrecy to perpetuate gross lies, as the Bush adminstration has done. You continue to fail to respond to this point, which does not surprise me as you seem to have gouged out your eyes to replace them with shrubbery.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
