Reply
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 05:44 pm
White House disputes U.S. lacked planning on Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Sunday there was "significant" postwar planning for Iraq and disputed the characterization of a memo produced for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion that expressed concerns about a long occupation.
The briefing paper concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of Iraq, The Washington Post reported in Sunday's editions.
"We disagree with the characterization. There was significant postwar planning," David Almacy, a White House spokesman, said.
"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began -- there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed," he said.
The memo showed that top British officials saw the Bush administration as inevitably deciding to go to war, but said "little thought" had been given to "the aftermath and how to shape it," the Post said.
The above statement by the White House can be interpreted in more than one way.
1. If there was "significant postwar planning" eight months prior to war then it can be said that Pres. Bush was lying, that indeed he had planned on war all along.
or
2. If the assertion that the U.S lacked the planning on a postwar Iraq is true then it can be said that truly the President had not made up his mind on war which the lack of postwar planning would seem to support.
Seems like the White House is in a lose-lose situation here.
Sadly, Bush and Company are all lose-lose incompetents that have gotten us into a war that was planned before Bush became president. General Shinseki told this administration we would need 200,000 troops to secure Iraq after the war, and this administration disagreed. General Shinseki is no longer in the army. Get the picture?
Re: Perspective
RfromP wrote:White House disputes U.S. lacked planning on Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Sunday there was "significant" postwar planning for Iraq and disputed the characterization of a memo produced for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion that expressed concerns about a long occupation.
The briefing paper concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of Iraq, The Washington Post reported in Sunday's editions.
"We disagree with the characterization. There was significant postwar planning," David Almacy, a White House spokesman, said.
"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began -- there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed," he said.
The memo showed that top British officials saw the Bush administration as inevitably deciding to go to war, but said "little thought" had been given to "the aftermath and how to shape it," the Post said.
The above statement by the White House can be interpreted in more than one way.
1. If there was "significant postwar planning" eight months prior to war then it can be said that Pres. Bush was lying, that indeed he had planned on war all along.
or
2. If the assertion that the U.S lacked the planning on a postwar Iraq is true then it can be said that truly the President had not made up his mind on war which the lack of postwar planning would seem to support.
Seems like the White House is in a lose-lose situation here.
I think you should read the article above again and try to comprehend what it is really saying. Then, re-write your conclusions to more aptly fit what it says.
Let me highlight the parts that you should re-read...
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Sunday there was "significant" postwar planning for Iraq and disputed the characterization of a memo produced for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion that expressed concerns about a long occupation.
The briefing paper concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of Iraq, The Washington Post reported in Sunday's editions.
"We disagree with the characterization. There was significant postwar planning," David Almacy, a White House spokesman, said.
"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began -- there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed," he said.
The memo showed that top British officials saw the Bush administration as inevitably deciding to go to war, but said "little thought" had been given to "the aftermath and how to shape it," the Post said.
Lol, you call what is going on over there the result of 'significant planning?'
It is widely accepted that there was not significant planning for the postwar period; this is even admitted by many Republicans...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Lol, you call what is going on over there the result of 'significant planning?'
It is widely accepted that there was not significant planning for the postwar period; this is even admitted by many Republicans...
Cycloptichorn
Did I say that? Perhaps
you need a remedial reading comprehension class as well?
Heh, the ARTICLE says it, you point it out as if it is an important part.
I get the distincition you are trying to draw, just saying that it is hollow in the face of the observable facts; there in fact was not a significant amount of postwar planning in the period AFTER the minutes were written.
Cycloptichorn
I am only commenting on the conclusions RfromP has drawn after reading the blurb quoted above. I am not commenting on the quote itself.
Cool.
Hope everything is well in your neck of the woods
Cycloptichorn
Re: Perspective
McGentrix wrote:I think you should read the article above again and try to comprehend what it is really saying. Then, re-write your conclusions to more aptly fit what it says.
No need to read again, I know what it says. What's your point?
Re: Perspective
RfromP wrote:McGentrix wrote:I think you should read the article above again and try to comprehend what it is really saying. Then, re-write your conclusions to more aptly fit what it says.
What's your point?
That your conclusions were based on pre-conceived notions and opinions rather than what you read in the article you quoted.
Re: Perspective
McGentrix wrote:That your conclusions were based on pre-conceived notions and opinions rather than what you read in the article you quoted.
How so? Quit being vague and make your point.
cicerone imposter wrote:... General Shinseki told this administration we would need 200,000 troops to secure Iraq after the war, and this administration disagreed. General Shinseki is no longer in the army. Get the picture?
Sounds like it's time for a refresher course on the
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Re: Perspective
RfromP wrote:McGentrix wrote:That your conclusions were based on pre-conceived notions and opinions rather than what you read in the article you quoted.
How so? Quit being vague and make your point.
The article says nothing about postwar planning occurring 8 months prior to war. I think that's the point. I think that's what is being clarified by this ...
Quote:"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began -- there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed," he said.
And that's great, except for the fact that there was obviously
A: No Planning at all, really
or
B: Terrible Planning driven by Ideology.
For evidence, I present Iraq.
Case closed
Cycloptichorn
Re: Perspective
RfromP wrote:Seems like the White House is in a lose-lose situation here.
Not really. The Pentagon has all kinds of military contingency plans. In fact they even have plans for things that are totally improbable.
Anyway, even absent that consideration, the idea that it would have been dishonest for Bush to give the UN a chance, but strongly suspect that he might eventually have to invade, and even hope so, is ludicrous.
Re: Perspective
Brandon9000 wrote:The Pentagon has all kinds of military contingency plans. In fact they even have plans for things that are totally improbable.
Does that mean there's a chance the Pentagon has plans for a successful outcome in Iraq?
Re: Perspective
joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The Pentagon has all kinds of military contingency plans. In fact they even have plans for things that are totally improbable.
Does that mean there's a chance the Pentagon has plans for a successful outcome in Iraq?
It means that the mere fact of planning for a contingency doesn't indicate that anyone is lying.
I need to reread "Alice in Wonderland." Some of these explanations of our "planning" bring to mind some of the funnier bursts of logic in the novel.
Of course, Lewis Carroll was much more clever than the brainiacs who planned this adventure...
D'artagnan wrote:I need to reread "Alice in Wonderland." Some of these explanations of our "planning" bring to mind some of the funnier bursts of logic in the novel.
Of course, Lewis Carroll was much more clever than the brainiacs who planned this adventure...
When someone enters a debate only to call names, but never touches the thread of the argument, it's like an admission that he cannot compete on the level of the actual topic. Your post is completely devoid of either fact or rational argument.
Re: Perspective
Ticomaya wrote:The article says nothing about postwar planning occurring 8 months prior to war. I think that's the point. I think that's what is being clarified by this ...
The disagreement was that "U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of Iraq"
and the rebuttal was:
"We disagree with the characterization. There was significant postwar planning," David Almacy, a White House spokesman, said.
"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began -- there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed," he said.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace