THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cyclo et al, Haven't you noticed? Even Bush doesn't mention the cost of this war, because he wants to "stay the course," and he'll get more negative performance ratings for telling the truth. On second thought, some people like ican who still support this war would rather spend it on killing and maiming rather than promote universal health care for all of our citizens - the population with the shortest life span and highest infant mortality rate of all the developed countries... Bush and ican can make sure our life span shortens even more with this war that has spread to many parts around the world.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Make sure you add 144 billion dollars, the prices of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No point in ignoring the costs of that, is there? They go on the books either way.

Cycloptichorn

Federal Budget Deficits in the years 2006 & 2007; page 2, Table 1:

October 2005 to September 2006 = $248.2 Billion

October 2006 to June 2007 = $121.0 Billion

From page 3, Table 2: estimate for full fiscal year,

October 2006 to September 2007 = $204.7 Billion

Yes, and make sure you, as I said, add anywhere from 130-150 billion for the cost of the war. You can't just ignore those costs, as you seem to want to.

Cycloptichorn

Please provide us the evidence that the costs of the war are not included in the federal budget deficit data I provided.

Then please provide the evidence for what those costs October 2005 to September 2006 and October 2006 to June 2007 actually were.

Then please provide the evidence for the estimated war costs for October 2006 to September 2007.

0 Replies

ican, If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing upwards of 2.8 billion every week, the total federal deficit ain't gonna be what you posted. You should know by now how our government produces numbers that has so many twists and turns to them, nobody in their right mind will be able to interpret them.

On second thought, you may be quite capable.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo et al, Haven't you noticed? Even Bush doesn't mention the cost of this war, because he wants to "stay the course," and he'll get more negative performance ratings for telling the truth. On second thought, some people like ican who still support this war would rather spend it on killing and maiming rather than promote universal health care for all of our citizens - the population with the shortest life span and highest infant mortality rate of all the developed countries... Bush and ican can make sure our life span shortens even more with this war that has spread to many parts around the world.

I would rather al-Qaeda be exterminated in order to greatly reduce their advocated and managed suicidal mass murder of non-murdering Muslims and Americans.

I am opposed to government funded universal health care, whether the war continues or ends. Government funded universal healthcare will only duplicate or exceed the messes in health care costs and effectiveness fostered by other countries that provide government funded universal healthcare.

I am in favor of private charities buying needed health care insurance for all those who want it and cannot purchased it for themselves. Currently about 85% of the public has its own privately funded health care. There is no requirement for government funded universal health care.

Your allegations about American lifespans relative to that of other developed countries are malarkey.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing upwards of 2.8 billion every week, the total federal deficit ain't gonna be what you posted. You should know by now how our government produces numbers that has so many twists and turns to them, nobody in their right mind will be able to interpret them.

On second thought, you may be quite capable.

Please provide your evidence to support these allegations.

0 Replies

Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The most important feature of the new budget released by the Bush administration on Monday is that it is not, in any serious sense of the word, a budget at all. It is a monumental fraud, aimed at concealing fiscal reality and usurping decisions on spending that, under longstanding US constitutional procedures, are reserved to Congress rather than the executive branch.

Many of the most expensive and politically contentious initiatives of the Bush administration are simply left out of the budget. By one estimate, the omitted costs come to $4 trillion over 10 years, an amount equal to about one-and-a-half year's spending at the current rate of $2.5 trillion a year.

There is no funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the costs are estimated at $5 billion a month even if the US troop presence in Iraq is reduced to 120,000 next year.

White House budget director Joshua Bolten admitted that the war would involve major costs, but added, "It wouldn't be responsible for us to take a guess at what those costs are." (This argument apparently does not apply to the campaign for Social Security privatization, which Bush has sought to motivate through implausible and tendentious projections about the state of the system's finances 75 years from now).

The Bush administration has consistently refused to incorporate spending for its war policies into the regular budget, instead making use of supplemental appropriations bills rammed through Congress with demagogy about the need to "support our troops." The purpose has been to distance the social cuts imposed by the administration from the cost of its wars, and thus conceal their essential connection: millions are being cut off food stamps, student loans or health insurance to finance American military aggression.

There is no funding for Bush's Social Security privatization plan, although the cost of establishing new private accounts is projected at $754 billion over the first decade and trillions more thereafter. At a press conference Monday, Bolten gave the following explanation for why the Social Security costs had not been included: "The budget went to bed," he said, "before the president's proposals were announced."

The argument is preposterous, since Bush had made no secret of his plans during the election campaign. Moreover, the budget includes many other White House proposals which have yet to be fleshed out, let alone submitted to Congress. Bolten denied that the White House was concealing the enormous costs of Social Security privatization. In any case, he told reporters, the White House position was that "transition financing does not represent new debt."

The White House has also played fast and loose with its tax revenue projections. Most of the sweeping tax cuts for the rich enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire after 2009. The Bush administration is seeking to extend the cuts indefinitely, at a cost estimated at $1.1 trillion through 2015. (Repeal of Bush's tax cuts would provide more than enough money to resolve the projected budget gaps in Social Security and Medicare).

In order to avoid recording the cost of these tax breaks, the Bush administration has scrapped the traditional ten-year scoring of the cost of programs and tax cuts, in favor of a five-year projection that ends in 2010?-just when the huge bonanza for the rich would be renewed.

An even cruder feat of budget falsification relates to the planned restructuring of the Alternative Minimum Tax, a provision that was adopted in the 1980s to prevent the wealthiest individuals from using deductions to eliminate all tax liability. Because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, substantial sections of the middle class will fall under its provision soon?-the cutoff now is barely $150,000 in year in family income.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have called for revising the AMT, either by raising the level at which it takes effect or indexing it for inflation. The result would be to reduce tax revenues by $72 billion in 2009 and a total of $500 billion over the following decade. The Bush administration supports the restructuring of the AMT, but its budget assumes that the full AMT revenues will be collected, a key element in its projection that the budget deficit will be cut in half by 2009.

Similar scoring is applied to the White House proposal for still another tax cut favoring the wealthy, the retirement savings accounts and lifetime savings accounts (called by their acronyms RSA and LSA), which will allow individuals to save as much as $30,000 a year in tax-free accounts they may use for any purpose. The cost of this tax break is estimated by the Congressional Research Service at $300 billion to $500 billion over 10 years, accruing only to those Americans who have a spare $30,000 a year to invest?-i.e., the wealthy and the upper layers of the middle class. The RSA and LSA would be phased in gradually, and the Bush budget, limited to a five-year horizon, significantly understates the cost.

The overall budget numbers released by the White House are equally rigged. Bush said in his State of the Union speech that the budget would cut the deficit in half by 2009, but the budget document uses last year's projected $521 billion deficit as a starting point, rather than the actual 2004 deficit of $412 billion. As a result, the target for 2009 is to reduce the deficit to $260 billion, rather than $206 billion if the actual figure had been used. This fiscal year's deficit is actually higher than the year before?-an estimated $427 billion.

More and more, the financial numbers produced by the White House have come to resemble the cooked books of corporations like Enron or WorldCom. Huge liabilities and expenses are shifted into "off-the-books" accounts like the shell corporations created by Enron to sustain its Wall Street image of ever-rising profitability. If Bush were CEO and Bolten CFO of a Fortune 500 corporation, the budget numbers they have just submitted would be grounds for prosecution for securities fraud.

The Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), having somewhat higher standards than Enron's now-defunct accountant Arthur Andersen, has refused for years to certify the accounts of the federal government. This year GAO auditors gave 21 out of 26 federal departments the lowest possible ratings in terms of their accounts, meaning that the auditors could make no determination whatsoever about the actual state of the books.

There has been considerable negative commentary on the budget in the corporate-controlled media, much of it focused on the arbitrary assumptions and concealment of large future costs. BusinessWeek magazine, in an editorial headlined, "Wanted: An Honest Budget," summed up the case as follows: "New private retirement accounts could cost $1.5 trillion from 2011 to 2015 and add $100 billion a year to the budget deficit for 20 years. Making tax cuts permanent could cost $2 trillion. Fixing the AMT could cost an additional $500 billion. These are real numbers that should be included in any real budget. If President Bush believes the policies proposed are best for the nation, then he should lead an honest dialogue about how we should pay for them."

The Washington Post published an acid-tongued account of Bolten's press conference, citing his remark during the briefing, "I actually enter into this with a happy spirit." The Post correspondent wrote: "It's no wonder Bolten was so chipper: His budget was full of happy thoughts. The spending plan Bolten outlined was a model of fiscal responsibility. But as he fielded questions for an hour, it became steadily clearer why the new budget seemed so restrained: The White House left out a lot of expenses the government is likely to have, while including savings the government is unlikely ever to see."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi sounded the same theme, declaring, "The president's budget is a hoax on the American people. The two issues that dominated the president's State of the Union address?-Iraq and Social Security?-are nowhere to be found in this budget."

Both the media and the Democrats attack the Bush administration from the standpoint of its failure to reduce the deficit more aggressively, either by slashing spending or delaying or repealing some portion of the tax cuts. In some instances, they have bemoaned the cuts in spending on programs for the poor. But this kind of criticism avoids the most fundamental issue posed by the budget: its anti-democratic and unconstitutional character.

The adoption of a budget is the principal means by which Congress holds the executive branch to account. In the US constitutional structure, Congress exercises final authority over public policy through its "power of the purse." The decay of American democracy over the past three decades has seen this power gradually undermined by a succession of presidents.

Nixon courted a constitutional confrontation when he sought to block spending mandated by a Democratic-controlled Congress, claiming the authority to "impound" money appropriated by Congress against his wishes. Under the Reagan administration, the reverse took place: a Democratic Congress prohibited spending on arms for the Nicaraguan "contras," and the Reagan administration sought to circumvent that ban through the diversion of funds it obtained through secret arms sales to Iran.

Under the Bush administration, this process has reached it culmination. The executive branch decides what it will do?-wage wars, cut taxes, gut Social Security?-and hardly bothers with the pretense of consulting with Congress or submitting to congressional authority to appropriate money, even with a Congress controlled, albeit narrowly, by the president's own party.

See Also:
US budget slashes social spending to pay for war and repression
[9 February 2005]
Amid sweeping cuts in US budget
Bush plans renewed assault on Medicaid
[8 February 2005]
Bush's state of delusion: speech to Congress ignores crises at home and abroad
[3 February 2005]

0 Replies

House OKs plan to withdraw US troops

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the administration report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it added, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation.

As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into the country from Syria, said the interim assessment, which is to be followed by a fuller accounting in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in the region.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the rest.

To his critics ?- including an increasing number of Republicans ?- he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., voted for troop withdrawals for the first time, contending that while she still opposes a swift pullout, "staying in Iraq indefinitely is equally unacceptable."

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."

It probably won't pass in the Senate.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
...

What is it about Martin that warrants anyone believing what he writes to be the truth?

The issue we were discussing is whether or not the budget deficit is decreasing or increasing.

Let D = the budget deficit absent war spending.

Let W = war spending.

The question then is whether,

D2006 + W2006 is greater or less than D2007 + W2007.

Not only do I not know whether Martin is competent to discuss this subject, I don't know what is his answer to that question.

0 Replies

Quote:

Al Qaeda's Strength 'Undiminished' in Iraq
Despite U.S. Assertions, Terrorists Thriving in Iraq, Senior Military Official Says
By JONATHAN KARL
July 12, 2007 ?-

A military intelligence report that concludes al Qaeda has largely restored itself to pre- 9/11 strength will be the focus of a meeting at the White House today. The meeting was called to discuss a pending National Intelligence Estimate.

While the military has maintained that al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, by any number of measures the terror group and its affiliates are as strong as ever, and June was the most violent month since the start of the war, a senior U.S. military official told ABC News.

"Despite our successes in taking out leaders and infrastructure," said the official, "al Qaeda's operational capability appears to be undiminished."

Asked about the al Qaeda comeback, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff said today on "Good Morning America," "It reflects the fact that just as we improve our defenses, the enemy tries to improve its defenses and rebuild itself."

Al Qaeda operations are marked by the use of suicide bombers, and the latest intelligence assessment shows that suicide attacks were near an all-time high in May and June. According to the report, al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for 15 percent of the attacks in the country, often the most deadly. Sunni insurgents are blamed for 70 percent of attacks, and Shiite militias 15 percent. Shiite attacks, however, have sharply increased and are now probably higher than 15 percent.

ABC News has learned the most recent military intelligence assessment of Iraq also shows that the overall level of violence in the country -- measured as the number of "violent incidents" -- hit its highest level in June since the war began.

According to the assessment, an average of 178 attacks a day were carried out in June. By comparison, there were only 94 attacks a day in March 2006, the month after the attack on the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra touched off a wave of sectarian violence.

The record level of violence comes despite significant progress in a few key areas. Anbar Province, for example, was once the most dangerous area in Iraq and has experienced a turnaround a senior military official calls "miraculous." Attacks on civilians are also down significantly. But in other areas, the trends are moving in the wrong direction:

The number of attacks on U.S. soldiers is way up, now accounting for 70 percent of all attacks in Iraq.

While violence has dropped dramatically in Anbar Province, the number of attacks has risen sharply in four other provinces: Baghdad, Salahaddin, Diyala and Basra.

In June, there were a record 55 attacks with Iranian-made roadside bombs -- called explosively formed penetrators. This is the deadliest form of roadside bomb seen in Iraq.

Mortar attacks on the Green Zone have dramatically increased.

The increase in violence can be attributed to a sharp rise in attacks on U.S. forces, including a record number of attacks with Iranian-made explosives in June, as well as a sharp increase in attacks on Baghdad's Green Zone, 90 percent of which are fired from Shiite neighborhoods.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3366118&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

0 Replies

Listening to a senior General in the British Army, its quite clear that we have lost Basra.

(not of course from what he was saying, but because of what he couldnt say in terms of success)

The army has withdrawn to the airport. They are handing over to local forces but...

the police are "100%"- according to another unnamed senior source -infiltrated by militants loyal to local war lords not the "Iraqi" government.

The only foreign presence in Basra is the Iranian consulate.

7 barbers (yes barbers) have been murdered for shaving men. (Unislamic apparantly)

Women are forced to be covered from head to foot.

Meanwhile attacks on the British Army intensify and casualties increase because the militant groups, some of which are loyal to Iran, are competing with each other to claim most credit for driving the British out.

So billions wasted. Thousands killed. Iraq put back in the middle ages and Iran's hand immeasurably strengthened. Well done everybody.

0 Replies

Quote:

GOP Sen. Gordon Smith calls war in Iraq 'insane' David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday July 10, 2007

Fox News, reporting Tuesday on the increasing number of Republicans in Congress criticizing the Iraq War, interviewed Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), cosponsor of a resolution for withdrawal.

Smith is known for a speech last December in which he stated, "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal."

Smith told Fox, "If I could do anything over, I would - in that speech I gave - I would replace the word 'criminal' with the word 'insane.'" He suggested that the "surge" might have had a chance of working four years ago, but said, "On my numerous visits to Iraq ... each time I go, the government seems more and more dysfunctional. And all we're doing is depending on them to step up and govern."

Smith went on to explain the legislation he is sponsoring, saying, "There's nothing in this amendment that says we withdraw from the war on terror." When Fox host Shepard Smith pressed him on whether there might be a civil war in Iraq that is indistinguishable from the war on terror, the senator denied both points. "It may become a full-blown civil war," he acknowledged, "but the point is, it's not ours, it's theirs. It's not something we can win. ... I'm just tired of American kids dying for that."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/GOP_Senator_Gordon_Smith_calls_Iraq_0710.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Iraq police colluded in Kerbala attack
USA Today
Thu 12 Jul 2007 8:15:51 BST

WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. Army investigation has concluded that Iraqi police assisted insurgents in an assault in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala in January that killed five U.S. soldiers, USA Today reported on Thursday.

USA Today said the information was contained in an investigative file made available to the newspaper and authenticated by the Army.

During the attack, guerrillas posing as Americans entered a government compound in Kerbala, killed a U.S. soldier and drove away with four others whom they shot and killed later.

"(The American) defense hinged on a level of trust that ... early warning and defense would be provided by the Kerbala Iraq police. This trust was violated," said the army report, dated Feb. 27.

The paper said the attack had attracted special scrutiny by Pentagon officials because of the unprecedented breach of security and the tactics used by the insurgents.

Among details included in the investigation were that Iraqi police vanished from the government compound before the attack, that gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers and that a back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.

Some U.S. soldiers who survived the assault told investigators they believed some attackers were allowed to blend in among Iraqi police inside the compound in the hours before the attack, the report said.

It added that soldiers also told investigators they saw an Iraqi police commander in the compound talking on a cell phone and laughing as the assault ended.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?rpc=401&storyId=N12296377

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Make sure you add 144 billion dollars, the prices of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No point in ignoring the costs of that, is there? They go on the books either way.

Cycloptichorn

Federal Budget Deficits in the years 2006 & 2007; page 2, Table 1:

October 2005 to September 2006 = $248.2 Billion

October 2006 to June 2007 = $121.0 Billion

From page 3, Table 2: estimate for full fiscal year,

October 2006 to September 2007 = $204.7 Billion

Yes, and make sure you, as I said, add anywhere from 130-150 billion for the cost of the war. You can't just ignore those costs, as you seem to want to.

Cycloptichorn

Please provide us the evidence that the costs of the war are not included in the federal budget deficit data I provided.

Then please provide the evidence for what those costs October 2005 to September 2006 and October 2006 to June 2007 actually were.

Then please provide the evidence for the estimated war costs for October 2006 to September 2007.

As you well know, the Iraq war has been paid for in large part off of 'special supplementals' to the budget, the entire time; it is not reflected in Bush's budgetary calculations.

Quote:

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.

"Calling it an emergency means the spending does not get the scrutiny," he adds, because then the spending is reviewed by only one committee - House Appropriations. In addition, he says, emergency spending is exempt from caps on discretionary spending. This has prompted the military to include in the bill items that are not directly related to the war. Making the spending a part of the budget would end the practice of some members placing pet projects on a bill that must be passed, he says.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html

Natrually, 1 minute with google could have found this information out, Ican, do a little research plz.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.

Quote:

You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET

The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham.

According to the report, which was required by Congress, progress has been "satisfactory" on eight of the benchmarks, "unsatisfactory" on another eight, and mixed on two. At his press conference this morning, President Bush, seeing the glass half full, pronounced the report "a cause for optimism"?-and for staying on course.

Yet a close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment. The eight instances of "satisfactory" progress are not at all satisfactory by any reasonable measure?-or, in some cases, they indicate a purely procedural advance. The eight "unsatisfactory" categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics?-the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.

Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:

* Legislation on de-Baathification reform

* Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity

* Setting up provincial elections

* Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program

* Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference

* Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly

* Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)

* Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

The status of former Baathists, distribution of oil revenue, local elections, disarming militias, sectarianism within the police, the legitimacy of the national army?-these are the main issues grinding the parliament to a standstill, aggravating ethnic conflict, and forcing millions of Iraqis to flee the country. These are the issues that the Iraqi political leaders are supposed to be resolving while American troops fight and die to make Baghdad secure.

Yet the White House is admitting that the Iraqis have made no real progress on any of these fronts.

In its legislation requiring this report, Congress stated, "The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting [these 18] benchmarks." Yet even on the eight benchmarks that it admits are not met, the White House report explicitly denies the need to change strategy.

The report's account of the eight supposedly successful benchmarks is, on inspection, no less dismaying.

Take Benchmark No. 1: "Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review." The report admits that Iraq's "political blocs still need to reach an accommodation on these difficult political issues." (The report neglects to point out that many of the Sunni blocs are boycotting the parliament.) And yet it declares that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because the constitutional review is "now underway."

Or Benchmark No. 9: "Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations." The report admits, "Manning levels for deploying units continues to be of concern." The report doesn't explain what this means?-namely, that Iraq's brigades have only 50 percent to 75 percent of their soldiers. And yet it concludes that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because it "has provided" the brigades.

Then there's Benchmark No. 12: "Ensuring that the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." The report admits this task "remains a significant challenge" in "some parts of Baghdad." However, it claims "satisfactory progress" because U.S. commanders report "overall satisfaction with their ability to target any and all extremist groups" and because U.S. diplomats, in their talks with Iraqi officials, "continue to stress the importance" of the topic.

The good mark for Benchmark No. 17 is particularly dubious: "Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis." The report admits that the Iraqi government has spent only 22 percent of its capital budget, that "it remains unclear" whether the oil ministry has "made any real effort" to spend its share of the funds, that it's hard to track the budget, and that the effects of new spending are felt "unevenly." Still, it claims "satisfactory progress" because some of the revenue is dribbling into the economy.

The other four "satisfactory" grades concern purely procedural matters. They assess legislation on "procedures to form semi-autonomous regions" (not on whether the regions have been formed); "establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan" (not whether their support has been effective); "establishing joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad" (not whether they're effective, either); and "ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected" (not in Iraqi society).

The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined "satisfactory."

The legislation required the president to submit a report "declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved."

The White House report states, "In order to make this judgment we asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a 'Satisfactory' assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is 'Unsatisfactory.' "

Subtle but pernicious wordplay is going on here. "Satisfactory progress" toward a benchmark is very different from "a positive trajectory toward satisfactory accomplishment." The congressional language requires a satisfactory degree of progress. The White House interpretation allows high marks for the slightest bit of progress?-the "positive trajectory" could be an angstrom, as long as it's "tracking toward" the goal; the degree of progress doesn't need to be addressed.

Yet even by this extraordinarily lenient standard, the White House authors could not bring themselves to give a passing grade to the Iraqi government on half of the benchmarks?-and the most important benchmarks, at that.

This is no academic matter. As President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus have said many times, the point of the surge and its strategy is to make Baghdad secure, so that Iraq's political leaders have the "breathing room" to resolve their disputes. Yet if they are incapable of resolving their disputes?-if they have made no measurable progress on the major issues and if the Iraqi military hasn't advanced much either?-then the surge may be a hopeless cause. Certainly, members of Congress are right to question the strategy, and Bush is deceptive in dismissing their challenges out of hand.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at [email protected].

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2170303/

Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.

Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, previously I posted this to:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
...

What is it about Martin that warrants anyone believing what he writes to be the truth?

The issue we were discussing is whether or not the budget deficit is decreasing or increasing.

Let D = the budget deficit absent war spending.

Let W = war spending.

The question then is whether,

D2006 + W2006 is greater or less than D2007 + W2007.

Not only do I not know whether Martin is competent to discuss this subject, I don't know what is his answer to that question.

Cyclo, likewise, not only do I not know whether you are competent to discuss this subject, I not know your answer to that question.

0 Replies

John Aravsois at Americablog.org sums up the way that many of us feel about Iraq:

Quote:

Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.

Quote:
You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET

...
/

Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.

Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.

Cycloptichorn

Fred Kaplan is not a reliable source of information about what is happening in Iraq, and neither are you.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.

Quote:
You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET

...
/

Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.

Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.

Cycloptichorn

Fred Kaplan is not a reliable source of information about what is happening in Iraq, and neither are you.

He can read a report issued by the Administration as well as anyone else can. If you had actually read the piece, you would see that he draws upon the Admin's own report as his source of information.

Nice try at character assassination, but you failed to address the topic: that the administration's own report completely contradicts Bush's 'mixed bag' assessment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

John Aravsois at Americablog.org sums up the way that many of us feel about Iraq:

Quote:
Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.

Cycloptichorn

"Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.[/size]

Pulling the plug is the only option left when you have actually lost. Why surrender to al-Qaeda before we have to as long as there is a chance we will not have to?

Is proving "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that George Bush is no damn good really more important to you than securing our freedom and the freedom of millions of non-murdering Iraqi Muslims? Those of you who think it is more important are clearly no damn good.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
He [Fred Kaplan] can read a report issued by the Administration as well as anyone else can. If you had actually read the piece, you would see that he draws upon the Admin's own report as his source of information.

Nice try at character assassination, but you failed to address the topic: that the administration's own report completely contradicts Bush's 'mixed bag' assessment.

Cycloptichorn

I read Kaplan's piece. Yes, Kaplan says he draws upon the administration's own report to fabricate his article. The question that remains is whether you or Kaplan are competent to correctly understand the administration's report.

By the way, I did not try to assassinate Kaplan's character. I did question Kaplan's competence ... and your competence as well. If you really cannot tell the difference, you are worse off than I thought. If you can tell the difference, and pretend otherwise, then you are surely no damn good.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know