THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

...

The administration lied in that it made statements as facts when they had in their possession doubts of those facts from various sources at the time they made statements. Sometimes it was more than just doubts.

...
It was simply not a matter of not knowing any better; they knew better they just chose to ignore the qualifiers and doubts and sometimes just plain made up stuff in order to invade.

Also, since there was both confirming and refuting evidence that Saddam still had WMD, Bush knew that unless the evidence was not mixed he should reject the idea that Saddam still had WMD.

A Long View
America's military commander and ambassador in Iraq see progress -- and the need for a prolonged commitment.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; Page A16

GEN. DAVID H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testified yesterday that the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has led to military and political progress and that ultimate success in the mission is possible. But the real bottom line of their presentation to two congressional committees was a deeply sobering one: "Substantial U.S. resolve and commitment," as Mr. Crocker put it, will be needed for some time to come, not only to meet U.S. goals but also to avert the devastating consequences of an early withdrawal. "Our current course is hard," said Mr. Crocker. "The alternatives are far worse."

Gen. Petraeus cited statistics showing a sharp drop in violence in Baghdad and Iraq as a whole in recent months -- in marked contrast to congressional auditors who last week reported that they could not determine whether sectarian violence had been reduced. He said a Marine detachment and an Army brigade could be withdrawn this year and overall U.S. troop strength returned to pre-surge levels by next July. But the general said it would be seven months before he could deliver a judgment about a further reduction of U.S. forces. "Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort," he said.

Mr. Crocker's testimony was striking for its defense of Iraqi political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who have been written off as hopelessly sectarian even by some Washington-based administration officials. The ambassador argued that Mr. Maliki and other leaders have "a deep sense of commitment and patriotism" and "the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we . . . anticipated." As the U.S. official charged with pushing Iraq's politicians to act, it's perhaps not surprising that Mr. Crocker would cite the small steps they have taken as "seeds of reconciliation." He was more convincing in describing the likely consequences of failure: "Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory," he said. "In such an environment, the gains made against al-Qaeda and other extremist groups could easily evaporate, and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations."

The reports by the general and the ambassador seem to presage a bid by President Bush to pursue the essential strategy of the surge -- pacification of Baghdad and other population centers, combined with efforts to promote national political accord -- in his remaining time in office. Gen. Petraeus alluded to one alternative that could win considerable congressional support -- a shift of mission "to one that is strictly focused on transition and counterterrorism" -- but dismissed it as "premature."

But the commander didn't answer the most important question facing the president. "The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq," he said, "is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." The surge was intended to give Iraqis the opportunity to resolve that competition peacefully -- and by that measure it has failed. Mr. Crocker suggests that with more time it may yet succeed. Still, the question remains: If the political reconciliation the president expected is not possible in the near future, should the missions of American forces remain unchanged? That's a question that the president must answer.

Quote:

Also, since there was both confirming and refuting evidence that Saddam still had WMD, Bush knew that unless the evidence was not mixed he should reject the idea that Saddam still had WMD.

No, Bush should have known that when evidence is mixed, you report to America and the Congress that the evidence is mixed. Not that it's a 'slam dunk.'

When the evidence is mixed, and you don't report it so, you are lying. There's no way to spin that.

Cycloptichorn

"Political progress?" When did Petraeus or Crocker say there was politcal progress in Iraq? This is news! Why didn't the Bush administration shout this from the highest building?

Mr. Crocker's testimony was striking for its defense of Iraqi political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who have been written off as hopelessly sectarian even by some Washington-based administration officials. The ambassador argued that Mr. Maliki and other leaders have "a deep sense of commitment and patriotism" and "the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we . . . anticipated."

American accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq will not affect economic deals that have already been signed between the two countries.

"All the political, security and economic accords that have been signed with the Islamic republic's officials will be carried out," he said.

Mr. Maliki is leading a large delegation that includes Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who is close to some Iranian officials. The Iraqis are scheduled to meet on Wednesday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a powerful former president. Mr. Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, visited Iran in July 2005.

ican, Why do you persist in telling the same lies as this administration?
...

...
two things i'm wondering about :
1) is mr. maliki still counting on the support of the iranians ?
2) what is the current american view of maliki's meetings and discussions with the iranian administration ?
hbg
...

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

ican ...

revel wrote:

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

If that evidence is so very abundant then you ought to be able to access it and post it. But, please be aware, I do not consider opinion articles evidence. There is too much evidence to show such articles usually are too narrowly selective of the information upon which they base their conclusions.

However, there is one point that I know to be highly relevant and to my satisfaction to be true. Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary for itself in northeastern Iraq in December 2001 and thereafter grow rapidly. That in my judgment was sufficient reason for invading Iraq, just as al-Qaeda establishing sanctuary for itself in May 1996 in Afghanistan was sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan.

My evidence does not come from the Bush administration. It comes from other sources both before and after the USA invaded Iraq. I've posted it here several times.

If I were to conclude that George Bush and some (or even all) of the rest of his administration are frauds as well as incompetents, it would be irrelevant to the validity and consequences of my evidence.

At some point, I truly hope you are eventually perceptive enough to realize that our war with al-Qaeda was declared not by Bush or our Congress; it was declared by al-Qaeda. Your compulsion to equate the whole thing with Bush is a child like avoidence of reality.


By the way, yes, I remember that you declared that you do not care what I think about you. However, I do care what I think about you. I sincerely want reason enough to change my mind about you.

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday in an explosion near his home in Anbar province, police said.

revel wrote:

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

If that evidence is so very abundant then you ought to be able to access it and post it. But, please be aware, I do not consider opinion articles evidence. There is too much evidence to show such articles usually are too narrowly selective of the information upon which they base their conclusions.

However, there is one point that I know to be highly relevant and to my satisfaction to be true. Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary for itself in northeastern Iraq in December 2001 and thereafter grow rapidly. That in my judgment was sufficient reason for invading Iraq, just as al-Qaeda establishing sanctuary for itself in May 1996 in Afghanistan was sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan.

My evidence does not come from the Bush administration. It comes from other sources both before and after the USA invaded Iraq. I've posted it here several times.

If I were to conclude that George Bush and some (or even all) of the rest of his administration are frauds as well as incompetents, it would be irrelevant to the validity and consequences of my evidence.

At some point, I truly hope you are eventually perceptive enough to realize that our war with al-Qaeda was declared not by Bush or our Congress; it was declared by al-Qaeda. Your compulsion to equate the whole thing with Bush is a child like avoidence of reality.


By the way, yes, I remember that you declared that you do not care what I think about you. However, I do care what I think about you. I sincerely want reason enough to change my mind about you.

Oil Buddies

An article in tomorrow's Times reports that the long-negotiated compromise which seemed to be leading towards an Iraqi oil law -- a key 'progress' benchmark -- has apparently collapsed. All gone down the drain.

The story though connects up with another one we told you about just a couple days ago -- the decision of the Kurdistan regional government to sign an oil exploration deal with Dallas-based Hunt Oil, run by Mr. Ray L. Hunt.

The Shia and Sunni leaders believe the Kurds are opting for a sort of oil secession that puts them outside the whole concept of a law to share the country's oil resources. And the Hunt deal is apparently the straw that broke the camel's back, shall we say.

But remember, Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

In Iraq, Little Pressure for ReformsInstead, they are focusing their energy on shoring up their positions: outflanking political challengers, leaning on more-radical Shiite factions to behave and flirting with Sunni sheiks to build personal alliances.