Bipartisan attack on Bush's Iraq plans...

[Arborealus]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _policy_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq (news - web sites) policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

So his own side regards his actions as incompetent too...

[Dregor Thule]

They aren't true Americans tho. Heck, they shouldn't even be called citizens, just because they were born there doesn't mean anything. Don't they know that in times like this they should be blindly supporting the president of God's united states?

[Sirton]

There are many people upset at Bush for being too much of a pussy in Iraq almost more than those that think hes being to aggresive. Hes more in the middle between those 2 camps atleast according to 2 polls Ive read that got indepth on why people were upset about Iraq. Not gonna spend time finding them have posted them here before.

[Marbus]

He is almost like a virgin, SOOOOO excited to have sex he just can't wait... can't wait to "attack" but when he finally gets his chance, it's "blown" before it even got started and he is too tired to finish the job... and everyone walks away unsatisfied.

[Sirton]

hehe

[Akaran_D]

Well, he fucked up.
Glad the repubs are finially hitting him on it.

[Voronwë]

this president will usher in a new era of personal accountability!1

[Winnow]

This is one criticism Bush will take to heart and he'll unleash a offensive to make the conservatives happy.

[Voronwë]

This is one criticism Bush will take to heart and he'll unleash a offensive to make the conservatives happy.

exactly how?

his administration has been incompetant on the handling of post-war Iraq.

the Senators are pretty much relating undisputed facts.

Here is an example:

In February Don Rumsfeld said 90,000 Iraqi police had been trained and were ready to go.

In August he says 35,000 police have completed their training.

Yesterday on meet the press Sen. Joe Biden says that a White House official conceeded in testimony to the Armed Services Committee that ZERO Iraqi police had completed the training in question.

[Marbus]

Vor, do you have a link to that information. I have some Neocons I would like to berate with it

Marb

[Arborealus]

exactly how?

The draft he will be implementing if re-elected...

[Metanis]

Robert Novak published a piece this morning stating that Bush is going to pull out of Iraq very shortly after the election. The only thing I'm in total agreement is bolded below...

Quick exit from Iraq is likely.

Quick exit from Iraq is likely

September 20, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.

The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry's foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter.

In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.

''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.

[Voronwë]

Vor, do you have a link to that information. I have some Neocons I would like to berate with it

Marb

Check the transcript from yesterday's "THis week with George Stephanopoulus" on ABC.

as for the article Novak published Metanis - i wouldnt bet a nickel on that.
he often pushes rumor as fact in his commentaries both in print as well as on the two shows he appears as a regular on CNN. he is a commentator not a reporter anyway, so that is what he does.

but it was funny recently when he was suggesting Dan Rather should disclose his sources regarding the Bush Nat'l Guard memos. Remember Novak is the guy who published the CIA operative's name that was leaked to him by "senior White House" officials - who he refuses to disclose. LOL

[Metanis]

as for the article Novak published Metanis - i wouldnt bet a nickel on that.
he often pushes rumor as fact in his commentaries both in print as well as on the two shows he appears as a regular on CNN.

I think it may be along the lines of "trial balloon". "Let's float this out there and see what people think" sort of musings.

[Winnow]

This is one criticism Bush will take to heart and he'll unleash an offensive to make the conservatives happy.

exactly how?

his administration has been incompetant on the handling of post-war Iraq.

the Senators are pretty much relating undisputed facts.

Here is an example:

In February Don Rumsfeld said 90,000 Iraqi police had been trained and were ready to go.

In August he says 35,000 police have completed their training.

Iraqi's are incompetent yes..but not our troops. He is perfectly capable of launching an offensive with American troops.

Have you ever seen competent troops from an arab country? They get mowed down like practice targets no matter what country they're from. We could train 2 million Iraqi police and still be no better off. In February when Rumsfeld said 90K Iraqi troops had been trained, he probably meant that they could at least tie their shoelaces.

Iraq is useless except for oil but at least we're trying to help because that's the upstanding kind of people Americans are!

[Metanis]

In February when Rumsfeld said 90K Iraqi troops had been trained, he probably meant that they could at least tie their shoelaces.

I had assumed Rumsfeld meant they were potty trained!



Before you all go wiggy on me I realize my joke is in poor taste here considering the gravity of the situation. My own military experience tells me unequivocably that there are many varying degrees of training and readiness. Even basic training was broken up into many smaller subsets of training. Hell even the concept of "basic training" is wildly variable among the US services. In the USMC in 1974 basic training was 80 "Training" days long. However you could spend an extra week or more in "Pre-training" days waiting for your Rifle Platoon to form up.

The Navy pukes right on the other side of the fence from us Marines in San Diego only had 50 some days of training for their "Basic" training regimen. I have heard of Army basic training periods of as short as 6 weeks.

All this goes to show realistically is that Rumsfeld's "90k troops trained" could have received only a rudimentary week or two indoctrination and he could legally and morally say what he did. Or did you think we had gotten them all fired them up and turned them into Rangers or Seals or Recon?

[Kelshara]

And the twisting to justify his words begins. How predictable.

[Metanis]

And the twisting to justify his words begins. How predictable.

Yes you are 100% absolutely correct.

That make you happy?

We more conservative people have been observing the left for a long time. I still vividly remember a President of the USA trying to explain to me what the meaning of IS is... not to mention what the definition of SEX is NOT.

Clinton is the poster boy for "twisting to justify his words" and he always will be for me.

[archeiron]

And the twisting to justify his words begins. How predictable.

Yes you are 100% absolutely correct.

That make you happy?

We more conservative people have been observing the left for a long time. I still vividly remember a President of the USA trying to explain to me what the meaning of IS is... not to mention what the definition of SEX is NOT.

Clinton is the poster boy for "twisting to justify his words" and he always will be for me.

I laughed when Clinton tried to wriggle out of that one, and I could smell the bullshit a mile off. I do the same when Bush and team start spouting shit. Do you honestly swallow the shit from Bush, based upon his (their) political affiliation, when you wouldn't take half of that crap from Clinton?

[Metanis]

I do the same when Bush and team start spouting shit. Do you honestly swallow the shit from Bush, based upon his (their) political affiliation, when you wouldn't take half of that crap from Clinton?

Can I waffle on this one?



===

I'm no less critical of Bush & Team.

HOWEVER...

...Since I do support their ideology and worldview much of the time I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in many areas that I would never concede to a liberal Democrat.

Regarding the situation in Iraq in particular I know the entire Bush administration has to walk and talk carefully during this pre-election time. They have a largely anti-Bush press corps ready to pounce on every little nuance. In this situation I not only give Bush the benefit of the doubt I am actively questioning the media's motives as well as their information. Witness Rathergate most recently.

So do I think there is Bullshit regarding the Official Bush Administration line on Iraq? Hell yes. It's nastier there than we have been led to believe. The Bush administration was so focused on the shooting part of the initial invasion (shock and awe), that they neglected to plan for the pacification they find at hand.

Is there a single shred of objective evidence that turning the job over to John Kerry would improve our prospects in Iraq? Not on my planet!

Does George Bush has to 'fess up to the American people? You betcha! Will it happen before the election? Possibly, but don't hold your breath.

[Voronwë]

In this situation I not only give Bush the benefit of the doubt I am actively questioning the media's motives as well as their information. Witness Rathergate most recently.

.

so you would say "the media" has an anti-Bush agenda because CBS rushed to air a story without properly fact checking its reports?

It should be worth nothing that key factors in the retraction (of sorts) that CBS issued today was the investigative journalism of the Washington Post, ABC News, and to a lesser extent CNN. And also a major roll were smaller independent bloggers on the internet.

Please, please do not believe this crap that the media has a common (liberal) agenda. "The media" is a collection of COMPETING major corporations that does have a fundamental bias....that bias is turning a profit - generally at the expense of one of their competitors. I don't know how other news organizations structure their business but an important part of the one I work for is preserving the brand quality through accuracy and quality in the journalism. If we lose that, we lose advertising premiums and we lose money. We get lower ratings than Fox News Channel (but have more individual viewers), but charge much higher advertising rates because there is a premium placed on the quality of journalism that is recognized in the marketplace. CBS may have severly cost themselves some cash in the long term with this.

Sure Dan Rather has been criticized for being biased in the past, but Rather represents one news organization, not the entire industry.

I have been in dozens of marketing meetings over the last year that have discussed how we (CNN) were going to promote various aspects of our Election 2004 coverage. Never did discussions ever once even tangentially deal with anybody's political affiliation or agenda. It is always about building viewership and increasing the quality of the product. To that end, the reason we spent more money and promotion time on the Republican Convention than the Democratic Convention was specifically for financial reasons not because we wanted to promote the RNC. The major advertising clients are largely based in NYC, and it is smart to treat your clients well . Additionally, it was an opportunity to take viewership from our major competition.

There is no such thing as "the media" in that there is some cooperative effort to effect the political tone in the public dialogue.



PSSS. dont think Rather is doing any interviews now...

[archeiron]

P.S.S. On CNN - The most Trusted Name in News

In the "good ole' days" when you were doing your thesis, I really respected you. Now you are a corporate sellout! I just don't know you anymore, man!

[Aaeamdar]

$peaking of which, be sure to tune into Larry King Live Tuesday night at 9pm eastern as Dan Rather will be interviewed regarding this controversy

Much for CNN. Much hate for Larry King Live. There is no more worthless an interview program in existance.

Prehaps as a marketting ploy, you can suggest changing the title of that worthless program to "Softball with Larry King". Its more descriptive of the content than the current title and might play well in contrast to Chris Matthews' program.

[Voronwë]

no thakns, i like my job

Arch, PEW research council is the people who did the polling that issued that we were the most trusted news organization in the US, i just reported it to you

[Metanis]

The "media" is largely a group of like-minded people (overwhelmingly leaning to the left) that are largely afraid to rock the boat. Just like people anywhere and in any walk of life. Adex stated the case quite well... institutional bias.

[Voronwë]

there is a lot more machinery to a media conglomerate than the putative liberal leanings of the reporter on the street (who yes are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican - PEW research agrees with you).
Howerver, the editors tend to vote the other way.

And the executives who the editors report to also tend to vote Republican. And the board of trustees to whom the executives ultimately report probably tend to vote Republican.

These are giant complex organizations that are governed by market processes. All i'm saying is that in my opinion taking a view like "the media is liberally biased" is a charicature view of the industry like Garfield is an insight into feline biology. cats like to sleep so they must talk and eat pizza too

[Kelshara]

One of my cats likes pizza... but Garfield ate lasagna!

[Aaeamdar]

Both of my cats love Pizza. Only one, however, can talk.

Ok, so you want to keep your job. That's understandable. At least admit that LKL is crap and an embarassment to your network (apart, I am sure, from its botton line). No one here will get you fired for admitting the truth.

[Sionistic]

exactly how?

The draft he will be implementing if re-elected...

last time I checked, the only people backing the draft bill were 12 democrats