Is Bush weaseling out?

[Sxotty]

It's only a weasel deal if it does not work and makes things worse for Iraq (and for the world and US).

Naw it is only a weasel deal if he is doing for the reasons stated by russ, which he is.

So it is a weasel deal, the question is simply whether it will work,some weasel deals blow up in your face others work and everyone is happy.

 

[Sxotty]

The president said "IF HE GETS THE FISSIONABLE MATERIAL, he would be 1 year from having a bomb".

Which is completely different from how you're spinning it.

Unfortunately this is what news agencies do now days, they take a quote and snip it so it says what they want it to say which is often a misrepresentation if not an outright lie.

 

[RussSchultz]

Unfortunately this is what news agencies do now days, they take a quote and snip it so it says what they want it to say which is often a misrepresentation if not an outright lie.

Apparently it plays well to their constituency.

 

[RussSchultz]

Huh. Here's the "agreement between the CPA and the Iraqi governing council":

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031115/D7URAP4O0.html

Interesting points, according to plans:
-there will be an "article of confederation" of sort in place, prior to the handover. (Remember, the US didn't have its constitution for several years after winning independance).
-Elections of a national assembly will occur prior to the political handover.
-The "fundamental law", as its termed, will include a bill of rights, and define how the constitution will be written and when.
-It seems the US & Iraqi troops will cooperate w/regards to security.

After reading this, many of my fears are put to rest. It seems a reasonable timetable that wasn't thrown together in response to escalating deaths (as posited by many pundits). Its got goals and a timetable to go along with them.

As for the weasely part, I'm not so quick to damn it. I think it may have been a means of lighting a fire under the GC butts, as they seem to have been doing nothing much in the past few months. I think the administration is also sending a message to the Iraqi people: "Here is the light at the end of the tunnel; It will happen, don't lose faith"

It does seem oddly timed, but it had to happen sometime.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I'm not saying that just 'cause the timing & reasons for doing it are weasely that it isn't a good thing to do, I think it is...I just kind of hate knowing the only reason he's pushing for it is for the wrong reasons. (Kind of like the whole "war-thing" )

Meh, I ain't gonna make fun of Bush for it yet. I still have his trip across the puddle to poke fun at him for this week. 8)

 

[fbg1]

As long as we keep our military there to continue ferreting out the Baath loyalists, I have no problem letting the Iraqis take over their own government, tomorrow if they could. The Iraqi government can take over running the country's govt. services, law enforcement, elections, taxes, etc. However, it won't be able to handle a guerrila war on its own for many years to come, so we've gotta stay get rid of those guys completely. Here's an interesting writeup on which loyalist and guerilla groups are still at large in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_the_threat_1&printer=1

Of course, wacking Saddam is also a requirement before we pull out.

 

[Natoma]

Russ, i dont understand why you keep trying to enlighten natoma. Its not going to work. I saw the cnn piece on that cement factory. And it was CLEARLY stated that the americans were going to rebuild the thing. And the iraqis figured they could gerry rig it enough to get some decent output. Now if you read what natoma wrote, you get the point that the iraqis build a factory for 80k when the americans were going to spend 15million. Its not hard to find the holes in natomas "facts" but its just pointless since he'll just argue something trivial like terrorism insurance.

later,
epic

If it comes down to spending $15 Million US in Iraq to rebuild a factory vs $80K of Saddam's own money, I'll choose the $80K any day and send that money back here. It also speaks volumes when Haliburton imports oil into Iraq for $1.35 when the Iraqis could import it for roughly $0.70. Can you say kickback? But of course I'm the one that needs to be enlightened because I can see this and you and the rest of the administration apologists simply choose to sweep it under the rug as usual.

Lets just keep frittering our money away in Iraq for the hell of it. I mean, it's only monopoly money. A few billion here, a few billion there.

You can look at it like this. Eddie and I spent $3500 on our computer and assorted accessories. We got top of the line for everything. We *could* have spent $800 and bought a complete system from Dell or Gateway or Compaq. No the parts wouldn't have been top of the line and it wouldn't have been as fast, but it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and it still would have been a useful and fast computer. You said that the Iraqis could build the thing and get some decent output whereas the americans would have spent $15 Million to build a whole new one with up to date technology. Lets say the Iraqis could get 50% throughput for 80K and the Americans could get 100% throughput for $15 Million. Economies of scale suggest that on a percentage basis, dollar for dollar, the 80K Iraqi built plant is a FAR better bargain does it not? On top of that, we're not loaning the Iraqis all of this money. We're giving it to them. They don't have to repay the US, even when the proceeds from their oil start flowing in a few years.

As for terrorism insurance, considering the climate over there currently, it is FAR from trivial. Companies doing business in Iraq spend millions on insurance for that specific purpose, which inflates the price many times over what is required for the job.

It also doesn't help that employees (western employees and iraqis hired by the western companies) are paid at western level wages when the Iraqis could do the same job, while lowering their unemployment rate, for a fraction of the cost. For instance, the average Iraqi wage for police duty is $100 a month. There are many instances where Iraqis are being paid $1000 a month for the same job, if hired directly by western companies. Does it make sense to hire 1 Iraqi at an inflated wage, rather than hire 10 Iraqis in the wage scale for that economy, and lower their unemployement rate?

 

[Natoma]

Oh, no, not the super long list of tangential quotes that don't change the written meaning of what the president said in his speech.

Not that, no, anything but that.

Oh right right. Just like Bush wasn't lying or misrepresenting the facts when he stated that it was the British who said Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger. Oh it didn't bother him at all that our own Intelligence agencies knew the information to be false. Let's just parrot the information to get our support in the here and now, and when people call us on it later, we'll just blame it on the british. You just gotta love semantics in politics. And then people like you can scream "But he didn't say that! I don't care what was meant, I care what was said!" even when it's plain as day.

 

[Natoma]

That statement came after he said that british intelligence had found that Saddam had attempted to acquire Uranium from an african country. That statement came after Cheney and Rumsfeld stated on multiple occasions to various media outlets that Saddam had reconstituted his Nuclear Weapons AND his Nuclear Programs. Remember that super long list of quotes I posted in a prior thread? I can pull that up again for you.

Put all of that together, and it is the administration who erroneously spun it to that conclusion. Not I.

I thought that African uranium issue was proven false by some guy from the FBI/CIA?

The CIA, Ambassador Wilson, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Italian Intelligence Community all plainly stated that the information was flat out false. Everyone save for the IAEA stated it was false before the State of the Union. And the only reason the IAEA didn't say anything is because the White House denied them access to the documents until just before the war began. A day later they came out stating that the information was incontrovertibly bogus. But of course it was said anyway in the State of the Union speech and given to the american public as 100% true evidence to build support for war.

Of course, 9 days later Colin Powell didn't use it in his speech to the UN because the information wasn't credible enough. But it was credible enough to tell the American public eh? Right right.

 

[Natoma]

Huh. Here's the "agreement between the CPA and the Iraqi governing council":

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031115/D7URAP4O0.html

Interesting points, according to plans:
-there will be an "article of confederation" of sort in place, prior to the handover. (Remember, the US didn't have its constitution for several years after winning independance).
-Elections of a national assembly will occur prior to the political handover.
-The "fundamental law", as its termed, will include a bill of rights, and define how the constitution will be written and when.
-It seems the US & Iraqi troops will cooperate w/regards to security.

After reading this, many of my fears are put to rest. It seems a reasonable timetable that wasn't thrown together in response to escalating deaths (as posited by many pundits). Its got goals and a timetable to go along with them.

As for the weasely part, I'm not so quick to damn it. I think it may have been a means of lighting a fire under the GC butts, as they seem to have been doing nothing much in the past few months. I think the administration is also sending a message to the Iraqi people: "Here is the light at the end of the tunnel; It will happen, don't lose faith"

It does seem oddly timed, but it had to happen sometime.

That's much better, if true. What I've read on this shows that the Administration wants to reduce the american occupied forces to 50,000 by next spring/summer from 120,000 today. That is what I'm afraid of. We've seen in countries like Afghanistan what too few troops can mean to the stability of a country. I have serious doubts that the Iraqi police force will be at least 70,000 strong by next spring/summer, and ready to take over many of the policing duties that the americans and british currently do. If it happens, good. But we had better not pull out before the situation is stable enough to do so.

This administration got us into this mess prematurely and were illprepared for the consequences. Anyone remember the "Mission Accomplished" banners with the president landing on an aircraft carrier in a jump suit from a fighter plane?. I certainly hope they don't get us out prematurely and find that they are illprepared for the consequences..

 

[RussSchultz]

Lets say the Iraqis could get 50% throughput for 80K and the Americans could get 100% throughput for $15 Million. Economies of scale suggest that on a percentage basis, dollar for dollar, the 80K Iraqi built plant is a FAR better bargain does it not?

In your constructed world, yes. However, who said it was 50% productivity for $80k? I didn't. For all we know, it is 10%, 5%, or 1%. None of us know the relative cost of upkeep, either. The "renovation" might have operating costs of 10x the new setup, or might not be sustainable at all.

 

[RussSchultz]

The CIA, Ambassador Wilson, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Italian Intelligence Community all plainly stated that the information was flat out false.

The British government came out and stood behind the assertation that Iraq DID try to buy uranium ore from a country in Africa. And this assertation did not rely on that supposedly forged document. There was a big public review in Britain in July over that.

Your assertation of "incontrovertability" really doesn't hold up. Its a confusing story, with quite a bit of contradictory evidence, and I'm sure plenty more that you and I haven't seen or heard. You saying "incontrovertable" is simply putting big words behind your opinion, in hopes of confusing the issue more.

 

[RussSchultz]

Oh right right. Just like Bush wasn't lying or misrepresenting the facts when he stated that it was the British who said Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger.

He didn't say Niger, did he? No, he said a country in Africa.

There's reports in the Guardian that such a thing happened, there's the British intelligence (that does not rely on the supposed forged documents) that suggest that such a thing happened.

It is not as cut and dry as your black and white world.

 

[Natoma]

Lets say the Iraqis could get 50% throughput for 80K and the Americans could get 100% throughput for $15 Million. Economies of scale suggest that on a percentage basis, dollar for dollar, the 80K Iraqi built plant is a FAR better bargain does it not?

In your constructed world, yes. However, who said it was 50% productivity for $80k? I didn't. For all we know, it is 10%, 5%, or 1%. None of us know the relative cost of upkeep, either. The "renovation" might have operating costs of 10x the new setup, or might not be sustainable at all.

Decent power efficiency for a coal powered plant is roughly 70-80%. You can go look up the figures at NEI. I said 50% because that would be considered piss poor, more along the lines of a solar/wind plant.

But lets say we go bottom of the barrel and say it has an efficiency of 25%. That price/perf ratio is still far far better, especially since it's coming out of the Iraqis pockets and not ours.

Here's a scenario for you. Would you rather spend $500 a year (cost of a low end Dell) on a low end computer you'll have to replace every year, or spend $3000 on a computer that will last you 5 years? Both work fine. Both will either need complete overhauls or part replacement in order to keep working properly.

 

[RussSchultz]

Decent power efficiency for a coal powered plant is roughly 70-80%. You can go look up the figures at NEI. I said 50% because that would be considered piss poor, more along the lines of a solar/wind plant.

What in God's green earth does that have to do with a concrete factory?

 

[Natoma]

The CIA, Ambassador Wilson, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Italian Intelligence Community all plainly stated that the information was flat out false.

The British government came out and stood behind the assertation that Iraq DID try to buy uranium ore from a country in Africa. And this assertation did not rely on that supposedly forged document. There was a big public review in Britain in July over that.

Supposedly forged?? Err, the document's signatory was a diplomat who has not been in office for over a decade. How much more "supposedly forged" could it get??

Anyways, considering their track record as of late, I can't say I have particularly high faith in the brits' "assertions".

Your assertation of "incontrovertability" really doesn't hold up. Its a confusing story, with quite a bit of contradictory evidence, and I'm sure plenty more that you and I haven't seen or heard. You saying "incontrovertable" is simply putting big words behind your opinion, in hopes of confusing the issue more.

Incontrovertible is a big word??? Incontrovertible is used as an attempt to confuse???

And is it really my assertion? I suggest you read Mohamed El Baradei's official statement on the matter. I suggest you read what CIA Director Tenet had to say. But of course, it's my assertion of incontrovertibility in my attempt to obfuscate the details of the situation.

 

[Natoma]

Decent power efficiency for a coal powered plant is roughly 70-80%. You can go look up the figures at NEI. I said 50% because that would be considered piss poor, more along the lines of a solar/wind plant.

What in God's green earth does that have to do with a concrete factory?

Wrong topic. Just finished reading in businessweek about a coal power plant in central Iraq that is experiencing the same price differential issues. Got stuck in my head.

Anyways, no, we don't know the productivity of the factory. However, I'd rather let the Iraqis spend $80K of their money to get the factory up to decent production rather than $15 Million of our money to build a completely new plant that could get bombed out the day after the opening ceremony.

 

[Natoma]

Oh right right. Just like Bush wasn't lying or misrepresenting the facts when he stated that it was the British who said Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger.

He didn't say Niger, did he? No, he said a country in Africa.

So why hasn't the Bush Administration defended what they said with what you just said? Why haven't they come out saying "Oh we didnt' mean Niger. We meant another african country" hmm?

There's reports in the Guardian that such a thing happened, there's the British intelligence (that does not rely on the supposed forged documents) that suggest that such a thing happened.

It is not as cut and dry as your black and white world.

When these reports and suggestions become factual and has been vetted as accurate by multiple intelligence agencies around the world, then I'll believe it. Until then, I'll keep my unfortunately well-earned skepticism in full tilt.

 

[RussSchultz]

Until then, I'll keep my unfortunately well-earned skepticism in full tilt.

Well, keep it at skepticism and not incontrovertable statement of fact, and we'll have much more pleasant conversations.

I'm skeptical too, or at the very least uncertain as to what to believe. I'm certain, however, that every faction has its own agenda and is willing to bend the truth to forward it. With the recent democratic leaks about how much they knew (with respect to Al-Qaeda) and how vocal they are at stating that the president "trumped up the evidence"(lied), plus with their internal memo about politicising any results of the intelligence review, I'm certainly even more skeptical of anything, particularly those 9 democrats (minus leiberman, he seems to have his head on straight) say.

 

[Natoma]

Until then, I'll keep my unfortunately well-earned skepticism in full tilt.

Well, keep it at skepticism and not incontrovertable statement of fact, and we'll have much more pleasant conversations.

I'm skeptical too, or at the very least uncertain as to what to believe. I'm certain, however, that every faction has its own agenda and is willing to bend the truth to forward it. With the recent democratic leaks about how much they knew (with respect to Al-Qaeda) and how vocal they are at stating that the president "trumped up the evidence"(lied), plus with their internal memo about politicising any results of the intelligence review, I'm certainly even more skeptical of anything, particularly those 9 democrats (minus leiberman, he seems to have his head on straight) say.

Let the record show that the Niger claim is incontrovertibly false. This other mystical magical "african country" that this other evidence is supposedly talking about is what I have skepticism about. However, since the Bush Administration has never stated to date that they were not talking about Niger, but talking about that mystical magical "african country", I will continue to assume that Bush was referring to Niger in his State of the Union address, and by proxy, the Brits.