Is Bush weaseling out?

[RussSchultz]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/15/sprj.irq.main/index.html

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this. Hopefully the Iraqis will be ready to take over power by then.

But on to the point, is Bush weaseling out in, trying to make "good things" happen before election time? Or is this the right thing to do?

I think it'll be funny to watch the Bush haters, who were criticising Bush for not giving the Iraqis more power in governing themselves have the inner struggle with now wanting to criticize him for doing what they suggested doing in the first place.

 

[Silent_One]

Well, Bush has been under a lot of pressure to turn over poer to the Iraqis. And not just from his critics but from the Iraqi council itself. I too hope their ready, although as the atricle said the US "troops would remain in Iraq until former President Saddam Hussein is killed or captured." Is bush weaseling out...."good things" such as to get re-elected? It's only a weasel deal if it does not work and makes things worse for Iraq (and for the world and US). If things work out for the better then he's golden.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Pure weasel tactics, nothing but.

 

[Humus]

Undoubtly he's trying to make nice things before the election. The time is probably chosen to get the best impact for that purpose. However, I think the timetable looks reasonable nonetheless.

 

[Natoma]

I said it before and I'll say it again. This could have all been avoided if the "evidence" for war had been vetted properly.

Frankly, leaving too early is an even bigger blunder than going to war alone was. We destabilized that country and that entire region. We have no other choice but to stay there unfortunately. Bush is certainly weaseling out for political gain. In September they said that we wouldn't leave until the Iraqis had a constitution and were electing officials. Now it's we're out by June 2004.

Given the degenerating situation over there, I seriously do not see this premature pullout happening with any modicum of success.

p.s.: Newsweek and Time had great articles on how our money is being misspent in Iraq. One such example:

$15 Million: Value of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq with taxpayer dollars

$80,000: Amount an Iraqi businessman spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from doing it.

There are pages and pages and pages of examples such as this one. So again the question begs, why in the world are we just giving billion dollar freebie contracts to big american companies such as Haliburton when it could be done for a fraction of the cost, all the while employing the Iraqis themselves and getting their unemployment rate down and self-sustaining industries up?

So not only do we have a situation that we're pulling out of, but we're wasting our taxdollars there as well because all of the firms HAVE to be american and no bidding is allowed on the fattest contracts.

Great. No wonder the Bush Administration wants to pull out before the election. They got themselves into a mess they were ill prepared to handle, and they realize that it will probably cost them the election. Unfortunately, now they're putting their political ambitions ahead of true US stability. If we pull out of Iraq before the country is ready in terms of infrastructure, it will haunt us for decades.

 

[Natoma]

Btw Russ, it turns out that evidence you presented to me in that other thread regarding the terrorism training plane just south of Baghdad was deemed bogus.

The OSP gathered up bits and pieces of intelligence that pointed to Saddam's QMD programs and his ties to terror groups. The OSP would prepare briefing papers for administration officials to use. The OSP also drew on reports of defectors who alleged that Saddam was hiding bio and chem weapons under hospitals and schools. Some of these defectors were provided to the intelligence community by Chalabi, who also fed them to large news organizations, like The New York Times. Vanity Fair published a few of the more lurid reports, deemed to be bogus by the U.S. intelligence agencies (like the one alleging that Saddam was running a terrorist-training camp, complete with a plane fuselage in which to practice hijackings). The CIA was skeptical about the motivation and credibility of these defectors, but their stories gained wide circulation.

 

[Squidlor]

I remember somebody else saying that the US should begin transferring power to the IGC, and then cede complete control over to them in six to nine months by the summer of 2004...

Who was that guy...

Wasn't it... French President Jacues Chirac? I'd be interested to hear why the Bush Administration abhorred the idea two months ago, but now have fully embraced it...

 

[RussSchultz]

Btw Russ, it turns out that evidence you presented to me in that other thread regarding the terrorism training plane just south of Baghdad was deemed bogus.

That's ok, the rest of the evidence originally deemed bogus seems like its actually valid.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES

 

[RussSchultz]

p.s.: Newsweek and Time had great articles on how our money is being misspent in Iraq. One such example:

$15 Million: Value of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq with taxpayer dollars

$80,000: Amount an Iraqi businessman spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from doing it.

The American firm was going to rebuild the entire factory, with the latest technology.

The Iraqi firm scavanged parts from the other lines in the factory and got one of them working.

Apples to oranges, but that doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Natoma]

p.s.: Newsweek and Time had great articles on how our money is being misspent in Iraq. One such example:

$15 Million: Value of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq with taxpayer dollars

$80,000: Amount an Iraqi businessman spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from doing it.

The American firm was going to rebuild the entire factory, with the latest technology.

The Iraqi firm scavanged parts from the other lines in the factory and got one of them working.

Apples to oranges, but that doesn't matter, does it?

That alone doesn't account for the vast disparity in costs. A large part of it are the labor costs (terrorism insurance is HUGE in these costs btw) of the american firm. Use Iraqis and the cost is easily cut by half.

 

[Natoma]

Btw Russ, it turns out that evidence you presented to me in that other thread regarding the terrorism training plane just south of Baghdad was deemed bogus.

That's ok, the rest of the evidence originally deemed bogus seems like its actually valid.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES

I think I'll wait on this one until a few more articles come out regarding this. The evidence regarding Niger, 500 Tons of Chem-Bio Agent, and Nuclear Weapons and Programs Reconstitution, the training facility with the airplane fuselage, among other things, were seemingly open and shut at one point, only to be found later to be completely false.

 

[RussSchultz]

Completely false, eh?

Based on a newsweek article that states facts without backup, eh?

I've read eye-witness Iraqi reports (from people after the war, not chalabi's minions) about what happened at Salman Pak. But I guess they were completely made up? Me personally, I'll take the eye witness records, over some assertations made by reporters.

I've come to the realization that half these reporters can't cover their ass with toilet paper, much less a complex story with multiple conflicting reports without injecting their own bias and spin.

That, and everybody seems so god damn willing to read something that backs up their own opinion and take it as gospel.

 

[ByteMe]

Pure weasel tactics, nothing but.

And just where the hell you see that?


I can't understand why you can't give Bush some credit for being more honest than what Clinton ever was.

 

[Natoma]

Facts seem to be so nebulous these days wouldn't you agree Russ? I mean, we were so sure that Saddam was a year away from having a Nuke that the President stated it in his State of the Union. We were so sure that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium Yellowcake from Niger that the President stated it in his State of the Union. We were so sure that Saddam had 500 Tons of Chem-Bio Agent that Colin Powell stated it in his speech to the UN Security Council. He even had Satellite Photos to bolster his claims! How can you get more evidence than that?

And yet it still came out to be false. All of it. I've come to the realization that half of these politicians in the bush administration can't cover their ass with toilet paper, much less a complex story with multiple conflicting reports without injecting their own bias and spin. That, and everybody in that administration seems so god damn willing to read something that backs up their own opinion and take it as gospel.

The only difference between someone in the administration and a reporter? Someone in the administration can get hundreds of americans killed because of their bias, personal spin, and ineptitude in sifting through the "facts". A reporter can't. Well that is of course provided they aren't Robert Novak knowingly exposing an undercover CIA operative, and by proxy all of the people who worked with her.

But we won't get into that in this discussion, maybe.

Oh and btw, the "backup" that you require are the US Intelligence agencies. Newsweek wasn't making a claim. It was reporting what our Intel has stated on the matter. Much in the same way that they weren't making any claims about the Uranium Yellowcake, merely reporting what was coming out of the CIA. So yes, I take it as complete bullocks until it is further corroborated. I give no benefit of the doubt to this administration, given recent history with the usage and manipulation of the "facts" in order to support their political and personal biases and positions.

 

[RussSchultz]

I mean, we were so sure that Saddam was a year away from having a Nuke that the President stated it in his State of the Union.

It would help if you wouldn't keep repeating that bit of falsity.

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.

Stick to the facts, don't impart your own spin.

 

[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.

 

[RussSchultz]

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.

 

[pax]

I dont think handing over power means abandoning the country. At least not yet... Certainly us forces need to get off the streets other than tracking saddam down. However Im not gonna say thats a guarantee the remaingin baaths will back down once hes captured. 130 000 iraqi soldier and cops on the btes and 200 000 by spring is good... Council hopefully should be ready with that to take charge by then... elections shouldnt take too long... 2005 is a bit late for that...

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

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?

 

[epicstruggle]

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