boutons_
08-23-2007, 11:10 AM
,August 23, 2007
Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq’s Government
By JIM RUTENBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/jim_rutenberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per), SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheryl_gay_stolberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
This article is by Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mark Mazzetti.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per), can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
As the end of the Congressional recess draws closer, the debate over Iraq policy will only intensify, and the new intelligence assessment, called “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability” is likely to play an important role in that discussion. Officials said the assessment concluded that Mr. Maliki retained support among Shiite groups in part because putting together a new government would be arduous. Officials in Washington and Baghdad have said for months that any military gains would be ephemeral if Iraqi politicians were not able to bridge sectarian divides.
( that is also Petraeus' position, and the position of anybody with no vested interest in the war (MIC), Repugs, WH, and right-wing jerk-off knee-jerkers )
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report will be issued this morning, and spokesmen for both the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment. “The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents.
( but dubya, doing his best Nixon/Kissinger imitation, sees a light at the end of the tunnel, aka, 20 Jan 2009. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )
The new report also concludes that the American military has had success in recent months in tamping down sectarian violence in the country, according to officials who have read it.
( ... as if that mattered )
The report, which was intended to help anticipate events over the next 6 to 12 months, is “more dire in its assessments” than the administration has been in its own internal discussions, according to one senior official who has read it. But the report also warns, as Mr. Bush did in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday, that an early withdrawal would lead to more chaos.
“It doesn’t take a policy position,” one official said. “But it leaves you with the sense that what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working, but we can’t let up, or it’ll get worse.”
( of course it will get worse, just like US departure from VN. The Iraqis want to kill each other, are armed to the teeth, and will do it as soon as the US leaves. It's dubya who enable that civil war. Iraq and the world would be better offe without dubya/dickhead/accomplices )
Officials said the report, an update of a National Intelligence Estimate made public in February, also concludes that a withdrawal of American troops would likely reignite waves of sectarian violence. While some Iraqi units have become more capable in recent months, the officials said those gains had not been enough to alter significantly the earlier assessment that Iraqi troops and police would be “hard pressed” to operate independently of American troops well into next year.
( if the govt isn't unified and effective, the army and police will not die for it )
The new assessment is likely to be used both by the White House and its opponents to bolster competing positons about when the United States should begin cutting troop levels in Iraq.
The assessment issued in February included projections for the next 12 to 18 months, and said that during that period Iraqi troops and police units would have a difficult time assuming significantly greater responsibilities. The officials said the new estimate applied to the same time frame, and would reach a similar conclusion.
On Wednesday, as a second Democratic senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York, called for Mr. Maliki to quit, he lashed out at American lawmakers who have questioned his competence. Mr. Bush — who on Tuesday confessed to “a certain level of frustration” with the Iraqi government — responded by using Wednesday’s speech to try to shore up Mr. Maliki. “Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job,” he said, “and I support him.”
All this month, members of Congress have been visiting Iraq to make their own assessments of the troop buildup and Mr. Maliki. While Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and even some Democrats say they are seeing military gains, Democratic leaders and party strategists, citing the lack of political progress, vowed Wednesday to renew their efforts to end the war.
President Bush delivered a rousing defense of his Iraq policy on Wednesday, telling a group of veterans that “a free Iraq” is within reach and warning that if Americans succumb to “the allure of retreat,” they will witness death and suffering of the sort not seen since the Vietnam War.
“Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” Mr. Bush declared in a 45-minute speech before the group’s national convention in Kansas City, Mo. He added, “The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.”
The speech was the beginning of an intense White House initiative to shape the debate on Capitol Hill in September, when the president’s troop buildup will undergo a re-evaluation.
As the battle lines are drawn, a new advertising war is beginning to heat up, focusing on lawmakers, especially Republicans, who face tough re-election campaigns. On Wednesday, a new interest group, Freedom’s Watch, led by allies of the Bush administration — including Sheldon G. Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who ranks sixth on Forbes Magazine’s lists of the world’s billionaires — began a monthlong, $15 million campaign intended to support the president’s policy.
( marketing, schmaketing, spinning, dissembling, lying. It's totally detached from Iraq )
Ari Fleischer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/ari_fleischer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), former press secretary to Mr. Bush and a member of the group’s board, said the ads would run in 20 states, in more than five dozen Congressional districts. “Anybody who is considering switching their vote is somebody we care about,” he said.
Presidential candidates are also staking out their positions. The president was just one of several elected officials who spoke before the Veterans of Foreign Wars this week. Two top Democratic contenders — Senator Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois — have appeared, as has Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Arizona.
Military audiences are generally safe for Mr. Bush, and Wednesday’s crowd came through with repeated applause. But the views expressed by the former soldiers in interviews here were hardly uniform. One, Charles Muckleston, a 77-year-old former Army sergeant from Manchester, N.J., who fought in Korea, said he did not bother to go to the hall to hear Mr. Bush. “It didn’t seem worthwhile,” he said. But Todd Struwe, 44, who served on the Korean Peninsula, said Mr. Bush’s address was “the best one we’ve heard so far from all of the candidates.”
In the speech, Mr. Bush sought to paint the conflict in Iraq in the broader context of American involvement in Asia. In one fell swoop, the president likened the Iraq war to earlier conflicts in Japan and Korea — which produced democratic allies of the United States — as well as to the war in Vietnam, asserting that the American pullout there 32 years ago led to tens of thousands of deaths in that country and Cambodia. “The question now before us,” he said, referring to Japan and Korea, “comes down to this: Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?”
( Holy fucking shit, dubya, you are the loser, the defeated "president", in name, only whose presidency and legacy is a pile of loser's shit )
And, in a passage that set off a bitter debate even before the speech’s end, Mr. Bush suggested a quick pullout from Iraq could bring the kind of carnage that drenched Southeast Asia three decades ago.
( well, so what? sooner or later, with fewer or more US military casulaties wasted, that civil war is going to happen )
“In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/k/khmer_rouge/index.html?inline=nyt-org) began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution,” Mr. Bush said. “In Vietnam, former allies of the United States, and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.”
( absolutely totally straw-man, red-herring horse-shit. Had we stayed in VN, we would have lost another 50K US lives and STILL not stopped the slaughter )
With his comments Mr. Bush was doing something few major politicians of either party have done in a generation: rearguing a conflict that ended more than three decades ago but has remained an emotional touch point.
Democrats, not surprisingly, rejected the comparison, including John Kerry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/john_kerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Vietnam War veteran who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Bush in 2004. “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” Mr. Kerry said.
At the same time, Mr. Bush was giving rare political voice to those — many of whom were in the hall — who believe the American pullout was a mistake.
“Amen,” said Bob McKay, 63, who served in the Army during the Vietnam War. “That’s what I fear most: We’re going to pull another Vietnam.”
( Iraq already is another VN. Pullout is the next chapter. But unlike VN, post-occupation Iraq will be grave threat to USA, thanks exclusively to dubya and dickhead )
But two World War II veterans, John Rocca and Anthony Cellucci, said they had qualms about Mr. Bush’s speech. They said they agreed with Mr. Obama’s call for United States troops to refocus their efforts to find Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his deputies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“I don’t think we belong over there,” Mr. Cellucci said. “Bring the troops home.” He added, “You fight a war, you fight it and get it over with.”
Mark Mazzetti and Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington and Jim Rutenberg from Kansas City, Mo. Damien Cave contributed from Baghdad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23cnd-policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq’s Government
By JIM RUTENBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/jim_rutenberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per), SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheryl_gay_stolberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
This article is by Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mark Mazzetti.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per), can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
As the end of the Congressional recess draws closer, the debate over Iraq policy will only intensify, and the new intelligence assessment, called “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability” is likely to play an important role in that discussion. Officials said the assessment concluded that Mr. Maliki retained support among Shiite groups in part because putting together a new government would be arduous. Officials in Washington and Baghdad have said for months that any military gains would be ephemeral if Iraqi politicians were not able to bridge sectarian divides.
( that is also Petraeus' position, and the position of anybody with no vested interest in the war (MIC), Repugs, WH, and right-wing jerk-off knee-jerkers )
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report will be issued this morning, and spokesmen for both the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment. “The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents.
( but dubya, doing his best Nixon/Kissinger imitation, sees a light at the end of the tunnel, aka, 20 Jan 2009. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )
The new report also concludes that the American military has had success in recent months in tamping down sectarian violence in the country, according to officials who have read it.
( ... as if that mattered )
The report, which was intended to help anticipate events over the next 6 to 12 months, is “more dire in its assessments” than the administration has been in its own internal discussions, according to one senior official who has read it. But the report also warns, as Mr. Bush did in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday, that an early withdrawal would lead to more chaos.
“It doesn’t take a policy position,” one official said. “But it leaves you with the sense that what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working, but we can’t let up, or it’ll get worse.”
( of course it will get worse, just like US departure from VN. The Iraqis want to kill each other, are armed to the teeth, and will do it as soon as the US leaves. It's dubya who enable that civil war. Iraq and the world would be better offe without dubya/dickhead/accomplices )
Officials said the report, an update of a National Intelligence Estimate made public in February, also concludes that a withdrawal of American troops would likely reignite waves of sectarian violence. While some Iraqi units have become more capable in recent months, the officials said those gains had not been enough to alter significantly the earlier assessment that Iraqi troops and police would be “hard pressed” to operate independently of American troops well into next year.
( if the govt isn't unified and effective, the army and police will not die for it )
The new assessment is likely to be used both by the White House and its opponents to bolster competing positons about when the United States should begin cutting troop levels in Iraq.
The assessment issued in February included projections for the next 12 to 18 months, and said that during that period Iraqi troops and police units would have a difficult time assuming significantly greater responsibilities. The officials said the new estimate applied to the same time frame, and would reach a similar conclusion.
On Wednesday, as a second Democratic senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York, called for Mr. Maliki to quit, he lashed out at American lawmakers who have questioned his competence. Mr. Bush — who on Tuesday confessed to “a certain level of frustration” with the Iraqi government — responded by using Wednesday’s speech to try to shore up Mr. Maliki. “Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job,” he said, “and I support him.”
All this month, members of Congress have been visiting Iraq to make their own assessments of the troop buildup and Mr. Maliki. While Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and even some Democrats say they are seeing military gains, Democratic leaders and party strategists, citing the lack of political progress, vowed Wednesday to renew their efforts to end the war.
President Bush delivered a rousing defense of his Iraq policy on Wednesday, telling a group of veterans that “a free Iraq” is within reach and warning that if Americans succumb to “the allure of retreat,” they will witness death and suffering of the sort not seen since the Vietnam War.
“Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” Mr. Bush declared in a 45-minute speech before the group’s national convention in Kansas City, Mo. He added, “The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.”
The speech was the beginning of an intense White House initiative to shape the debate on Capitol Hill in September, when the president’s troop buildup will undergo a re-evaluation.
As the battle lines are drawn, a new advertising war is beginning to heat up, focusing on lawmakers, especially Republicans, who face tough re-election campaigns. On Wednesday, a new interest group, Freedom’s Watch, led by allies of the Bush administration — including Sheldon G. Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who ranks sixth on Forbes Magazine’s lists of the world’s billionaires — began a monthlong, $15 million campaign intended to support the president’s policy.
( marketing, schmaketing, spinning, dissembling, lying. It's totally detached from Iraq )
Ari Fleischer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/ari_fleischer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), former press secretary to Mr. Bush and a member of the group’s board, said the ads would run in 20 states, in more than five dozen Congressional districts. “Anybody who is considering switching their vote is somebody we care about,” he said.
Presidential candidates are also staking out their positions. The president was just one of several elected officials who spoke before the Veterans of Foreign Wars this week. Two top Democratic contenders — Senator Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois — have appeared, as has Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Arizona.
Military audiences are generally safe for Mr. Bush, and Wednesday’s crowd came through with repeated applause. But the views expressed by the former soldiers in interviews here were hardly uniform. One, Charles Muckleston, a 77-year-old former Army sergeant from Manchester, N.J., who fought in Korea, said he did not bother to go to the hall to hear Mr. Bush. “It didn’t seem worthwhile,” he said. But Todd Struwe, 44, who served on the Korean Peninsula, said Mr. Bush’s address was “the best one we’ve heard so far from all of the candidates.”
In the speech, Mr. Bush sought to paint the conflict in Iraq in the broader context of American involvement in Asia. In one fell swoop, the president likened the Iraq war to earlier conflicts in Japan and Korea — which produced democratic allies of the United States — as well as to the war in Vietnam, asserting that the American pullout there 32 years ago led to tens of thousands of deaths in that country and Cambodia. “The question now before us,” he said, referring to Japan and Korea, “comes down to this: Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?”
( Holy fucking shit, dubya, you are the loser, the defeated "president", in name, only whose presidency and legacy is a pile of loser's shit )
And, in a passage that set off a bitter debate even before the speech’s end, Mr. Bush suggested a quick pullout from Iraq could bring the kind of carnage that drenched Southeast Asia three decades ago.
( well, so what? sooner or later, with fewer or more US military casulaties wasted, that civil war is going to happen )
“In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/k/khmer_rouge/index.html?inline=nyt-org) began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution,” Mr. Bush said. “In Vietnam, former allies of the United States, and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.”
( absolutely totally straw-man, red-herring horse-shit. Had we stayed in VN, we would have lost another 50K US lives and STILL not stopped the slaughter )
With his comments Mr. Bush was doing something few major politicians of either party have done in a generation: rearguing a conflict that ended more than three decades ago but has remained an emotional touch point.
Democrats, not surprisingly, rejected the comparison, including John Kerry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/john_kerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Vietnam War veteran who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Bush in 2004. “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” Mr. Kerry said.
At the same time, Mr. Bush was giving rare political voice to those — many of whom were in the hall — who believe the American pullout was a mistake.
“Amen,” said Bob McKay, 63, who served in the Army during the Vietnam War. “That’s what I fear most: We’re going to pull another Vietnam.”
( Iraq already is another VN. Pullout is the next chapter. But unlike VN, post-occupation Iraq will be grave threat to USA, thanks exclusively to dubya and dickhead )
But two World War II veterans, John Rocca and Anthony Cellucci, said they had qualms about Mr. Bush’s speech. They said they agreed with Mr. Obama’s call for United States troops to refocus their efforts to find Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his deputies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“I don’t think we belong over there,” Mr. Cellucci said. “Bring the troops home.” He added, “You fight a war, you fight it and get it over with.”
Mark Mazzetti and Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington and Jim Rutenberg from Kansas City, Mo. Damien Cave contributed from Baghdad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23cnd-policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin