NationStates Jolt Archive


Reuters calls Bush a liar about Iraq conditions.

Incertonia
28-09-2004, 00:12
Okay, so they don't use the word "liar"--they wuss out and title the article "Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute"--but the end result is the same. Bush and Allawi lied about conditions in Iraq when they spoke to the press last week. Read the article. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AGPY4CUYUOCLQCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6334619)

Some highlights.
Bush touted preparations for national elections in January, saying Iraq's electoral commission is up and running and told Americans on Saturday that "United Nations electoral advisers are on the ground in Iraq."

He said nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already at work, and that would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year.

And he promised more than $9 billion will be spent on reconstruction contracts in Iraq over the next several months.

But many of these assertions have met with skepticism from key lawmakers, congressional aides and experts, and Pentagon documents, given to lawmakers and obtained by Reuters, paint a more complicated picture.

The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralized training to date, despite earlier claims they had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush....

The White House defended its figures, and a senior administration official defined "fully trained" as having gone through "initial basic operations training."That last bit is like saying that you're fully trained to work at McDonalds because you're wearing a visor and you watched the orientation video.

Anyway, it gets worse--or better depending on your point of view. The article talks about the preparations--or lack thereof--for the free elections that are supposed to be held next year and the reconstruction problems.

I thought everything was going fine?
The Black Forrest
28-09-2004, 00:35
Hmmmm -trys to guess how many liberal bias comments will be made- ;)

As to the training part?

Well it depends. If the guys are the ex-army/Republican Guards guys, then training would be easier then joebob off the street.

They are using the RG guys one of the Iraqi commanders at Fulluji(sp) was a Republic Guard commander.
Purly Euclid
28-09-2004, 01:28
Hmmmm -trys to guess how many liberal bias comments will be made- ;)

As to the training part?

Well it depends. If the guys are the ex-army/Republican Guards guys, then training would be easier then joebob off the street.

They are using the RG guys one of the Iraqi commanders at Fulluji(sp) was a Republic Guard commander.
That militia is defunct. Short of a division moving into Fallujah, nothing can restore order to that city. I think there are talks of a pre-election strike on the city, however.
Incertonia
28-09-2004, 01:37
There's actually one Marine General--Hoare, who was in Iraq until just recently--who told Salon.com that he's heard there will be a major move on Fallujah after the election, whether Bush wins or loses. And he's talking about a city-leveling kind of move.
Purly Euclid
28-09-2004, 01:39
There's actually one Marine General--Hoare, who was in Iraq until just recently--who told Salon.com that he's heard there will be a major move on Fallujah after the election, whether Bush wins or loses. And he's talking about a city-leveling kind of move.
Well, from what I've seen lately on the news, quite a few Iraqis don't mind if Fallujah is nuked.
Incertonia
28-09-2004, 01:41
Well, from what I've seen lately on the news, quite a few Iraqis don't mind if Fallujah is nuked.Nothing personal, Purly, but that's about the dumbest thing I've read on these boards in a long time.
Purly Euclid
28-09-2004, 01:45
Nothing personal, Purly, but that's about the dumbest thing I've read on these boards in a long time.
Call me dumb. Call me irrational. Call me Endoscopia for all I care. I'm perfectly content, because in my heart, I know I am right.
CSW
28-09-2004, 01:47
Call me dumb. Call me irrational. Call me Endoscopia for all I care. I'm perfectly content, because in my heart, I know I am right.
Kill a few hundred thousand civilians and call it a night, eh?
Incertonia
28-09-2004, 01:49
Call me dumb. Call me irrational. Call me Endoscopia for all I care. I'm perfectly content, because in my heart, I know I am right.
Nobody with any sense wants any part of their country nuked. Nobody, Purly.

And I wasn't calling you dumb--I know you well enough. I was calling your comment dumb, which it was.
Xenophobialand
28-09-2004, 01:49
Call me dumb. Call me irrational. Call me Endoscopia for all I care. I'm perfectly content, because in my heart, I know I am right.

Only if you like the prospect of having an open revolt among the remaining Sunni Muslims, who cumulatively comprise about 20% of the population. . .
Tactical Grace
28-09-2004, 01:52
Erm, not to mention the Shias (yeah, the religious fanatic ones) which comprise 60% of the population getting very, very, slightly pissed off about the radioactive fallout.
Purly Euclid
28-09-2004, 01:59
Nobody with any sense wants any part of their country nuked. Nobody, Purly.

And I wasn't calling you dumb--I know you well enough. I was calling your comment dumb, which it was.
I didn't litterally mean nuke. I would never want to nuke a country unless the US or its allies were nuked first. You can't get my hyperboles, it seems.