Bush Admin AGAIN lowers expectations of Iraq Venture

Mafangoren:[quote]Seems that every step of the way the Bush administration has been lowering the expectations of American people, as if this presidency were aiming to be called the “remedial” or “special needs” presidency. Why should recent news be any different?

[quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html

Quote:
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.” [/quote]

Given that going to war is one of the most solemn acts a government can do, I suppose it’s no wonder that Bush now has no credibility with the American people.


“As to your first question, that would be murder in some degree. As to your second, there are no laws in this state regarding the unlicensed practice of taxidermy or puppetry.”[/quote]

I can’t figure out why no one has commented on this article posted by MFGR. Could it be that the info, and MFGR’s conclusions are undisputed? Actually, how could they be?

This has been the same sad ole story from day 1. General J. Garner gets the boot (I’m guessing because of ineptitude?), then the CPA takes over and dismantles the army and baath structures before putting anything else in its place (looting and lawlessness anyone?), a puppet Iraqi transitional gov’t gets put in place, another elected gov’t takes the reins. . . . nothing has worked as was propagandized. Probably because the “plan” was not well developed in the first place (Dick Cheney - we’ll be welcomed as liberators - the oil will pay for the reconstruction) - etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Bodo

Ever since that General said the Iraq campaigned need several hundred thousand troops on the ground to secure the peace which this administration down played, we knew it was operation FUBAR.

We are now in the phase where only the most deluded war supporters are waking up the reality of the situation, as they witness first hand the waves of US troops come back dead, maimed, or shell shock from their experiences in the sandbox.

Well call me deluded then because I think that the effort has been mostly a success and apparently so do the Iraqis who apparently do not read all the gloom and doom in the Western press. Over 80 percent are confident that their lives will be better next year and they are optimistic about the future. Remember that all the violence is occuring in 4 provinces. The other 14 are relatively quiet. Yes, there are problems but there were similar problems in Kurdistan from 1991 to 1997 and look at how it turned out. I remain optimistic. Will Iraq be a perfect democracy? No. Will its economy never face difficulties? Will it face power shortages and water problems? oh yes, but then so does California, France, Spain, UK, Germany, etc. The main point is that it is and will be better than it was under Saddam and if we would get serious about dealing with Iran and Syria, we could go a long way to improving security. This is not about more troops but in getting the necessary intelligence to defeat the forces arrayed against us. I suggest a few bombers sent in to target those funding and supporting the terrorist in Damascus and Teheran.

It would be interesting to hear how you would define failure in Iraq. All-out civil war? That’s about the only development that hasn’t happened there yet.

"A new report from the International Monetary Fund says that Iraq

Source please?

You realize you need to actually have power in the first place to be able to have a shortage, right?

I’m sorry. I was wrong about the 80 percent optimism figure. I guess it is 90 percent. Sorry about the mistake.

[quote]An International Republican Institute poll conducted from February 27 to March 5, 2005 shows that a majority of Iraqis are optimistic about the direction of their country and hopeful for their future. Results also show a majority of Iraqis feel the January 30 election was fair and impartial and that the Transitional National Assembly (TNA) will represent the Iraqi people as a whole. To view a complete poll presentation click on the link below.

“The optimism of the Iraqi people continues to grow as they move forward in building a democratic Iraq,” said Lorne Craner, president of IRI. “The increased optimism in Iraq is a clear result of the country’s successful January 30 election.”

The new survey revealed that 61.5 percent of Iraqis believe that their country is headed in the right direction compared to only 23.2 percent who feel Iraq is headed in the wrong direction. The nearly 40 point margin between right direction and wrong direction is the largest since IRI began polling in May 2004, and this margin is more than double what it was in the poll taken from January 13 to 25, 2005. The current poll further shows that more than 90 percent of Iraqis feel hopeful for their future.

Looking ahead to the constitutional process, more than 56 percent of Iraqis know that the TNA will be responsible for writing a permanent constitution. This number is up from 32.9 percent in the November 24 to December 5, 2004 poll. An additional 52.6 percent understood that the constitution drafted by the TNA will have to be approved by national referendum later in the year.

www.iri.org. [/quote]

As to the power, there is supply but demand is increasing greatly due to the fact that for the first time Baghdad is not getting all the power and because of all the electronic devices that flooded into the country. This week’s Economist magazine noted that economic growth in Iraq in 2004 was 50 percent. Do you understand? 50 percent. Wonder why this didn’t appear in any headlines? Do you have any understanding of how economic growth leads to increased power consumption?

Is that the same Economist magazine article that also stated that this year’s econcomic growth in Iraq is stalling to under 4% because of the deterioriating security situation there???

Ah Spook:

The voice of gloating when ever something bad is predicted. Yes, economic growth rates are down, BUT where during the past year as in all of 2004 did you read headlines that said: IRAQI GROWTH AT 50%

and why not? But I see you are right there with the but it is predicted to be 3.7 percent this year. AND if 3.7 percent is so bad, what is the economic growth rate in other countries in the region? What is Syria’s growth rate? Iran’s? Bahrain’s? Kuwait’s? Egypts? Jordan’s? Israel’s? Lebanon’s?

Well, let’s look at the back page: Turkey 4.9 percent, Israel 3.8 percent, Egypt 4.4 percent. Do you want me to find the others as well. So under 4 percent for Iraq would be catastrophic how exactly? ONLY in the context of the formerly predicted 16 percent growth being dropped to under 4 percent.

Back to you. I am sure that you can find something else to prove that Iraq is a failure and that Bush is an idiot but I think I can find plenty more to deflect that as well.

Again, one final question for everyone to ponder. If Iraq grew at 50 percent last year, why doesn’t everyone know this? Where were the headlines? Why was this not important? irrelevant to news stories? I challenge anyone to come forward with the headline that had this as a major news story. Win a prize. Come up with a headline any headline with this information. AND the media of course is not biased. Really?

[quote=“fred smith”] Yes, economic growth rates are down, BUT where during the past year as in all of 2004 did you read headlines that said: Iraqi GROWTH AT 50%

and why not? [/quote]Maybe because a 5% growth rate on GDP of, say a US $100 billion economy is big news. But 50% growth in an economy that was US $100 billion, then dropped to $100 million, doesn’t seem like news. I mean, if hypothetical country X got back to 50% of its pre-disaster economy, that’d still be–in the big picture–bad news, wouldn’t it?

If you’re really following the financial news, it’s of interest. Or if you’re looking for indications that infrastructure of a sort is starting to come together, that’s a good indication, but I’d hardly call it HEADLINE news.

That’s just my take… but then, I prefer to read the good news. :idunno:

Sorry but the war was in 2003. The growth rates immediately after the March period were even higher. So how do we account for 50 percent growth in Iraq an entire year after the war and invasion and nary a headline, nary a peep. Come on. When child malnutrition went from 4.4 percent to 7 percent we had headlines that screamed CHILD MALNUTRITION DOUBLES IN IRAQ.

So if you want to play it that way, why not the other way. 50 percent no matter how you slice is is fantastic and less than 4 percent is only a tragedy if you compare it with the prediction NOT when you compare it to the other nations of the region as I have shown so what’s the big deal?

[quote=“fred smith”]So if you want to play it that way, why not the other way. 50 percent no matter how you slice it is fantastic and less than 4 percent is only a tragedy if you compare it with the prediction NOT when you compare it to the other nations of the region as I have shown so what’s the big deal?[/quote] Sure, 50% seems to be big news. But regaining what you lost just doesn’t seem as big a deal to me (unless it’s the Library of Alexandria, or an extinct species, something of that order).
If Iraq were to become a semi-functional democracy, that’d really be something to celebrate, 'cause when was the last time they had a choice? If Pakistan were to do the same? Nice. Applause worthy, but sort of ho-hum. Initially losses and gains are important markers–fluctuations, even wild fluctuations, are curiosities.

Admittedly, that’s putting it crudely, but if imprecise it’s not entirely inaccurate. That said, I’m glad things are moving in the right direction… I just don’t see it as headline news. :idunno:

So much for “lowering” expectations…

[quote]In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, reporters Farnaz Fassihi and Christopher Cooper wrote the phrase: “Mr. Bush and others have stopped talking so much of an outright victory in Iraq as they focus on plans to train Iraqi soldiers … so American troops can come home.”
I guess they didn’t read President Bush’s radio speech from three days earlier where he said, in referring to our troops who had died in Iraq: “Now we must finish the task that our troops have given their lives for and honor their sacrifice by completing their mission. We can be confident in the ultimate triumph of our cause because we know that freedom is the future of every nation and that the side of freedom is the side of victory.”
They surely must have missed the lead of a June 30th Washington Post article which read: “… President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq.”
And they couldn’t have heard the speech President Bush was making yesterday (as they presumably were writing their article) that we must "…win and fight

That is not what happened in Iraq. The country boomed in 2004 and this can be witnessed by the convoys of consumer durables that flood into the country through Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This is also affecting the power situation. Think of hundreds of thousands of air conditioners, microwave ovens, TVs, satellite dishes and then wonder what that does to demand for power.

Iraq already is a “semi” democracy. It is a weak one facing an insurgency. That does not make it undemocratic.

Hmmm not sure how I feel about that. Pakistan has had “democratic” governments before. This may be the one example where I actually hope that democracy is not given a chance at present. The nation is way too dangerous. I know that this is inconsistent and I know how I will get jumped all over for saying this, but quite frankly Pakistan is too crazy to let loose. If Musharraf can keep things in line, so much the better. So there you are. I do not want democracy for Pakistan right now if it means the nation spiralling out of control and with nuclear weapons.

50 percent growth is not a fluctuation, it is a massive recovery no matter how you slice it.

But child malnutrition rates “doubling” is? This rose from 4.4 percent to 7.7 percent and it was a headline in many major news organizations. The 4.4 percent was also shaky given that under Saddam no one really knew what child malnutrition was and I personally think it was much higher than 4.4 percent but I cannot prove that. So why was this news but economic growth of 50 percent was not? Why not have some of these enterprising journalists taking photos of the convoys of consumer electronics flooding into the country and then post it next to the next article on power shortages in Baghdad. How about that? Seems like responsible cause-and-effect journalism to me, what do you say?

[quote=“fred smith”]I’m sorry. I was wrong about the 80 percent optimism figure. I guess it is 90 percent. Sorry about the mistake.

[quote]An International Republican Institute poll conducted from February 27 to March 5, 2005 shows that a majority of Iraqis are optimistic about the direction of their country and hopeful for their future. Results also show a majority of Iraqis feel the January 30 election was fair and impartial and that the Transitional National Assembly (TNA) will represent the Iraqi people as a whole. To view a complete poll presentation click on the link below.

“The optimism of the Iraqi people continues to grow as they move forward in building a democratic Iraq,” said Lorne Craner, president of IRI. “The increased optimism in Iraq is a clear result of the country’s successful January 30 election.”

The new survey revealed that 61.5 percent of Iraqis believe that their country is headed in the right direction compared to only 23.2 percent who feel Iraq is headed in the wrong direction. The nearly 40 point margin between right direction and wrong direction is the largest since IRI began polling in May 2004, and this margin is more than double what it was in the poll taken from January 13 to 25, 2005. The current poll further shows that more than 90 percent of Iraqis feel hopeful for their future.

Looking ahead to the constitutional process, more than 56 percent of Iraqis know that the TNA will be responsible for writing a permanent constitution. This number is up from 32.9 percent in the November 24 to December 5, 2004 poll. An additional 52.6 percent understood that the constitution drafted by the TNA will have to be approved by national referendum later in the year.

www.iri.org. [/quote]

As to the power, there is supply but demand is increasing greatly due to the fact that for the first time Baghdad is not getting all the power and because of all the electronic devices that flooded into the country. This week’s Economist magazine noted that economic growth in Iraq in 2004 was 50 percent. Do you understand? 50 percent. Wonder why this didn’t appear in any headlines? Do you have any understanding of how economic growth leads to increased power consumption?[/quote]

Fred, I can not get into the iri.org website. I’d be interested in knowing who they are, and looking at the methodology used in their study/poll. As we both know, statistics can be distorted.

I have read that the demand for electricity has increased markedly, but the end result is frequent brown outs, and I wonder how many tribesmen out there in Sunni land or the Sadr slum can appreciate this? The attacks on infrastructure such as the electrical grid also continue and as a result exacerbate the problem. The US needs to get a handle on this if it expects to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis - and hold them. I think this is probably too late though. The U.S. has already failed to markedly improve quality of life there.

[quote]In Iraq, Living Conditions “Tragic”
By Niko Kyriakou
Inter Press Service
May 16, 2005

Iraqis’ living conditions have deteriorated and pose challenges for development efforts two years after the US-led invasion, says a groundbreaking new joint Iraqi-United Nations report. The Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS), based on data from 22,000 households and released last week, is the first comprehensive statistical description of living standards in the country produced in years and is expected to steer future reconstruction and development assistance, officials said.

“This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq,” Barham Salih, Iraq’s minister of planning, said in a statement. Household surveys were conducted last year and measured indicators ranging from health to employment, housing, status of and access to public services, education, income and war-related deaths. The report estimates the number of Iraqis who have died since the US-led invasion of 2003 somewhere between 18,000 and 29,000. Of those deaths, 12% were children under 18 years of age, meaning that between 2,100 and 3,500 children have been killed in the war thus far, according to ILCS data.

globalpolicy.org/security/is … tragic.htm[/quote]

[quote]Reconstruction has made scant progress in war-torn Iraq since the March 2003 US invasion. Continuing US military operations against the Iraqi resistance have destroyed urban centers such as Fallujah, Ramadi and Najaf and are likely to cause still more damage. The resistance, in turn, has sabotaged Iraq

[quote=“fred smith”]So much for “lowering” expectations…

[quote]In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, reporters Farnaz Fassihi and Christopher Cooper wrote the phrase: “Mr. Bush and others have stopped talking so much of an outright victory in Iraq as they focus on plans to train Iraqi soldiers … so American troops can come home.”
I guess they didn’t read President Bush’s radio speech from three days earlier where he said, in referring to our troops who had died in Iraq: “Now we must finish the task that our troops have given their lives for and honor their sacrifice by completing their mission. We can be confident in the ultimate triumph of our cause because we know that freedom is the future of every nation and that the side of freedom is the side of victory.”
They surely must have missed the lead of a June 30th Washington Post article which read: “… President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq.”
And they couldn’t have heard the speech President Bush was making yesterday (as they presumably were writing their article) that we must "…win and fight

How come the US officials in question cannot be named. So we are supposed to take their word but not the direct statements of Bush and his officials?

I am not aware that the Bush team has ever said anything of the sort publicly.

Again, I strongly urge you to treat with caution a lot of this “reporting.”

Interesting figure on unemployment. The UN has put this at 27 percent.

Also, interesting that the Baghdad power shortages keep getting mentioned. Guess what? Consumer electronics have poured over the border and if the GDP grew by 50 percent in 2004 (guess they forgot to mention this right?) guess what happens to power consumption and GIVEN that all the power used to go only to Baghdad but now is distributed to the entire nation, doesn’t this reporting come off as very one-sided? I will leave it for you to determine but again, this is obviously VERY biased.