PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Iraqis to Get More Responsibility


adios
11-13-2003, 10:55 AM
A plan to make a plan?
Bush: Iraqis to Get More Responsibility (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_48)

Bush: Iraqis to Get More Responsibility
55 minutes ago


By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Under the pressure of increasing U.S. deaths in battle, President Bush (news - web sites) said Thursday the United States wants Iraqis to take more responsibility for governing their troubled country and said coalition forces are determined to prevail over terrorists.

Bush said he was sending L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. administrator in Baghdad, back to the country to work with Iraqis on developing a plan to speed up establishment of an Iraqi government.

He said Bremer, in two days of urgent talks at the White House, said the Iraqis want to be more involved. "That's a positive development. That's what we want. We want the Iraqis to be more involved in the governance of their country."

andyfox
11-13-2003, 01:27 PM
We'll stay the course as long as it takes, so long as it doesn't jeopardize reeelection chances.

I'm not picking on Bush here--all those pygmies on the Democratic side would do the same thing.

adios
11-13-2003, 01:57 PM
What I find troubling about this is the plan to make a plan aspect. It could indicate that the plan for post regime change Iraq was not very well developed prior to the regime change (how do you like my wording /images/graemlins/cool.gif).

I agree it looks like political expediency may be coming front and center at this point. I know others predicted that.

andyfox
11-13-2003, 02:10 PM
Yeah, I would think military contingencies dominated planning and occupation planning was secondary. Maybe because they didn't think the invasion aspect would go as smoothly/quickly as it did.

And it's not surprising that surprises occur. Who could have predicted all the things that would happen when we occupied Iraq? Rumsfeld's memo alluded to this: we don't even know if we have ways of determining how we're doing.

On another topic, doesn't Howard Dean remind you of Martin Sheen's Jed Bartlett on the West Wing? It's almost eerie. And on yet another topic, there's a great cameo by a famous actor (I won't tell you who so as not to spoit it) in the movie Love, Apparently, a riff on Bill Clinton. You'll love it. The whole movie is kinda nice too.

adios
11-13-2003, 02:19 PM
I think the uncertainty of events should have been anticipated though. I don't think that's a second guess either because I said as much back in April. Maybe it really is hubris dominating the thinking of the administration.

About Howard Dean, now that you mention it he does remind me of Martin Sheen's character in West Wing. Thanks for the movie recommendation too.

MMMMMM
11-13-2003, 04:45 PM
Does Howard Dean have an irritating, grating voice like Martin Sheen in West Wing? Don't know because I haven't heard Dean, and only heard Sheen a couple of times at my friend's house. I asked my friend how anyone could stand listening to a voice like that and he said he hadn't noticed. This was well before I learned anything of Sheen's political leanings.

Cyrus
11-14-2003, 12:15 PM
As to your question, about whom should we trust more, the CIA or the military, isn't the choice obvious?? At least theoretically? The military should be trusted with military matters and the spooks with matters of intelligence. (I repeat, this is the theory!)

So, I give the spooks the nod over the military's assessment of the Iraqi insurgents.

But let me ask you this : Ever heard the military being more pessimistic in assessing a situation than the CIA ?..

adios
11-14-2003, 12:42 PM
"But let me ask you this : Ever heard the military being more pessimistic in assessing a situation than the CIA ?.."

Hey I'll answer your question with a question.

Wasn't it the CIA that was touting and promoting the imminent danger of Hussein WMD's via numerous briefings in Congress and congressional testimony as well as administration briefings? In fact hasn't the CIA been doing this for the last 10 years?

Cyrus
11-15-2003, 12:38 AM
"Wasn't it the CIA that was touting and promoting the imminent danger of Hussein WMD's via numerous briefings in Congress and congressional testimony as well as administration briefings? In fact hasn't the CIA been doing this for the last 10 years?"

No, it was the political leadership that was taking the reports and doing all the tootin' and the toutin'. The intelligence agencies do not go out and throw press conferences, they just submit reports to the executive officer in charge, aka the President, and testify before Congress. That is all.

Again : I'm not saying that the CIA and the NSA are staffed by peaceniks. I'm saying that their analysis tends to be more sober, precise and realistic than their political overlords'. This oftentimes leads to the intelligence community's reports being altered, exaggerated or censored, in order to serve either partisan objectives or, more importantly, narrow-minded and fuzzliy constructed "grand strategic objectives".

Iraq, IMHO, is a prime example of this. The danger emanating from Saddam Hussein's regime could well have been duly and accurately reported by the CIA and, if it was, it would show that Saddam was all the bad things we know and he was indeed ummm packing but he wasn't representing anything like a clear and present danger to the United States. He didn't have no links with Qaeda and, hell, he was in chilly terms even with the Muslim clergy! Of course, Wolfowitz & Co. wouldn't wanna hear any of that.