Most recent NIE likely to be the most accurate in years . . .

[BaliBabyDoc]

AussieNZ Yahoo (excerpts)

A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the US government's most senior analysts provides a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined - at best - the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a US official said.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war".
---
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, referring to figures showing only about six per cent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
---
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration - what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' - that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said.

"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.

"This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating from anybody looking at this from any vantage point," he said.

Damn liberals talking down the troops and our President.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey conquering a nation and making it's citizens our subjects is not easy despite what Chalabi told Cheney!

 

[KB]

I have been saying this since the war started. You can't go into a nation and change their government. The people have to want it. The most successful government changes are done by the people themselves. America is the nation it is today because it sparked the revolution that led to democracy. If it was France that came over here, defeated the British and then setup a French-style government, we would be pissed too.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually, I'm reasonably certain that Iraqis wanted a change in government . . . they just didn't expect the "hero" to be a "zero".

I liken this situation to a battered spouse being "aided" by a "good" Samaritan . . . who subsequently moves in, destroys most of the door locks, damages much of the home, and occasionally smacks around the victim . . . just not quite as much as the previous turd.

Then the "savior" complains about how badly the house is kept, how he does all the work, how everyone is working against him (except for his bowling league/drinking buddies), and how it's really up to the "formerly battered" spouse to get things right again.

 

[tnitsuj]

The NIE hates freedom.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Problem is that there was a loud voice expressing these same concerns before the war. They were just shouted down by a louder mob and silenced. I blame the American people for that. Most were crying for someones blood after 9/11, especially when we didn't get Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad guy, and the perfect target for our blood lust.

I also blame the "liberal" press for not question the premise of the war more.

On balance the Iraqis are better without Saddam. On balance, a large part of the world would be better off if we declared WWIII and bombed their rulers off the earth. If we kill 7 million to make the world a better place, what is that compared to 6 billion? WWII thinking is what it is, and we went to war to prevent it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Winston, I think it is quite an unanswered question as to whether MOST Iraqis will be better off without Saddam Hussein. The man was a legendary POS but there's absolutely NO guarantee that another POS will not follow him. We know we won't get his hellspawn but that's about it.

I really hope life get better for Iraqis . . . but considering current leadership (in the US and in Iraq) . . . there's little reason for such wishful thinking. Who knows . . . maybe the elections are a measured success, Iraqis write a Constitution in short order that supports individual/group liberty while maintaining a union, and new elected leadership rules with intelligence and compassion. You never know . . . it could happen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I was thinking at the moment BBD. My statement was overbroad. I do wonder what the death toll caused by the aftermath has been? We don't keep those statistics. They might work against Bush, since whatever cascade of events happening in Iraq was instituted by this war.

Would be interesting to know if the "cure" has been better than the "disease".

 

[Moonbeam]

The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq was undertaken under the pretext of WMD which did not exist but for the real purpose of the Neocon PNAC American Imperialist dream. Now we pay the price for following in our sleep the dreams of fools.

It presents an interesting dilemma, I think, regarding our future. If Bush wins he will be around when the house of cards collapses and the Republicans will win their reward, but if Kerry wins we will pull out and Iraq will become Viet Nam. The Democrats in saving us from catastrophe will be blamed for losing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Strange how the Bush detractors will pronounce any government report that favors the Bush admin as "partisan propaganda," yet turn around and glom on to any government report that might be unfavorable and praise it as undeniable proof that Bush is a failure.

Transparent hypocrisy is alive and well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Strange how the Bush detractors will pronounce any government report that favors the Bush admin as "partisan propaganda," yet turn around and glom on to any government report that might be unfavorable and praise it as undeniable proof that Bush is a failure.

Transparent hypocrisy is alive and well.

You are a moral relativist, I see, one who believes that there is no truth on the ground, and that the truth is just spin. Wake up. You are the hypocrite.

 

[Todd33]

This should be the top news, this is what the election should be about. The president gets us into a quagmire and then tries to ignore it and let it slip off the front page. The public thinks Bush is winning the war on terror and then ignore Iraq, what a joke.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...ws&storyID=6256167

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Strange how the Bush detractors will pronounce any government report that favors the Bush admin as "partisan propaganda," yet turn around and glom on to any government report that might be unfavorable and praise it as undeniable proof that Bush is a failure.

Transparent hypocrisy is alive and well.

You are a moral relativist, I see, one who believes that there is no truth on the ground, and that the truth is just spin. Wake up. You are the hypocrite.

Wow, great response! The equivalent of 'Not only are you stupid, you are a doo-doo head.'

I am a moral relativist, which is not in and of itself a bad thing at all. It beats be an emotivist, who often practice conditional relativism, or an absolute relativist - which is what most of the Bush haters in here are.

 

[Todd33]

Ah one of the new right wingers that Rip recruited pops up...

Keep this story on the top, where it belongs.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Problem is that there was a loud voice expressing these same concerns before the war. They were just shouted down by a louder mob and silenced. I blame the American people for that. Most were crying for someones blood after 9/11, especially when we didn't get Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad guy, and the perfect target for our blood lust.

I also blame the "liberal" press for not question the premise of the war more.

On balance the Iraqis are better without Saddam. On balance, a large part of the world would be better off if we declared WWIII and bombed their rulers off the earth. If we kill 7 million to make the world a better place, what is that compared to 6 billion? WWII thinking is what it is, and we went to war to prevent it.

It's hard to blame the press. Look at what they're trying to do to CBS right now. With the imminet threat of the "WMD's" the the public was led to believe existed on an almost daily schedule, nobody would have listened to them anyway. They couldn't refuse to run those stories, it was the news at the time.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Ah one of the new right wingers that Rip recruited pops up...

Keep this story on the top, where it belongs.

I don't even know who Rip is. Good job making an assumption though. Please go to Officespace.com and request your free Jump to Conclusions mat.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Provide something substantitive to the conversation or move along lil' doggy . . .

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Provide something substantitive to the conversation or move along lil' doggy . . .

Sorry.

I guess I'll switch over to something really substantive like Bush-bashing hyperbole so nobody will go armchair mod on me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow, great response! The equivalent of 'Not only are you stupid, you are a doo-doo head.'
-

If you say so.
-------------------------
I am a moral relativist, which is not in and of itself a bad thing at all. It beats be an emotivist, who often practice conditional relativism, or an absolute relativist - which is what most of the Bush haters in here are.
-
I guess it's not a bad thing considering you can take any position under the sun. For you everything can taste like chicken. There is no such word as emotivist that I can find and your use of conditional and absolute relativist makes no sense, but which, I guess, support your claim.......

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I guess it's not a bad thing considering you can take any position under the sun. For you everything can taste like chicken. There is no such word as emotivist that I can find and your use of conditional and absolute relativist makes no sense, but which, I guess, support your claim.......

It's not going to make sense if you don't educate yourself first.

An emotivist is one who practices emotivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...otivism_and_universism

Conditional relativism comes from David Lewis's Dispositional Theories of Value. It's more psychobabble on the whole relativism argument. Google it up if you feel so inclined.

 

[jackschmittusa]

TastesLikeChicken

Interesting sig. How's this for free speech. I do not agree with everything from either the "left" or "right", and I do agree with some of both. I also find an element of truth in the belief that many people express; that choosing a president is usually choosing the lesser of two evils. I believe that GWB has been such an incredable disaster to this, and other countires, that it is hard to imagine anybody doing any worse. His failures with the war, the enviornment, the economy, science in general, international relations, world leadership, basic freedoms, etc. should be obvious to the most casual observer. How could anyone expresss the desire to have him bumbling about for four more years to do even worse damage?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
TastesLikeChicken

Interesting sig. How's this for free speech. I do not agree with everything from either the "left" or "right", and I do agree with some of both. I also find an element of truth in the belief that many people express; that choosing a president is usually choosing the lesser of two evils. I believe that GWB has been such an incredable disaster to this, and other countires, that it is hard to imagine anybody doing any worse. His failures with the war, the enviornment, the economy, science in general, international relations, world leadership, basic freedoms, etc. should be obvious to the most casual observer. How could anyone expresss the desire to have him bumbling about for four more years to do even worse damage?

It's not hard to imagine another president doing worse at all. Considering what Bush was handed with the dot-com bubble burst, 9/11, and Clinton's legacy in regards to his lasse-faire attitude to terrorism I think Bush has handled things relatively well.

Doesn't mean I'll be voting for him though. Won't be voting for Kerry either, for that matter.

 

[jackschmittusa]

TastesLikeChicken

Handled it well?

Budget surplus to record deficit.

Huge gift to Bush after 9-11 in the form of international sympathy and generosity, totally squandered.

Can't remember any radical course changes by Bush in dealing with terrorism till 9-11. Maybe he was of similar opinions on the subject as Clinton.

Dot com bubble cost venture capitalists money (and they generally have a lot). Twenty-something paper millionaires became ordinary people again (grandma said "There ain't no free lunch.". Only fools lost money, and it didn't even disappear, it just went somewhere else.
*interesting note*: It even helped some startups that actually had a business plan and experienced leaders. Most dot coms spent a great deal of money on equipment from Cisco for example. So many silly ventures went under that there was soon a huge amount of hardware being sold at action. So much, that the "almost new" Cisco gear actually became a market competitor to Cisco with its new gear. Many startups were on much better financial footing to begin with do to the huge savings on initial equipment purches. This is but one example of many silver linings to the bust that were overlooked by the media. On the whole, the bust was not nearly as bad as most people seem to think it was.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Strange how the Bush detractors will pronounce any government report that favors the Bush admin as "partisan propaganda," yet turn around and glom on to any government report that might be unfavorable and praise it as undeniable proof that Bush is a failure.

Transparent hypocrisy is alive and well.

You are a moral relativist, I see, one who believes that there is no truth on the ground, and that the truth is just spin. Wake up. You are the hypocrite.

Wow, great response! The equivalent of 'Not only are you stupid, you are a doo-doo head.'

I am a moral relativist, which is not in and of itself a bad thing at all. It beats be an emotivist, who often practice conditional relativism, or an absolute relativist - which is what most of the Bush haters in here are.

How is it not a bad thing? How does it beat emotivism? What is the connection between emotivism and cognitive relativism? What is absolute relativism and its own connection to emotivism? In what way are Bush haters practicing these things? Please explain in ordinary English free of abstract definitions. I edumcated myself and still have no idea what you are talking about. Why should I believe it characteristic of liberals that they believe all the bad and none of the good about Bush. I think the relevant point here was that the criticism is from the right. I mean, what liberal would trust that, right?, regardless of how negative.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Discussing this subject would derail this thread even further. If you want to begin a new thread on the philosophy of relativism, please do so.