Sunday, August 14, 2005

Progress, Schmogress

Update: Iraq's national assembly allowed the team drawing up a draft constitution an extra week to complete their work. Otherwise, the government would have dissolved, requiring new elections in December, thereby starting this process all over again. What did the Bush mafia/administration have to say? "We are witnessing democracy at work in Iraq," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Wow, whatever this administration is smoking, they need to share it.

Eh, so Iraq isn't the beacon of freedom and democracy. Sewage fills the streets in Baghdad. Unemployment is at 50-65%. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.. Hey, we tried. Yeah, we'll just be leaving now. Good luck with those freedom hating suicide bombers. Bush's corporate buddies got their contract money.

In today's Washington Post, U.S. officials are saying that '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 where 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."


Posted by Picasa

What does the AWOL president have to say (from his golf cart cell phone)? "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said his radio address on Saturday. Yes, he's completely out of touch and as we have all assumed, not the real President.

Aside from the insurgent attacks, there is much religious unrest. "Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists". The Bush administration had stated that they had planned to establish a "secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights" (insert laugh here) and one that would "unite disparate ethnic and religious communities."

Posted by Picasa

U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say that the US "set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." The WP goes on to report that "U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said. Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve. Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year.

According to Wayne White, the former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team: "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric system." We didn't even allow the Iraqi's to rebuild their own country after we demolished it. Nope, we gave billions in no bid contracts to American corporations, or rather the highest donors to the Republican Party. God Bless America!

4 Comments:

At 6:41 PM, Blogger Guitanguran said...

Gotta love your sources there at the post...:-)

Let's dissect this a little, shall we?

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

Well, if U.S. officials(as in plural, right?)are saying it, it must be official, right? As best I can figure, they got two quotes from two 'officials' that are, of course, anonymous. Who are these people, and at what level do they operate in the administration?We're not told.

In the same article we have another quote:

"Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the postwar chaos and escalating insurgency."

What's interesting to me is the word, 'chaos'. Somewhat subjective judgement of the situation, wouldn't you say? Was it an 'official' that used that word, or was it a characterization by the Post? Again, we're not told.

Anyway, which 'officials' to believe? Anonymity is a two edged sword, after all. It can be used as a way to get out information that the 'official' officials aren't telling us. It can also be a way to submarine the adminstration when you've merely got an axe to grind.

While we're at it, lets look at who else the Post uses as sources.


"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

Well, I don't know who Judith Yaphe is. I can only surmise that the reason she's a former Iraq analyst is her lack of analysis. We knew back in 1991 that toppling Saddam would bring about conflict between the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis. That's part of why we stopped at Baghdad the first time. What, we didn't know that already, and that it would be a major stumbling block? Sorry, but Ms. Yahpe doesn't sound credible.

But wait, here's this!

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

There we go...a democracy 'expert', whose work with the administration is not defined in any way, and whose book title indicates an axe to grind. The book plug probably didn't hurt, either...

Lisa, I'm dead sure I'll never get you to see my perspective. You're too young and in the wrong part of the country to have any other viewpoint...:-) But, what I would like you and anyone else to see is that articles like this are less about real facts (which I'd surely like to meet someday) and more about putting the current administration in a negative light. Part of getting to the truth of any matter is considering the source and thinking critically, and not just taking anything you read as the truth, simply because it fits your viewpoint. I've been guilty of if myself from time to time...what was that thing about telling someone about a splinter in their eye when you've got a two-by-four sticking out of yours?

Believe me, Bush has done enough wrong things concerning spending and immigration policy for me to question his sanity, much less his competency. There's enough negative light to shine all around for that without inventing stuff.

Keep up the good work.

 
At 8:32 PM, Blogger Lisa said...

Again, you are not familiar with journalism. That is what the Washington Post is all about. As I've commented before, they brought down Tricky Dick. And they kept the source a secret until he revealed himself. This is what happens in DC, officials leak, always have, always will. Those with sensitive information cannot be put on the record, they'll lose their job or worse (as Joseph Wilson could tell you). So get past the 'sources'. There is a process involved in journalism that you will find at most newspapers. These sources are known by the reporter and the editor-always. The source's information must also be confirmed. The Post isn't the Enquirer, spreading gossip and hearsay. Educate yourself on journalism, before you assume they are all frauds like FOX News...or as FOX always reports 'some are saying'. Who are some? O'Reilly's loofah girl? Hannity's 'Big and Fat' tailor? Thanks for blogging ;)

 
At 3:38 PM, Blogger Guitanguran said...

Oh, you mean sources like they had in Rathergate as in that mysterious female (the name escapes me...maybe because she never existed?) that we never, ever, located? She must have gotten lost in Aruba, I presume.

OK, I get the picture now. Journalists never lie, never slant the truth, and nevernevernever let their political leanings affect the facts, whether they be conservative or liberal. Wow, those guys are so much better than me. I want to be a journalist when I grow up! C'mon! You can lie to your friends, and I can lie to mine, but let's not lie to one another...:-)

I understand perfectly how journalism is SUPPOSED to work. Even being from Texas, I didn't fall off the hay wagon yesterday. You're making the assumption, especially with news sources that reflect your views, that they in fact are adhering to those standards. I find myself guilty of that. Hence, the point I made earlier of going outside of my conservative comfort zone.

Shoot, now that I have XM radio, I listen to Air America from time to time. Still waiting on them to fully explain about all those $s the kids at the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club were supposed to get, but I keep hoping. How many times do you actually look at a Michelle Malkin type blog to get a different perspective?

BTW, thanks so much for not including allusions to my various and sundry orifices in your post.

Keep those blogs coming there, young'un!

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Guitanguran said...

Speaking of journalistic integrity, how 'bout this from Angela Brown of the AP. Here's a link to the entire article:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C6FJ3G0.html

Its the last paragraph here that concerns me.

"Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to become a vocal opponent of the war."

Information about the intelligence was out there before her son died. And, that intelligence didn't 'cause' her to be a vocal opponent. She was self admittedly against war way before then.

Taking this reporter and her reports at face value would lead many to make erroneous conclusions based factual errors (thats uh, lying here in Texas).

Just keep telling me how ethical these folks are.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home