Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (154665)	12/22/2004 6:59:43 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

People who pull 4 words (with ellipsis) out of context like that are generally in a poor position to lecture on dishonesty. But then, given the history of the whole WMD prewar propaganda campaign versus conventional reality, the first casualty was well and truly interred way before W's war started. Most of the events Sam listed were touted as major turning / tipping points by the faithful here and elsewhere. He left out the triumph of Fallujah though. Perhaps that was another "catastrophic success", in official W terminology. You may now resume your long running Diogenes act, on the off chance that somebody might actually take it seriously at this point.

To: one_less who wrote (154665)	12/22/2004 7:56:22 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, I think such things were actually being said or implied. Right here on this board, in fact, in addition to other places. Yes I overstated some of it for effect. But the core is certainly true. I posted the article below earlier. Shows the capacity for mendacity and/or ignoring inconvenient facts. If the WMD fiasco was enough to prove that this admin is an expert at both of the above. Below is just an excerpt. Go to the original for the whole thing. Post-war Planning Non-Existent by Warren Strobel and John Walcott WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq , American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq . Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason. The slide said: "To Be Provided." A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions. In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting terrorists who slip easily across Iraq 's long borders, diehards from the old regime and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and America 's sometimes heavy boots. "We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy. The military's plan to defeat Saddam's army worked brilliantly and American troops have distinguished themselves on the battlefield. However, the review found that the president and many of his advisers ignored repeated warnings that rebuilding Iraq would be harder than ousting Saddam and tossed out years of planning about how to rebuild Iraq , in part because they thought pro-American Iraqi exiles and Iraqi "patriots" would quickly pick up the pieces. The CIA predicted up until the war's opening days that the Iraqi army would turn against Saddam, which never happened. This report is based on official documents and on interviews with more than three dozen current and former civilian and military officials who participated directly in planning for the war and its aftermath. Most still support the decision to go to war but say many of the subsequent problems could have been avoided. Every effort was made to get those who were interviewed to speak for the record, but many officials requested anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the administration publicly or because they feared retaliation. One official who was deeply involved in the pre-war planning effort - and was critical of it - initially agreed but then declined to cooperate after expressing concern that the Justice Department might pursue a reporter's telephone records in an effort to hunt down critics of the administration's policies. Some senior officials spoke up about their concerns for the first time. President Bush and top officials in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office never responded to repeated requests for interviews. They've publicly defended their plans for the invasion and its aftermath, and now some top officials are blaming the CIA for failing to predict the messy aftermath of Saddam's fall. .... Much more at bernie.house.gov