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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (69201)	11/1/2005 10:42:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Re from the General prior to the reporters probably incorrect paraphrase "raising the bar": "First of all, we purposely set a very high standard for the first level, because as we looked at our strategy, we said that whatever happens with the Iraqi security forces, when we leave them, we have to leave them at a level where they can sustain the counterinsurgency effort with progressively less support from us. So that first one is a very, very high standard. We set that standard knowing full well that it was going to be a long time before all Iraqi units got in that category." From Rumsfeld prior to the reporter's probably incorrect paraphrase "raising the bar": "the numbers have moved around, and it looks like we're getting worse. We're not getting worse, we're getting better. Every single day the Iraqi security forces are getting bigger and better, and better trained, and better equipped, and more experienced....the central fact is that the one and three are irrelevant. What's important is that every day the number of Iraqi security forces are getting bigger, and they're getting better, and they're getting more experienced. And General Casey can tell you they are doing more. They are literally out there -- I don't know if the number's still right, but at one point we thought that they were doing about -- that U.S. was doing about 80 percent of the patrols and the activity, and the Iraqi security forces about 20 [percent]. And today it's probably roughly reversed, that the Iraqi -- independent and Iraqi combined are probably 80 percent, and maybe 20 percent are U.S.-coalition only." From the General after the reporter's probably incorrect paraphrase "raising the bar": "There were three in there. And we looked at that, and we (having set a high standard per his earlier comment - Dan B.) answered their questions from the field, and we adjusted the standards (perhaps the reporter was right! Or perhaps more likely the evaluators and folks filing reports weren't correctly employing the standards already set, hence an adjustment was made on that end, not at the higher standards setting level - Dan B.) and things so it was all more understandable (wording to explain standards may have been changed - could be construed as "raising the bar" to those in the field AND the reporter? - Dan B.), and then they came back and it was one. And it was actually different units. The three that were there was one brigade and two battalions. They dropped out, and the second time it was different units." This doesn't look like a real world degradation of two whole battalions took place at all. I was only guessing, seeing that you refused to provide a link proving your allegations, and low and behold I found that the general and the secretary in fact backed what I was only guessing at. As you just said, "all of this has been verified. Did I get an apology from you? Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath for one." Trouble is, I don't have a link from you, verifying that all this was contradicted the day before by the general. Now you claim the general explained the day before saying "training issues and personnel losses" (your paraphrase). To me, "training issues" itself could encompass what's said in this press conference the day after. You have said the Generals comments the day before were in contradiction to the my notion that the number may have been lowered due to evaluation processes, as is in fact described in this press conference. You specifically said you had your browser on the link which shows he'd specifically indicated we were going backwards. I don't doubt you, but... I'm waiting. Re: "And as I stated, General Casey during the hearing said that some battallions fell out of readiness. He said it was because of training, equipment and personnel issues. All of that has been verified." Did I miss your link somewhere? Maybe I didn't get to that post yet. Dan B.