T Nation

Bush's Iraq Reconstruction

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The facts of this reporting are in dispute.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015304.php

Which isn’t to say that things are going particularly well in Iraq, but no need for reporters to make stuff up either…[/quote]

Well I’d trust the WP over either of the disputers who are just horrible people, and
hello? It’s an excerpt from a book? Maybe some of the context you’re looking for is in the book? Silly powerline.

Sounds like the Republicans will be defeated in November.

Remember the democrats!!!

They’ll clean up this mess and a new sunshine-filled day will dawn.

If I was Conservative voter, like g-dol, I’d be sure to vote for the democrats.

On a serious note, I like when this author described post-war Iraq as “comparitively quiescent.”

To hear the news casts from our pals, it seems like things were horrendous from the get go.

I also like this author throwing in his contention about dismantling the Iraqi Army.

That’s what I love!!! I love my liberals to be upfront in their bias.

dEMOCRATS IN 2006 AND 2008!!!

We want people in Iraq that are dedicated to the mission and the ultimate success of that fledgling democracy!!!

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sounds like the Republicans will be defeated in November.

Remember the democrats!!!

They’ll clean up this mess and a new sunshine-filled day will dawn.

If I was Conservative voter, like g-dol, I’d be sure to vote for the democrats.

On a serious note, I like when this author described post-war Iraq as “comparitively quiescent.”

To hear the news casts from our pals, it seems like things were horrendous from the get go.

I also like this author throwing in his contention about dismantling the Iraqi Army.

That’s what I love!!! I love my liberals to be upfront in their bias.

dEMOCRATS IN 2006 AND 2008!!!

We want people in Iraq that are dedicated to the mission and the ultimate success of that fledgling democracy!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

A Democratic House wouldn’t be able to “cut and run” on its own, and anyway the Republicans will be doing that themselves soon enough. If you think Bush is serious about Iraq, open your eyes. Or look at what the military spends its money on. Winning in Iraq is not our top priority, and never has been.

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The facts of this reporting are in dispute.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015304.php

Which isn’t to say that things are going particularly well in Iraq, but no need for reporters to make stuff up either…

Well I’d trust the WP over either of the disputers who are just horrible people, and
hello? It’s an excerpt from a book? Maybe some of the context you’re looking for is in the book? Silly powerline.[/quote]

Here’s a couple more for you – and the first includes an excerpt of a WaPo correction to its article (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901412.html )…

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTJiZjA5MmI3ZGQyOThjYTgyOTdjZTI4OGUwNGFiNDY=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE2YjlhMWE3MWJhMDUwYmI1YzJjMmQ0NjIyOGJiYzY=

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sounds like the Republicans will be defeated in November.

Remember the democrats!!!

They’ll clean up this mess and a new sunshine-filled day will dawn.

If I was Conservative voter, like g-dol, I’d be sure to vote for the democrats.

On a serious note, I like when this author described post-war Iraq as “comparitively quiescent.”

To hear the news casts from our pals, it seems like things were horrendous from the get go.

I also like this author throwing in his contention about dismantling the Iraqi Army.

That’s what I love!!! I love my liberals to be upfront in their bias.

dEMOCRATS IN 2006 AND 2008!!!

We want people in Iraq that are dedicated to the mission and the ultimate success of that fledgling democracy!!!

JeffR

A Democratic House wouldn’t be able to “cut and run” on its own, and anyway the Republicans will be doing that themselves soon enough. If you think Bush is serious about Iraq, open your eyes. Or look at what the military spends its money on. Winning in Iraq is not our top priority, and never has been.[/quote]

Why do you think so many people are clueless about this? JeffR is a talking puppet but he does express what countless thousands probably actually believe since they fall for any spin from the Republican party. I am sure many truly believe this is a fight for democracy across the world and the evil Democrats are trying to stop the fight for truth, justice and the American way. cue Superman theme song

Delete

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The facts of this reporting are in dispute.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015304.php

Which isn’t to say that things are going particularly well in Iraq, but no need for reporters to make stuff up either…

Well I’d trust the WP over either of the disputers who are just horrible people, and
hello? It’s an excerpt from a book? Maybe some of the context you’re looking for is in the book? Silly powerline.

Here’s a couple more for you – and the first includes an excerpt of a WaPo correction to its article (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901412.html )…

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTJiZjA5MmI3ZGQyOThjYTgyOTdjZTI4OGUwNGFiNDY=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE2YjlhMWE3MWJhMDUwYmI1YzJjMmQ0NjIyOGJiYzY=

So, you posted a list of corrections that WaPo posted themselves as proof of…what? Being imperfect? Because they corrected themselves? Are you serious?[/quote]

Unfortunately, he is serious. Now, just because they corrected themselves, you are now supposed to discount everything that the articles says because it shows shadiness on the part of the GOP members. Don’t you know that by now, ProfX? Where have you been the last several years?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The facts of this reporting are in dispute.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015304.php

Which isn’t to say that things are going particularly well in Iraq, but no need for reporters to make stuff up either…

Well I’d trust the WP over either of the disputers who are just horrible people, and
hello? It’s an excerpt from a book? Maybe some of the context you’re looking for is in the book? Silly powerline.

Here’s a couple more for you – and the first includes an excerpt of a WaPo correction to its article (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901412.html )…

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTJiZjA5MmI3ZGQyOThjYTgyOTdjZTI4OGUwNGFiNDY=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE2YjlhMWE3MWJhMDUwYmI1YzJjMmQ0NjIyOGJiYzY=[/quote]

Who knows, maybe the guy does have an agenda, but far less so than National Review, which used to be a respectable publication. And again, the Post corrected themselves.

As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward.

Although it’s fair to say that a lot of the troops get the same perks, take a look at the superbases and the fact that Army dieticians are now worried about the men gaining too much weight while in Iraq.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I distinctly remember a while back that many loyalists on this board were adamant that these types of things weren’t going on and that anyone who believed it were part of the “tin-foil hat brigade” or this was more leftist propaganda and talking points. Are any of them going to explain this away as well?

If you all would quit responding to this thread they could forget it existed and ignore it better.

Funny how that shit works huh?

Like BB said - the “facts” of this piece are questionable. I mean it’s not that uncommon for the wa-po to make shit up.

Yeah, you’re right, the Washington Post just “makes shit up” all the time, it’s how they got to be one of the most respected papers in the country.

It also has been caught making shit up on more than one occasion. I think there was a Pulitzer Prize winner that got caught making up her prize winning story about crack babies.

It may be respected - but it is not above lying.

Did you read the links posted by BB?

How dare we question the WaPo. [/quote]

The same guys who question if Bush is Satan or a latter-day version of Der Fuhrer never question a newspaper…fucking sad…

[quote]pox wrote:

Why do you think so many people are clueless about this? JeffR is a talking puppet but he does express what countless thousands probably actually believe since they fall for any spin from the Republican party. I am sure many truly believe this is a fight for democracy across the world and the evil Democrats are trying to stop the fight for truth, justice and the American way. cue Superman theme song[/quote]

I’ve missed you!!! Wait, that is an exaggeration.

Anyway, pox, are you going to join THE CHALLENGE II?

Your participation would add a tremendous amount of “weight.”

Your superman theme reference made me wonder: “What sounds or themes sum up you and your sweaty pals?”

I’d say it would be a cross between the circus, hot air balloons, shrieking parakeets, slugs mating, an original 1983 subaru muffler, foghorns, and a dying rat.

I’ll take the Superman theme song.

JeffR

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Who knows, maybe the guy does have an agenda, but far less so than National Review, which used to be a respectable publication. And again, the Post corrected themselves.[/quote]

I am not doing a comparison betweem the WaPo and National Review, nor am I claiming the WaPo is a crappy rag. Of the national papers, it is far superior, in my opinion, to the LAT and the NYT. I am saying they ran a thinly disguised opinion piece as a news piece, and that said thinly disguised opinion piece had both factual and logical errors. The post ran a correction of one error – bravo for them for their swift response to people pointing out the error.

That does not cure the entirety of the problem.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward. [/quote]

Really, I don’t recall seeing the contention within the criticisms that no one in Iraq is getting perks – could you pull the quote for me? I do recall reading that the article claimed a lot more than it demonstrated, that it was factually inaccurate, and that it used as examples things that did not logically support its thesis.

And I also recall a line about people being so eager to embrace it because it supported their existing ideas…

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Although it’s fair to say that a lot of the troops get the same perks, take a look at the superbases and the fact that Army dieticians are now worried about the men gaining too much weight while in Iraq.[/quote]

How is this point related to the problems of the article?

[quote]
Professor X wrote:
So, you posted a list of corrections that WaPo posted themselves as proof of…what? Being imperfect? Because they corrected themselves? Are you serious?

ALDurr wrote:
Unfortunately, he is serious. Now, just because they corrected themselves, you are now supposed to discount everything that the articles says because it shows shadiness on the part of the GOP members. Don’t you know that by now, ProfX? Where have you been the last several years?[/quote]

See my post to GDollars immediately above.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The facts of this reporting are in dispute.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015304.php

Which isn’t to say that things are going particularly well in Iraq, but no need for reporters to make stuff up either…

Well I’d trust the WP over either of the disputers who are just horrible people, and
hello? It’s an excerpt from a book? Maybe some of the context you’re looking for is in the book? Silly powerline.

Here’s a couple more for you – and the first includes an excerpt of a WaPo correction to its article (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901412.html )…

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTJiZjA5MmI3ZGQyOThjYTgyOTdjZTI4OGUwNGFiNDY=

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmE2YjlhMWE3MWJhMDUwYmI1YzJjMmQ0NjIyOGJiYzY=[/quote]

I wonder if the NRO’s accountant friend knows what happened to the missing $8.8 billion?

Seems like bad accounting.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

GDollars37 wrote:
As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward.

Really, I don’t recall seeing the contention within the criticisms that no one in Iraq is getting perks – could you pull the quote for me? I do recall reading that the article claimed a lot more than it demonstrated, that it was factually inaccurate, and that it used as examples things that did not logically support its thesis.
[/quote]

One of the NRO Corner clowns you linked to had some line about how it was wrong to claim these CPA appointees lived a life of posh perks in the Green Zone.

It isn’t, just throwing it out there as further evidence of how fucked up our effort over there is.

[quote]
GDollars37 wrote:
As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, I don’t recall seeing the contention within the criticisms that no one in Iraq is getting perks – could you pull the quote for me? I do recall reading that the article claimed a lot more than it demonstrated, that it was factually inaccurate, and that it used as examples things that did not logically support its thesis.

GDollars37 wrote:
One of the NRO Corner clowns you linked to had some line about how it was wrong to claim these CPA appointees lived a life of posh perks in the Green Zone.[/quote]

I believe this quote from Ramesh Ponnuru is what you’re referencing, and I don’t think it means what you are saying:

Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s front-pager in yesterday?s Washington Post, about how Jim O’Beirne allegedly hired Bush loyalists over experts to staff the Iraqi occupation, was a hit piece, pure and simple: thinly sourced, fantastic in parts, and propagandistic. Note, for instance, the photo accompanying the story. It shows two “U.S. troops” relaxing in a swimming pool in the Green Zone, where, according to the caption, “many Coalition Provisional Authority officials spent their days.” (In the pool?) This has nothing at all to do with Chandrasekaran’s thesis?O’Beirne, even on the reporter’s account, was in charge of political appointees, not the R&R of troops. But the implication is clear: O’Beirne was sending these political appointees to cushy jobs in Iraq. The article is excerpted from a book titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

He is saying that the picture has nothing to do with the thesis.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And I also recall a line about people being so eager to embrace it because it supported their existing ideas…

GDollars37 wrote:
Although it’s fair to say that a lot of the troops get the same perks, take a look at the superbases and the fact that Army dieticians are now worried about the men gaining too much weight while in Iraq.

BostonBarrister wrote:
How is this point related to the problems of the article?

GDollars37 wrote:
It isn’t, just throwing it out there as further evidence of how fucked up our effort over there is.[/quote]

Fair enough. But definitely off topic.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

GDollars37 wrote:
As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, I don’t recall seeing the contention within the criticisms that no one in Iraq is getting perks – could you pull the quote for me? I do recall reading that the article claimed a lot more than it demonstrated, that it was factually inaccurate, and that it used as examples things that did not logically support its thesis.

GDollars37 wrote:
One of the NRO Corner clowns you linked to had some line about how it was wrong to claim these CPA appointees lived a life of posh perks in the Green Zone.

I believe this quote from Ramesh Ponnuru is what you’re referencing, and I don’t think it means what you are saying:

Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s front-pager in yesterday?s Washington Post, about how Jim O’Beirne allegedly hired Bush loyalists over experts to staff the Iraqi occupation, was a hit piece, pure and simple: thinly sourced, fantastic in parts, and propagandistic. Note, for instance, the photo accompanying the story. It shows two “U.S. troops” relaxing in a swimming pool in the Green Zone, where, according to the caption, “many Coalition Provisional Authority officials spent their days.” (In the pool?) This has nothing at all to do with Chandrasekaran’s thesis?O’Beirne, even on the reporter’s account, was in charge of political appointees, not the R&R of troops. But the implication is clear: O’Beirne was sending these political appointees to cushy jobs in Iraq. The article is excerpted from a book titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

He is saying that the picture has nothing to do with the thesis.

BostonBarrister wrote:
And I also recall a line about people being so eager to embrace it because it supported their existing ideas…

GDollars37 wrote:
Although it’s fair to say that a lot of the troops get the same perks, take a look at the superbases and the fact that Army dieticians are now worried about the men gaining too much weight while in Iraq.

BostonBarrister wrote:
How is this point related to the problems of the article?

GDollars37 wrote:
It isn’t, just throwing it out there as further evidence of how fucked up our effort over there is.

Fair enough. But definitely off topic.[/quote]

NRO=Idiots
The book is called Imperial Life in the Emerald City (Inside Iraq’s Green Zone)
and there’s a photo of “inside the green zone”. This was an excerpt from said book. The thesis of the book is not what O’Beirne did… Goodness.

Plus I’ll take the author’s 18+ months in Iraq (maybe he knows something about the green zone?) over Ramesh Ponnuru (how much time in Iraq?) anyday.

Shall we just leave the Green Zone out of it?
Saddam’s palace had the necessary size, lines of communication and relatively undamaged infrastructure to satisfy the requirements of an intermim gov’t. The Iraqi people all knew where it was and it was easily accessible, so they didn’t need a GPS to get to meetings. Furthermore, it had the potential for defense in depth for a large populace making it a (relatively) safe haven to establish a provisional gov’t (but it saw a LOT of action during the 15 months I was in Baghdad).

So it made sense to establish a base of operations there, aside from the psychological connotations to the Iraqi populace who were to receive this new gov’t after Saddam.
Besides, they’re civilians. They don’t have to live in rat infested fox holes to do their jobs. It’s quite a nice place. I’ve been there. It would have been a nice place to be stationed. Has the right ambience for ruling a country over the s-hole I was staying at.
Besides, you send people to assist gov’ts where the gov’t is physically located and the provisional gov’t was set up in the Green Zone.

[quote]fos121 wrote:
Shall we just leave the Green Zone out of it?
Saddam’s palace had the necessary size, lines of communication and relatively undamaged infrastructure to satisfy the requirements of an intermim gov’t. The Iraqi people all knew where it was and it was easily accessible, so they didn’t need a GPS to get to meetings. Furthermore, it had the potential for defense in depth for a large populace making it a (relatively) safe haven to establish a provisional gov’t (but it saw a LOT of action during the 15 months I was in Baghdad).

So it made sense to establish a base of operations there, aside from the psychological connotations to the Iraqi populace who were to receive this new gov’t after Saddam.
Besides, they’re civilians. They don’t have to live in rat infested fox holes to do their jobs. It’s quite a nice place. I’ve been there. It would have been a nice place to be stationed. Has the right ambience for ruling a country over the s-hole I was staying at.
Besides, you send people to assist gov’ts where the gov’t is physically located and the provisional gov’t was set up in the Green Zone.[/quote]

Uhmmm…the critique probably isn’t just about how “nice” the green zone is…just a hunch.

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

GDollars37 wrote:
As for the NRO contention that these people don’t get posh perks, please. Again, talk to an honest person who has spent time in Iraq, the level of corruption is staggering. By the same token, as to the ideological nature of the CPA, please read The Assassins’ Gate. It’s very straight-forward.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, I don’t recall seeing the contention within the criticisms that no one in Iraq is getting perks – could you pull the quote for me? I do recall reading that the article claimed a lot more than it demonstrated, that it was factually inaccurate, and that it used as examples things that did not logically support its thesis.

GDollars37 wrote:
One of the NRO Corner clowns you linked to had some line about how it was wrong to claim these CPA appointees lived a life of posh perks in the Green Zone.

I believe this quote from Ramesh Ponnuru is what you’re referencing, and I don’t think it means what you are saying:

Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s front-pager in yesterday?s Washington Post, about how Jim O’Beirne allegedly hired Bush loyalists over experts to staff the Iraqi occupation, was a hit piece, pure and simple: thinly sourced, fantastic in parts, and propagandistic. Note, for instance, the photo accompanying the story. It shows two “U.S. troops” relaxing in a swimming pool in the Green Zone, where, according to the caption, “many Coalition Provisional Authority officials spent their days.” (In the pool?) This has nothing at all to do with Chandrasekaran’s thesis?O’Beirne, even on the reporter’s account, was in charge of political appointees, not the R&R of troops. But the implication is clear: O’Beirne was sending these political appointees to cushy jobs in Iraq. The article is excerpted from a book titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

He is saying that the picture has nothing to do with the thesis.

BostonBarrister wrote:
And I also recall a line about people being so eager to embrace it because it supported their existing ideas…

GDollars37 wrote:
Although it’s fair to say that a lot of the troops get the same perks, take a look at the superbases and the fact that Army dieticians are now worried about the men gaining too much weight while in Iraq.

BostonBarrister wrote:
How is this point related to the problems of the article?

GDollars37 wrote:
It isn’t, just throwing it out there as further evidence of how fucked up our effort over there is.

Fair enough. But definitely off topic.

NRO=Idiots
The book is called Imperial Life in the Emerald City (Inside Iraq’s Green Zone)
and there’s a photo of “inside the green zone”. This was an excerpt from said book. The thesis of the book is not what O’Beirne did… Goodness.

Plus I’ll take the author’s 18+ months in Iraq (maybe he knows something about the green zone?) over Ramesh Ponnuru (how much time in Iraq?) anyday.[/quote]

Umm, the point wasn’t about the book – it was about the article. Whether it was an excerpt of the book or not, it was run as a separate (hit) piece with its own thesis. It wasn’t a book review – it was run as a news story. Goodness…

US ‘Had No Policy’ in Place to Rebuild Iraq
the Financial Times
October 31, 2005
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1031-05.htm

U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding
Documents Show Much of the Funding Diverted to Security, Justice System and Hussein Inquiry
Washington Post
January 2, 2006
BAGHDAD – The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq’s criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq’s 26 million people.

“The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq,” Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: “This was just supposed to be a jump-start.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010200370_pf.html

How fortunate for the defense industry “incompetence” and instability pay so amazingly well.