War & Peace: September 2004 Archives

This is really horseshit.

The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls "good news"about Iraq to U.S. military bases and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country. The unusual public relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's re-election campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans' opinions about the Iraq conflict - a key element of Bush's re-election message.

Funny. If this happened here, there'd be lawsuits, don't you think? Say someone gets killed because the report that would have told them not to go to such-and-such area was suppressed. But in Iraq, it's perfectly OK. The most important thing is to make everyone feel better about this horrible war so Bush can get reelected, so he can do... what, exactly? Edited to add: Whoah, how the heck did I miss the part about the Bush campaign writing Allawi's speech?!?!? Talking Points Memo noticed it, I didn't!

See, it's one thing to be Republican/conservative. It's another thing to be willfully blind and mendacious. Debra Saunders manages to cover all the major food groups.

In today's column, "With friends like these", Saunders accuses the Democrats "and their surrogates" of flinging about insults against our fearless leader, Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, and our willing coalition partners, and she asserts that they "make it harder for Iraqis, Americans and U.S. allies to win the war. Then they call themselves patriots."

Apparently in Saunders' world, what people say about a war has more impact on its success or failure than the rationale, planning and execution of such war. Never mind Abu Ghraib, the dismantling of the Iraqi army, the lack of security and electricity, the hundreds of other miscalculations... we need a little positive thinking here, people!

Does she even care that most of Bush's statements on Iraq's progress are demonstrably false? That a number of the U.K. military deaths  in Iraq were from "friendly fire"? Has she bothered to compare the Iraq II coalition to that of Iraq I?And why doesn't she care about Allawi's past?

Her implication that we'd call the Iraqi civilians who have tried to become security force members in their country and been killed for their trouble "puppets" makes me angrier than anything else, I think. Well, right back atcha, babe. Would you call all the civilians, the women and children killed in this war, "terrorists", too?

I suppose I agree with her on one thing. Extreme language isn't going to win us anything. Only honest and good policy. Sadly, she supports the team that gives us anything but.

Edited to add: Y'know, somehow I don't think having the CIA meddle in the new "free elections"  helps the American cause in Iraq either. Call me negative. Credit goes to Juan Cole for pointing it out. (I also appreciate his taking issue with the language about Pelosi coming "unglued" when she was merely and rightfully outraged.)

From the Chronicle: "A new report on Iraq's illicit weapons program by the chief U.S. weapons inspector is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein's government had a clear intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted, government officials said Thursday. But the report finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the U.S. invasion last year, the officials said."

A chronology of recent bomb attacks in Iraq, from Reuters

"Reporters saw no sign yesterday that a new classified intelligence report predicting serious troubles ahead for Iraq has made any impression on President Bush" from the Washington Post

From A.P.

WASHINGTON -- While a new intelligence estimate offers a gloomy assessment of Iraq's future, President Bush talks instead about brighter days ahead under a new prime minister and the promise of free elections. "Freedom is on the march," he told a campaign rally Thursday.

Iraq is a daily theme of Bush's campaign speeches, often a springboard for attacking Democratic rival John Kerry. But Bush does not speak about the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths, the highly publicized kidnappings, executions and beheadings, or the dark scenarios outlined in the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to him in late July.

The new report offers a sobering picture of Iraq's future in terms of political, economic and security conditions.

In a worst-case scenario, it envisions developments pointing to a civil war among Iraq's three major populations, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

At best, the experts said, Iraq will have a tenuous stability. A middle-ground estimate envisions increased extremism and fragmentation that impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country.

"Words and excuses meet incompetence, chaos and death. That's what this election is about." (Talking Points Memo, today)

Yep, yep yep yep... oh, and by the way, whoever wrote this editorial for the Austrialian needs some serious cult deprogramming. Rupert Murdoch, perhaps? I thought Australia was in a different hemisphere, not on a different planet. (I believe that most Australians would not agree with this editorial, however)

"The real conflict over Vietnam... is the veterans' inability to reconcile their own honorable service in a dishonorable war... Today the lesson should be that we should be very careful about where and when we choose to make war."

Wise man.

If the situation in Iraq is stabilizing and we're winning...

why are all the humanitarian agencies pulling out?

Hint: it ain't because they aren't needed anymore!