From today's NYT. It appears that once again, Bush, in his speaches, has been lying and knows it.

"WaSHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

"The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms. "

Maureen Dowd, in the same issue:

"The administration has been so dazzling in misleading the public with audacious, mendacious malarkey that the Democrats fear the Bushies are capable of any level of deceit.

"Iraq is a vision of hell, and the Republicans act as if it's a model kitchen. The president and vice president brag about liberating Iraqis and reassure us that they are stopping terrorist violence at its source and inspiring democracy in the region by bringing it to blood-drenched Iraq.

"But what they haven't mentioned is that they have known since July that their rosy scenarios are as bogus as their W.M.D. That's when the president received a national intelligence estimate that spelled out "a dark assessment of prospects" for stability and governance in Iraq in the next 18 months, as Douglas Jehl wrote in today's Times. Worst-case estimates include civil war or anarchy."

And from today’s Guardian (UK):


”'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

“But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

“Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

“… General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster.”

[ September 16, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Nat ]

Edited to add a link to the Guardian Unlimited:

Far graver than Vietnam



[ September 16, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

It should be the biggest story of the campaign, but Dan Rather has screwed it up for the Dems by hogging the spotlight.

How bad is it? As Andrew Sullivan points out, it's so bad that (according to this Financial Times story ), "US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees. The Green Zone, in Baghdad's centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it. But insurgency has escalated this week, spreading to the centre of Baghdad"

It will be interesting to see how the soldiers vote in the upcoming presidential election regardless of who wins, and assuming that their votes are not manipulated by fraud.

A comparison to how they have voted in the past during "war" and relative peace would also be interesting.

Are the pollsters allowed to poll them? A 'military coup' is not a good thing, but not listening to the soldiers in the field is bad too.

Over 6,000 wounded! I had no idea the number was that high - and that means the death toll would have been much higher just a few years ago, as I have read elsewhere that improvements in materials and medical support has really improved soldiers' chances of living after being injured.

I just heard about this story on my car radio. Don't tell this to Bush though, who is out on the campaign trail today talking like things have been all rosy and warm...turned the corner....

The story

These 2 GOP Senators must really hate America.

Will the GOP machine turn on them now? Are they crazy, disgruntled, Dem. operatives, or liars? Take your pick.

I wouldn't want to speculate further, KWG, but I think it's more probable than not that President Bush would consider the critiques of these two wise, able and experienced Senators from his own party more seriously than he would the potentially, if not actually, partisan attacks from lesser informed Democrats.

Consider a "Kerry-wins" option: then what happens? Well, who knows, as addressed in another thread. Again though, it's more probable than not that Kerry would listen to his own party's voices, who seem to be chanting "Withdraw! Withdraw!" without really offering anything else or considering the consequences. So, however you view the merits of the solution, is trading a known, certain course of action for an unknown, uncertain one the way to go? Let the voters decide.

When the known course of action is utter failure and getting worse by the day, with no acknowlegement whatsoever from Bush that the situation is anything less than rosey? Then I say "yes" to your described "unknown, uncertain" path of Kerry.

[ September 16, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

I hope these two wise and able senators will have a chat with Bush, he seems to be under the impression that things are going great in Iraq.

Dancing in the streets anyone??

It's kind of hard to dance with all of the rose petals showering down.

True, when you get tired of dancing you can take a break and enjoy some of the chocolates that the Iraqis are passing out to the liberators.

Then, after you play soccer in the streets with the kiddos you can contemplate the art of a catastrophic success.

What shrub should be much more afraid of is that; I believe that if I am not mistaken, both Senators are also on the Appropriations Cmte. These are two of the five most powerfull Cmtes in the Senate.

Any politician - no matter how liked and loved and supported by his own party - has a limited amount of political capital. I think - that like tax revenues - shrub may be burning his faster than he is aquiring it. That is NOT a good sign.

Rob

[ September 16, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

ITJock, I said this in another post on another topic that I think other politicians are on to him by now. I don't think that anybody appreciates being duped as his administration did into Iraq, even if they profess otherwise. And I believe that even if he were able to steal another election he would have little support. It would be a difficult 4 years for Bush. It may be my imagination but I think most of what he's tried to get through congress lately has been stopped or defeated (new overtime rules, FMA, imigration changes, etc.)

Sen Chuck Hagel ( R ) Nebraska:

"The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning," said Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran. "Right now we're not winning. Things are getting worse."

He's a Republican so why is he "hating" on W?

Seriously, though, it's about time Lugar and the rest of the zombies woke up. Hagel at least has been very consistent on pressing W Ltd. on its steady stream of lies. The sad thing is that the brain-dead media can't or won't do their BASIC jobs of asking the sort of questions Hagel--and McCain--have been asking since Day 1 of this debacle.