Democrats & Liberals: Archives

“Everytime somebody speaks of these elections going of without a hitch, I feel depressed.”

I’ve not heard that from anyone.

Republicans know about the problems but what good does it do to continuously point out all the bad and none of the good?
I want to hear it all. Not just about roadside bombs and not just about a sewer being fixed. Things need to be balanced.
Republicans don’t need to post these things on the ‘red’ side because the D’s and I’s have given plenty of space to them. Much of it is in the red column anyway - Even though a Red may have been trying to look at things differently and gain a different perspective.

I want to hear if a bomb explodes and kills people at 4 polling stations just as much as I want to hear that 14 had no problems and the vote went off ‘without a hitch’. If it turns out to be the other way around …. tell me.

It bothers me when reporters and so called experts use ‘we’ instead of ‘they’ when they talk about the elections.
I’ve heard ‘We have elections coming up …’
No WE don’t. The Iraqi people do.
Has anyone else noticed that besides me?
Yes this is important to us - but it is much more important for the Iraqis.

Your right Dawn,

I’m really sick of hearing all these LIBERALS say that W. is a liar and he is not doing anything good. Open your eyes. This president is a great man who loves all of humanity. Except the few that want to kill freedom and liberty. You all need to stop the Bush Bashing, look at this as a great humanitarian effort to spread freedom throughout the world. Don’t you people belive in freedom of speech and helping the less fortunate. After all, that is what your party USED to stand for.

Oops, I think Greg’s had way too much cool-aid.

I wonder if we are going to know how it does go off. The media’s on Bush’s payroll, so however it goes, we’ll only hear what he wants us to hear. The better the elections go, the worse it will be later. The whole Sunni sect will wake up and see they’re not in charge anymore, and all hell’s going to break loose. Even though they’re the minority, they have the education and experience in running Iraq. Bush should have left them in charge, and went with the same five year plan, that South Africa used. Then the Sunnis wouldn’t be blowing people up, they’d be too busy trying to get the electricity and water going.

Dawn-
I’m saying its a gut feeling about this administration’s past performance, Past performance that it seems often enough that Republicans are ignorant of, or too willing to rationalize about.

You say you want balance. Well, Newton would would tell you balanced forces mean that the object in question is going nowhere. When every negative is artificially balanced by a positive, all that ends up doing is removing any motivating forces from the equation. If the mistakes persist, then that artificial balancing is removing the Administration reasons to change policy, and therefore correct its mistakes. Which is exactly why Bush and his people are encouraging such a view of things.

Real balance is necessary of course. When it’s the calming of a city once violent, demonstrated by solid fact, it’s good to point out the success. It’s when you demand that decapitations and bombings be set equal to sewer maintenance and school openings that your balance is dangerous.

Why? Because that is a balance in our minds that does not correspond to balance and the conditions of the place itself. The maps in our minds need to match the territory they represent. If we don’t then we will become lost in regards to how we behave.

Which brings me to…

Greg-
I’m a results oriented person. Perhaps Bush would be a kick and a half to hang out with, but so far his failures have outweighed his successes. This cult of personality stuff represents exactly what I knew I would have to oppose from moment the planes hit the buildings. I will not forgive error after error when so much is at stake and the danger of injustice and tyranny is so much greater.

I do not oppose the sentiments of freedom of liberty. Few Americans do. But I will not kneel down and worship any candidate, much less one from another party, simply because he said the right things at the right time. What people say can bring vivid dreams to mind, especially when one is already preconditioned to such things. But such dreams must be awakened from, we can face the realities that collide with the actions inspired by those dreams.

Dawn and Greg,

The type of ‘good news’ I’m looking for, are events or efforts that add significantly to the creation of stability in Iraq. Like the promised restoration of electricity and sewage systems, a significant increase in troops needed to at least quell violence for an extended period, or properly arming Iraqi soldiers to defend themselves and their people, these are ideal examples that would go a long way towards reassuring the American people.

The problem for Bush Apologists is that the type of ‘good news’ being pushed by the MSM (Murdoch Seduced Media) - anecdotal stories of school openings and the Iraqi Stock Market - do not effectively counterbalance news of the increasing level of violence, the way my examples would certainly do. I believe your frustrations stem from the fact, that despite Fox News best efforts (and previous success) in skewing the Iraq situation to the administration’s liking, somehow an accurate picture of the chaos is getting through.

Furthermore, you only have your leader to blame for creating this exaggerated atmosphere of importance surrounding this election. Since the revelations of manipulated Intel and Richard Clarke, the administration has increasingly fallen back on the January elections as the ultimate validation of their decision to invade, using it to punctuate every response to another discredited justification.

The elections in Iraq sure are an important event. They will not solve all the problems in Iraq, but they are a necessary step. According to experts on PBS Newshour, these are the first reasonably free elections in Iraq since June 1954. This alone is a great achievement.

The world recently hailed Palestinian elections, which boasted a turnout of only 43% even thought they were conducted in relatively security compared to the probable situation in Iraq. I don’t know what the turnout in Iraq will be, but I hope that it will be higher, making it the highest turnout free election in the Arab world.

To all my liberal colleague who I assume are honorable individuals I say the following. I know that you hate George Bush and you believe he was mistaken or duplicitous in getting involved in Iraq. But humanity and justice demand that you stand with the people of Iraq. There is rarely such a clear choice between people who want to express their preference in their country’s future and those who have declared war on democracy and threatened to kill or maim the men and women who vote, as well as their children.

If you need to rationalize your support consider tthe Iraqis innocent victims of Bush’s nefarious policies, whose only chance for a decent future is an election that might give them give them a chance to get out from under those same policies you decry.

Confidence is important in democracy and even more so for a nascent democracy. We will almost assuredly be faced with a interpretation problem: is the cup half empty or half full? Both can be true and either could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should all be supporting the election and giving the people of Iraq the benefit of every doubt. The stakes are too high to let our own domestic political concerns stand in the way.

Jack-
Reasonably free? Define reasonable. I think people should feel free to walk their streets, to vote without having to consider whether that act will leave their children orphaned or their parents grieving. I doubt you could live with our government letting scores of Americans dead of terrorist violence every time we went to the polls. Accordingly this should not be standard by which elections are run in Iraq.

I’m all for elections, so long as they work. People should not have to mount an infantry charge to reach their polling places, and they shouldn’t have to worry about being turned to chopped barbecue by a car bomb.

I’m not sure I’ve made myself clear, so I should reassure you that I wish our government to spare no effort in ensuring the success of the elections, with the question of the schedule’s wisdom made moot by the process set in motion.

If the president wishes to screw things up, I want the best screw ups possible. There’s no reason to settle for mediocre redemption on an error. However, I must say that I believe confidence only has a place in Democracy where it’s earned. Doubt should be the default reaction, because without doubt we do not tear ourselves from erroneous beliefs, and democracy is all about discarding those who fail to do their best in government. Democracy is a process of refinement, not enshrinement.

The Iraqi elections are certainly giving Bush supporters an opportunity to indulge their devotion to democracy. Lots of warm, fuzzy feelings, and is that a tear in the corner of their eye? Noble declations in favor of those brave voters, exercising their right for the first time.

Sadly, it won’t matter, because we’re failing to address the fundamental problem:

The Sunnis do not want to be ruled by the Shias.

Democracy, dictatorship, constitutional monarch, it doesn’t matter. The Sunnis and Shias really, really dislike each other. (There’s no love lost between either group and the Kurds- anyone notice those Iraqi troops that did participate in Fallujah were Pesh Murga?). But most importantly, the fundamental problem is that the Sunnis do not want to be ruled by the Shia.

It hasn’t even begun to get interesting. In October the Iraqis will vote on a constitution. If the Sunnis participate in that vote at all, and if a majority of three provinces have a majority vote against ratifying the constitution, partition will surely follow. Personally, I think that would be a better solution.

Because when the Shias and Sunnis have a clear shot at each other…

Here’s a scenario: full-scale warfare between the Shias of Iraq & Iran, vs the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria.

Greg,
“…look at this as a great humanitarian effort to spread freedom throughout the world.”

Sorry, but my concept of a ‘humanitarian effort’ does not include killing people.

Dawn,
Great point about how ‘we have elections coming up’! I caught that tonight on MSNBC. Thanks for pointing it out.

Bert,
Right on!

Jack,
Eloquent post, pulling on the heartstrings there:

“…humanity and justice demand that you stand with the people of Iraq.”

Well said. But like I mentioned, all this fails to address the fundamental problem. Many countries have attempted to institute democracy with the best of intentions, only to see them fail because of even more fundamental problems. We’ve used invasion & occupation to impose democracy in Iraq, thus setting the example: violence is the way to power. It exacerbates the situation, and has placed the US in the position of proxy for the civil war between Shias and Sunnis.

The vote is nice, but it doesn’t address the fundamental problem…

Phx8

You are right about the Sunni-Shiite enmity, but I don’t know what the solution is.

The Sunnis don’t want to be ruled by the Shiites. Yes. But the Shiites experience in being ruled by the Sunnis has not been happy either. The Sunnis not surprisingly want to return to their position of dominance. Slave owners were none to happy to lose their master status, but that doesn’t mean you should restore the old order.

The Sunnis would also be unhappy dividing the country along ethnic lines. Any logical division would give the oil in the north to the Kurds and the oil in the south to the Shiites. The Sunnis would get that big patch of desert in western Iraq and some neighborhoods in Baghdad.

So what do you do? In a democracy, the majority has to rule. The winners of the elections get to make the policies.

The Sunnis would also be unlikely to do well if civil war should break out. They are a minority and most of the land they control is flat and undefensible as an ironing board. It might be time for some of these guys to rethink their aggressive strategy or they may find themselves up the Euphrates without a paddle.

Jack,
It’s an interesting parallel to the experience many countries underwent in the aftermath of colonialism. In India/Pakistan, and in Africa, particularly, the colonial creation of countries which (sometime intentionally) ignored ethnic & tribal make-up resulted in many, many failed states.

Right now we’re being bombarded by the media with touching tributes to the exercise of democracy. It is sad to think how many ordinary voters may be putting their lives on the line in a lost cause. Unfortunately, much as we might dislike the idea, I think the attempt to keep Iraq unified is steering everyone towards a disatrous collision.

Partition comes with its own perils, no doubt. Kirkuk would be a bone of contention. But at least partition would reward the Kurds, and the US would come out of the whole mess with one firm ally. The Shias may or may not succeed with democracy in an independent state, but it’s worth the chance, and might help reconcile the US & Iran.

Another virtue is that the US could declare victory and draw down, letting the UN work with a fledgling Sunni state. No doubt, it will be mess… But I believe it’s a big mistake to keep the Shias and Sunnis under one roof

‘Got to keep them separated’

That Iraq came to be ruled by a Saddam Hussein was no coincidence. As we have learned, keeping the country unified requires a lot of brute force. The idea that we can ignore the blood-soaked history of the Iraqi Shias & Sunnis, and that democracy will somehow give them all a new beginning, a clean slate, I dunno, it just seems naive.

phx8

I don’t have a problem with a partition of Iraq. We owe the Kurds. Other than that …

A loose federation might be the first step, but no matter what, we have to hold elections in the polity we currently have.

Iraq, as you say, is a British creation from 1920. The territory currently included in Iraq has never been a nation. More typically, it was a disputed border region. Maybe that is its long term fate.

Jack-
I think we bring up the sunni/shia problem to say it must be dealt with, to speak of solutions, not to make pronouncements of useless pessimism.

Iraq, as you say, is a British creation from 1920. The territory currently included in Iraq has never been a nation. More typically, it was a disputed border region. Maybe that is its long term fate.

Bush’s Dad and Brent Scowcroft used that very reasoning to defend their restraint in 1991. Absent Saddam Hussein, a fragmented Iraqi state was inevitable,

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state.

During the run up to the war, Scowcroft was telling anyone who would listen what the consequences of unilateral invasion would be. And he still is,

“The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict,” Scowcroft said. He said he expects increased divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims after the Jan. 30 elections, when experts believe the government will be dominated by the majority Shiites.

Scowcroft predicted “an incipient civil war” would grip Iraq and said the best hope for pulling the country from chaos would be to turn the U.S. operation over to NATO or the United Nations — which, he said, would not be so hostilely viewed by Iraqis.

No one wants to have to say, I told you so, on this. But it’s not like guys with a lot more gravitas than me haven’t been throwing up red flags before the whole thing even started.

And since no one wanted to see the endeavor fail after we’d been dragged into it, thinkers on the left and the right, from Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gen. Clark, and John Kerry, to William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Francis Fukuyama, have been offering advice - the common denominator being, get more troops in there, because without security you can’t rebuild infrastructure or hold a successful election.

Unfortunately, at this point it’s too late to make new plans, formulate grand strategies, and actively shape the future of Iraq out of the chaos of the invasion. That opportunity has faded. There aren’t all that many options left for creating a stable democracy.

Now, all anyone can do is what the Bush administration has done from the start: cross our fingers and think good thoughts.

I’m really sick of hearing all these LIBERALS say that W. is a liar and he is not doing anything good. Open your eyes. This president is a great man who loves all of humanity. Except the few that want to kill freedom and liberty.

Greg, you are implying that liberals do not like freedom and liberty. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Just because someone disagrees with the president and his administration’s policies does not mean that he or she hates America and does not believe in freedom and liberty, two of the founding principles of America and democracy. The fact is that Bush and his administration are liars and they are not being held accountable for their lies and misdeeds.

Dissent and debate are two of the other founding principles of America and democracy, yet if we were to all do exactly what Bush and his administration want, we’d have none of that and quickly find ourselves in a situation not unlike the dictatorship we recently overthrew in the Middle East. That is certainly not democractic and certainly not conducive to spreading freedom and liberty, as our leadership has apparently mandated.

Freedom isn’t FREE and the cost is great just as this country has experienced.

This is and will be the way of Iraq because some want freedom. The cost will be great it may work it may not,even so a taste of freedom is never forgotten. Those who can see past the events taking place on there streets will want to see this continue and as more people especially women in Iraq experience this freedom so will there children think it a good thing.(the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world).

Will we ever hear the truth of what these different factions think. I believe it will be a cold day in hell before we here of what the people of Iraq really think. Yet I know there are some who dream of freedom. It is human nature to dream and think of the impossible and this is what we hope for even if it doesn’t happen it will have begun. Call me naive feel free to do it. Yet everyone who will read this has used these faculties to achieve what they currently possess in there own lives.

Will the people of Iraq show up versus the killers from syria and iran attempt to crush there spirit and thwart what the people of Iraq want. Time is short and soon we will know,I believe that the people of Iraq will risk their lives to do something that they thought would be impossible in there lifetimes and vote. I pray they make it to the there polling stations and that it comes off without a hitch a best case scenario for sure maybe a bit pollyanna of me.

As for those who are disgruntled with this administration let it be known. The people in this country really hoped that Bill Clinton would have had his crap all together. Democrats have done the exact same things because of there ideology and anyone who doesn’t believe that can’t see there own hypocritical behavior toward there own party!

Chris-
Yes, freedom isn’t free. It’s a dollar ninety-eight at the corner store while supplies last.

Sorry, I felt that cliche needed a quick death. Yes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but your side of this argument has done a poor job of convincing the rest of us on the merits that Iraq was a case where intervention was required. You now declare it was done for humanitarian reasons, but that justification stands in stark contrast to the WMD and terrorist related version that your side used to build the consensus on the invasion.

You keep on reminding us what our patriotic duty is as Americans. Trouble is, for your argument, is that it’s not the center of our disagreement with you. Democrats find fault in Bush’s seeking and execution of this war because the facts and outcomes as he presented them turned out false almost completely across the the board.

Your notions of freedom are almost meaningless, not because freedom itself is meaningless but because you have not created the law and order in the country necessary to make the Iraqi government fully sovereign in its own lands. All those dreams of freedom in the Middle East are just that so long as the mechanisms of state are not functioning.

Taking a potshot at Clinton doesn’t impress me. I had problems with the way Clinton went about several of his missions, but he at least listened to his military advisors when they said more boots were needed on the ground for peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo. He at least knew how to bring together a coalition of the truly willing.

i thought the reason for pushing the elections in iraq was to legalize (or would the correct term be legitimatize) this newest american bred government so we could be seen as giving military assistance to a new fledging democratic government, rather than invaders who r systematically leveling the country along with the population.

Because of the situation that we find ourselves in, we have no choice but to go forward with swift elections in Iraq. Yet the bashing that our President is getting is well deserved. The appalling lack of insight into the Iraqi domestic situation, before and after the invasion demands that we be skeptical. These points include:

The lack of proper intelligence before the invasion and the deliberate deception involved in the justification for war against a soveriegn state.

The lack of proper military preperation to fight an effective war once we were there. (Soldiers scrambling for scrap metal to provide armored transport? Are you kidding?) The Bush team thought that after the photo op of Saddams statue coming down that it would be all over. They were wrong. Since then over a thousand American boys have paid the price.

Amazing and incompetent command structures that have allowed photos of abused Iraqi prisoners to blitz the air waves and act as a veritable recruiting poster for terrorists. Who was responsible? If Ike had been in command you wouldn’t just be charging a few enlisted men…there would be Hell to pay alll the way up the chain of command.

The discription of the Iraqi resistance as “the terrorists” and lumping them together with Ben Ladden’s group. Though they may recieve support from the other anti-american forces in the area, the Iraqi situation is a bottle from which we removed the cork. It could elivate into a nasty civil war. Not to properly discribe that to the American people and to continue to “dumb down” or “Fox” the facts of this situation and to refuse to admit our appalling ignorance of these domestic issues is to continue to treat Americans like dolts.

In conclusion, don’t get precious about us “liberals” being skeptical of the President. He has given good reason for liberals, conservatives, moderates and all thinking people to view his future actions very skeptically. For us to follow these people like lemmings after their appalling track record on this issue is sheer stupidity.

So far, so good.

The idea of the lockdown, I think, has saved this election. That and the fact that Iraqis in general have not been intimidated. Unfortunately, the Sunnis seem to have sat on their hands for this one.

Their turn out will be very important for the results of this election. If more Iraqi Sunnis than expected have decided to go to the polls, that will be blessing for our efforts to fix this country.

But we should prepare for this to get bad in the next few days. I know, I’m sounding like a pessimist, but we must be prepared for the insurgents to come back in force after the election lockdown is over. The following months may end up fairly bloody.

If this ends up working, the Iraqis deserve the most credit. Our President may have invaded, and liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein but he made getting to this day a needlessly bloody affair. Our soldiers may be guarding the polling stations, but they’re not the ones who needed to show up to make this day mean something. It is the Iraqis who have fought the bravest battle today. The question is, will we honor their commitment to their own freedom by getting our act together on this war?

For most Democrats, the question of getting into this war or not a moot one, the quality of how we fight this war has been the main issue. Many of us know what it’s like to pay the price for a poorly chosen and poorly planned war from personal experience. Not myself, of course, but my parent’s generation. Having been lied to by Johnson and Nixon, we are wary of any leader who attempts to win a war in the press they are not winning on the ground. This war must be fought on the battlefield, not in the P.R. Department, because the flaks can always imagine things that are not the case, and spin our policy into negative directions, practically speaking.

Some people have gotten the impression that I’m anti-war. No, I’m just anti-stupidity, anti-dishonesty.
Even if my president fought this war for substantive reasons, I would have demanded the high standard of military and post-conflict planning. I found issue with Clinton’s military policy on these grounds sometimes.

If my president wanted to fight this war on humanitarian and regime change grounds, he should have come out and said that. He had no business telling us one thing to get us to do another. He should have left the decision in our hands, not purloined it by lying to us.

Not doing so is what nearly cost him the election. He had high popularity coming off Afghanistan, and well into the beginning of the war. It is the constant spin and dodging of the issue of this case for war, coupled with idiocy of the planning that turned Americans against him. If this election goes off well, it will be a justified boost to his political fortunes, but this too can be squandered, as Saddam’s capture was. This is not a war that revolves around Bush’s image, but rather on the results on the ground. It is not the insurgency alone that gives the Vietnam flavor to this war, but also the dishonesty and spin on the part of the government, the pressure to overlook the ugly facts on the ground for the sake of patriotism.

This is a democracy, and it is informed consent that drives the engine of our society. This must never be forgotten. We must be given good reason to trust the actions of our government, not false or jingoistic ones.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING

You still fail to see my point because of your ideology. I mention Clinton, Stephen as a point of reference to the fact that niether democrats or republicans have a monopoly on perfection something that seems to escape you.

Then at what point did anything I say speak about patriotic duty. Just a lame attempt to swerve into the dead and beaten arguement.
WHY we are there doesn’t matter because troops are on the ground no second guessing now!

Your notions of freedom are almost meaningless, not because freedom itself is meaningless but because you have not created the law and order in the country necessary to make the Iraqi government fully sovereign in its own lands. All those dreams of freedom in the Middle East are just that so long as the mechanisms of state are not functioning

Stephen that is exactly what this election was about so they can draw up a constitution and elect representatives so they can form there foundation and seek freedom as they seem fit.

Even the FRENCH WHO HATE THE USA SAID that saddam was a threat to the whole middle east same as Germany,Britain,and Russia and that HAS NOT CHANGED.

“>http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

quote text

There are also plenty of evidence showing that to the run-up to the war that convoys of trucks where seen on satelite moving towards SYRIA as reported by people like JOHN LOFTUS who is no lite weight in the intelligence arena. To accept as truth your enemies assertions is nothing more than lieing to oneself.

Even though all the so called intelligence from sources (UNITED NATIONS) who did not want to see this come to fruition ie.(THE WAR) seems to be out. Yet the attempted deception of the worlds eye to these weapons was under a shroud of secrecy by these governments. So the whole point is that the WMD story has yet to come full circle.

So criticize all you want but remember the egg will be on your credibility. The truth will come out just a matter of time.

Seems as if the elections came off quite well so far and as people talk and time goes on more will vote next time. Freedom once tasted is never forgotten.

Just an offtopic comment, but… why is it that when it comes to political discussions. the goal when making an argument seems to be to sound as much like Thomas Jefferson as possible?

“I do not oppose the sentiments of freedom of liberty. Few Americans do. But I will not kneel down and worship any candidate…”

“Yet I know there are some who dream of freedom. It is human nature to dream and think of the impossible…”

“There is rarely such a clear choice between people who want to express their preference in their country�s future and those who have declared war on democracy…”

Good grief. Atomic turbo wedgies to every one of you poseurs.

Bert,

The type of ‘good news’ I’m looking for, are events or efforts that add significantly to the creation of stability in Iraq. Like the promised restoration of electricity and sewage systems, a significant increase in troops needed to at least quell violence for an extended period, or properly arming Iraqi soldiers to defend themselves and their people, these are ideal examples that would go a long way towards reassuring the American people.

Ask and you shall receive. Unfortunately, not very much of this is reported in the mainstream media. Just like 10,000 planes taking off and landing safely is not news only the one that crashes, so is the reporting of the situation in Iraq.

State Department Weekly Iraq Status Report

http://www.export.gov/Iraq/pdf/state_wklyrpt_012605.pdf

Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force web site.

http://www.export.gov/Iraq/index.html

I have cited both the above on more than one occassion in the blue column as evidence that efforts are underway to do exactly the things you say you are looking for.

Stephen,
The real questions are: Whether the Iraqi and American forces can prevent the elections from turning into a massacre, having failed to protect Iraqis over the last few years; whether Iraqis will turn out in Sunday’s election in enough numbers to justify the stubborn refusal to postpone elections despite security issues; whether Iraqis across the board will treat the election as a decisive victory for America’s political conversion of the country; whether the violence will diminish from the picture as a result of the election.

Let me answer your questions in the order you ask them above.

YES.

Iraqis anxiously await the results of a historic election that drew voters out in greater-than-expected numbers, defying insurgents who killed 35 people in a failed campaign to torpedo the poll. (Reuters)

YES.

The electoral commission said it believed, based on that anecdotal information, that turnout among the estimated 14 million eligible Iraqi voters appeared higher than the 57 percent that had been predicted, although it would be some time before any precise turnout figure was confirmed. (API)

It is estimated that over 8 million Iraqi’s cast ballots in the elections.

Yes.

Al Qaeda’s Iraqi wing had declared war on the “infidel” polls, threatening an election day bloodbath.
But most Iraqis were undeterred.
Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast last year, said as he waited to vote in Baghdad: “I would have crawled here if I had to. I don’t want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me.”

“We broke a barrier of fear,” said Mijm Towirish (API)

“I am doing this because I love my country, and I love the sons of my nation,” said Shamal Hekeib, 53, who walked with his wife 20 minutes to a polling station near his Baghdad home. “We are Arabs. We are not scared, and we are not cowards.” (API)

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis embraced democracy in large numbers Sunday, standing in long lines to vote in defiance of mortar attacks, suicide bombers and boycott calls. Pushed in wheelchairs or carts if they couldn’t walk, the elderly, the young and women in veils cast ballots in Iraq’s first free election in a half-century. (API)

However, other leaders from around the world definitely view the elections as a defining moment in Iraq.

“The Iraqis who turned out today are courageous, they know that they are voting for the future of their country,” Annan said. “We must encourage them and support them to take control of their destiny.” (API)

The French government, which was one of the fiercest opponents of the US-led invasion of Iraq, hailed the vote as a “great success for the international community” and called the high voter turnout “good news”. (API)

In Berlin, the German government hailed the election as “an important step on the path to construction of democratic structures.” (API)

Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said the Iraqi people had “confirmed their will to fight terrorism, to achieve freedom and democracy.” (API)

but your side of this argument has done a poor job of convincing the rest of us on the merits that Iraq was a case where intervention was required. You now declare it was done for humanitarian reasons, but that justification stands in stark contrast to the WMD and terrorist related version that your side used to build the consensus on the invasion.

I wonder if you truly can be convinced. Look at all those saying that Iraq possessed WMD or WMD Programs. The UN Security Council, France, Germany, Russia, UK. Not to mention the fact that he had used them before on his enemies and own citizens.

We have found artillery shells with Sarin Gas and Mustard Gas as well as missiles that were capable of traveling well in excess of the Cease Fire and UN imposed limits. All the above were to have been destroyed by Iraq but obviously were not.

“The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found,” Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was “stored improperly,” which made the gas “ineffective.”

In addition to that based hundreds of thousands being found in mass graves in Iraq, I would say that the largest WMD was found in a hole in the ground and now is awaiting trial.

As for the terrorist link if nothing else, it has been widely reported that Sadam was paying families of homicide bombers as a reward for their attacks. There is also the matter of the Al Qaeda linked training camp in Northern Iraq and confirmed meetings between Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi government officials. While it is true that there is no firm evidence that the meeting resulted in Iraqi support they took place nonetheless. Sadam also offered refuge to Abu Nidal. It is difficult to say that Sadam was not a sponsor of terrorism.

I have cited both the above on more than one occassion in the blue column as evidence that efforts are underway to do exactly the things you say you are looking for.

Kirk, for almost two years we’ve been hearing that efforts are under way. At what point is something going to get finished? After two years, just tell me when the one single city of Baghdad will have 24/7 power or clean drinking water?

Look at all those saying that Iraq possessed WMD or WMD Programs. The UN Security Council, France, Germany, Russia…

By 2003, NOT A SINGLE ONE of those countries (except Bush’s poodle) was saying Iraq had WMD. The inspectors had been there for months and totally cleared Saddam of nukes and nuke programs, and UNMOVIC was mere weeks away from closing the books on WMD.

As the Deulfer report confirmed, there was no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful terrorist connections. Even Bush - the guy who would absolutely have the most to gain from finding WMD - has stopped looking for them. Lay off the kool-aid. Get over it.

AP,

As the Deulfer report confirmed, there was no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful terrorist connections. Even Bush - the guy who would absolutely have the most to gain from finding WMD - has stopped looking for them. Lay off the kool-aid. Get over it.

This is all after the fact. You have to look at the decision to go into Iraq in the context in which it was made not nearly 2 years later. To suggest that the president or anyone else should have had the foreknowledge to know what would happen in 2 years is ridiculous.

You can choose to ignore the Sarin Gas / Mustard Gas artillery shells and the long range missiles. You even choose to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in mass graves or the total devistation of the Iraqi infrastructure by Sadam while he pilferred millions from the Oil for Food program. All in your zeal to attack the administration.

Bush was right to depose Sadam. Murderous Thugs must be made to live up to the agreements they make (cease fire) and to live by the laws of humanity (UN Resolutions) or the world will turn into a real life Mad Max movie.

Chris-
If Weapons and Terrorist co-conspirators had shown up, the dissent from the left would have been minimal. It is the dissent that followed the facts, not the other way around.

The very nature of how we invaded made a necessity of the argument that we were going in to disarm a potential terrorist threat. When that turned out not to be the case, our soldiers were stuck in a war that nobody could justify on the basis of any threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein. There was no gun to our head. The consequence? Well, whose going to court the poor opinion of their populace by helping us in an unjustified war? We needed to be vindicated because of the drastic nature of the measures we took. That lack of vindication means that we must go to the UN and the EU, instead of them being shamed into our aid by our rightness. That has meant more soldiers killed and our military resources strained.

Regardless of what fantasies you might entertain, the ugly truth is that a broken infrastructure and a lack of law and order will be a hindrance to any kind of strong democracy. Under normal conditions, the election would have been a bloodbath. We had to impose a three day restriction on travel, starting the day before the elections and ending the day after, in order to prevent that. We had to encase the polling places with American soldiers to protect them. Maybe a special event like an election can function that way, but a Democracy most decidedly cannot. We must be proactive in fostering the Iraqi destruction of the insurgency, protecting and training the soldiers who will replace us so that the country can be brought under control and our presence not be made a permanent, inflaming one.

As for the WMD issue, I’m willing to admit being wrong if the proper evidence is brought to bear. Satellite photos of convoys cannot perform one critical intelligence function: they can’t tell you what’s inside a container, much less whether it’s empty or not. We needed, always needed in fact, people on the ground with eyes seeing, noting, analyzing, prying out the real story. We didn’t have that. Time has not been kind to the case for war, revealing a mess of cherrypicked reporting, sources with agendas, hastily created networks of agents, and other inexcusable intelligence errors. There’s a reason Bush no longer insists on the Presence of WMDs: he was wrong. His people built their case to all of us on a house of cards, which could not stand the weight of close examination.

David,

Nothing in this world is free. And the cost of any thing is not accurately ascertained until the opportunity costs have been summed into the equation.

Exactly what would be the opportunity costs of leaving Sadam in power to reconstitute his Chemical / Nuclear programs that the Iraq Survey Group and Deulfer say he had every intention of doing? Not to mention leaving him in possession of the Sarin Gas and Mustard Gas artillery shells found in Iraq.

The report also states that Iraq worked with Russian scientists to develop longer range delivery systems including a “cruise” missile.

The report says that the

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons.

The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes

ISG also reports that Sadam had directed his government ministers to institute a plan to influence UN Security Council members to reduce or eliminate sanctions. Based on the ISG findings that Sadam had maintained the intellectual property and had started to regenerate much of the production capability for Chemical / Nuclear weapons components, what do you think the opportunity costs would be had we left him in power?

What is the opportunity costs be for those Iraqi Citizens whose fathers, husbands, brothers and sons were arrested hauled away to never be seen again. What is the opportunity cost for those Iraqi’s who are waiting on forensic / physical evidence to identify their loved ones pulled from the mass graves? What would the opportunity costs be for the children of Israel, Iran or Kuwait had Sadam reinstituted his WMD programs following lifting of sanctions?

I for one can live without a new road or reduced benefits if it means that a murderous thug dictator with every intent to redevelop WMD’s (and who still possessed minimal amounts of WMD’s) is now waiting his turn to join his brutal murderous offspring in Hell.

Kirk,

The mustard and sarin gas found remain from the stockpiles we knew of previously. Mustard and sarin have a limited shelf life, which is why any of the early 1990 munitions found don’t operate very well anymore. It really doesn’t matter how you store it, it goes bad. The legal munitions that are lying in open areas across all of Iraq far exceed, by firepower, any other issue. I believe there are 660 thousands tons of regular munitions lying unguarded in Iraq, which is the greatest threat that Iraq currently poses. As far as the long range missile, it does not represent a weapon of mass destruction. The excuse for going into Iraq was that it could provide weapons that could kill massive amounts of people to terrorists. (working weapons). None of those weapons have been found. You don’t need to “ignore” the mustard and sarin shells, because they were part of the group we already knew about. The point was that Saddam was believed to be creating new stockpiles. He wasn’t.

As far as the new elections are concerned, I have always hoped that George Bush, in his fumbling way, may be following the path of Lincoln. And by that, I mean that Lincoln woefully mismanaged the civil war. And Grant used his power to wage a war of attrition against the South, and gave no thought to protecting his troops, just used them as a blunt tool to win. And he won.

So just because someone fights incompetently and kills a lot of civilians, and wastes the lives of his troops, doesn’t mean he won’t accomplish laudable goals.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that the South has still not recovered economically from the civil war, and it is probable that the Sunni areas like Fallujah will take over a century to recover properly as well. But I guess those that live by the sword, pay the price of ruining their innocent neighbors economies by someone elses sword.

Anyway, I still believe that enacting democratic change by warfare is a poor idea. I still believe that spreading democracy through economic infrastructure and rebuilding projects should be the first solution. But I do recognize that incompetent warmongering can also achieve results.

Of course, Lincoln didn’t start his fight, and Bush did. But in any case, if the end result is freedom for the common man, maybe the worst path will still result in a positive outcome.

So I guess we’ll see.

Julia

Julia,

mustard and sarin gas found remain from the stockpiles we knew of previously

So which is it, there were stockpiles of WMD’s or there weren’t stockpiles of WMD’s?

From the ISG Deulfer Report;

Iraq retained the necessary basic chemicals to produce Sulfur Mustard on a large scale.

Mustard production could have started within days if the necessary precursor chemicals were co-located in a suitable production facility; otherwise production could have started within weeks.

As far as the long range missile, it does not represent a weapon of mass destruction.

While other WMD programs were strictly prohibited, the UN permitted Iraq to develop and possess delivery systems provided their range did not exceed 150km.

Obviously the ISG and UN consider long range missiles to be WMDs based on the above statement from the report.

Given Iraq’s investment in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Sadam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

The Al Samud II and Al Fat’h missiles were ordered destroyed because they exceeded the 150km limit set by the UN Security Council. These missiles were developed during the absence of inspectors in clear violation of the UN Sanctions.

The point was that Saddam was believed to be creating new stockpiles. He wasn’t.

Once again,

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons.

The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

and gave no thought to protecting his troops, just used them as a blunt tool to win. And he won.

Are you suggesting that US Commanders on the ground give no thought to protecting their troops? There have been 1084 US casualties to date in Iraq. In fact, you can add the number of casualties of US casualties from Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf War and you still have a total that is lower than any other war in which the US has been engaged in the history of the country.

I am in no way diminishing the price paid by these brave men and women (in fact my father was medivaced from Viet Nam on three different tours) simply putting it into perspective. Also the brave men and women fighting this war obviously do not picture themselves as being expendable or a blunt tool as they continue to re-enlist at high rates.

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2004 – The increased demands of the war on terrorism aren’t hurting recruiting and retention for America’s combat forces, Army and Marine leaders said here today.

In the active Army, retention rates are still at or near 100 percent of the service’s goals, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard A. Cody said in an interview with American Forces Press Service and the Pentagon Channel.

Likewise, the Marines expect to meet 100 percent of their re-enlistment goals by the end of this fiscal year, Lt. Gen. Jan C. Huly, that service’s deputy commandant for plans policies and operations, said during a separate interview.

The Army also has increased its accessions goal by 30,000 soldiers over the next three years, Cody said, adding that the service is on track to meet recruiting goals for this year.

Cody said soldiers’ “warrior ethos” also helps keep the Army’s ranks full. “I think it goes back to the leadership investment we’ve made with our noncommissioned officers,” he said. “But it also goes back to an all-volunteer force of young soldiers who joined the Army, many right after 9/11, who fully understand that this country was attacked, fully understand the dangers of this war and the dangers of this world, and have had the courage and the patriotism to step forward and say, ‘We’ll fight for America, and we’ll fight for our freedom.’”

The unfortunate truth, however, is that the South has still not recovered economically from the civil war, and it is probable that the Sunni areas like Fallujah will take over a century to recover properly as well.

The truth of the matter is that the South’s economy was and still is largely an agricultural economy. Growing cotton or any other legal crop is never going to net the kind of economy seen in an industrial or tech region like those of the North. As for the Sunni’s, they are the ones who choose to harbor the terrorists and Bathists. Had they decided to take part in the process rather than try to hold onto their artificially generated position of power while remaining a minority they would have been much better off.

The rebuilding of the economy and infrastructure of Iraq continues to progress albeit with setbacks caused by terrorist attacks from those harbored by the very Sunnis whose plight you decry. Again work within the system, stop supporting terrorists and their position in Iraq and life will improve.

Kirk, one has to wonder why you would under report by over 300 the number of US casualties. Not so proud of old Dumbya now are you???

Kirk, the opportunity savings of having kept the no fly zones and monitoring in place. No one even pretends to say that Saddam should have been allowed his way. There were costs to preventing him from having his way, Bush 1 strategy, Clinton strategy, and Bush II strategy. The latter is costing Americans present and future dearly over Bush 1’s and Clinton’s strategy.

Kirk,

While I appreciate your efforts in providing the information in the sourced links, as AP alluded to, it does not reflect an effort given nearly two years to produce results.

If you take away the needless filler to set up elections, the Status Report does not have much to show for it. Most of Baghdad and the twice devastated Fallujah, still do not have basic services and neither show any rebuilding effort, whatsoever. The percentage increases in employment pale in comparison to the overall unemployment rate, still well over 50% percent. And sadly, the relative safety of arrivals/departures at Baghdad Airport is meaningless, when making the trip to and from the Green Zone is still considered a life threatening proposition.

If what I have just related is considered pessimistic, negative or even unpatriotic simply because I challenge the line from the administration and the Pentagon, then so be it.

The right to love this country and the right to criticize it’s leaders when they do wrong, are not mutually exclusive.

Kirk-
I’ve seen those state department reports. They are so generalized as to be meaningless. Info-dumps do not a persuasive argument make. You can say you’re giving us the facts without really giving us what we want: the big picture on the situation.

The elections are an example. The fact that so many Iraqi’s were willing to defy the insurgents speaks well of the occupation. The real question is whether the Sunnis showed up in greater numbers than expected. that might be a good sign.

As for my questions? I expected answers. Wanted them. First two are a definite yes. Last two remain to be seen. Those will be answered by long term results, which we will hopefully be able to gain some predictive measures of.

Can I ever be convinced? That will depend on the facts, as it should. We should not be convinced short of them. The artillery shells are a good example. I actually wrote an entry about this very subject back in May.

Again, you will notice: questions. Just as the question of the elections was controversial now, so was the WMD question then. Did I flat-out deny it then? No. And I won’t resort to brainless contradiction now. What I want though is more than just perjorative argument.

The shells and the rocket, taken together, are not a threat, because the shells were forgotten relics of the previous war, not part of a new stockpile. The long range missiles, though, are real violations, in fact the only real ones we discovered out of all those Bush and Co. accused Saddam of in their case for war.

As for Saddam as a WMD, that is semantic twisting and you know it. It’s an excuse to avoid the question of why we went to war. Calling Saddam a WMD is a triumph of that image over the reality. If that’s how you define it, there are plenty of WMDs lying around, of which Saddam is only an arbitrary choice. So why this murderous madman and not some other? It is a circular question, then, and that course takes us right back to the issue of the literal WMDs, and the terrorists that were supposed to get them, all which constitute the threat that justified our invasion of Iraq.

You miss an important point: in all the years since the Gulf War, even after Desert Fox and the interim without inspections, Saddam failed to restore his stockpiles of WMDs. He was reduced to inhumane experiments and stashed away samples, when once he used Nerve and Mustard Gas stockpiles on the front lines of his enemies.

We all knew he wanted out of this. We all knew he would try to regenerate his stockpiles, given the chance. But he wasn’t, and it would be years before we had to worry about anything. Leaving things alone would not be an opportunity cost. Going in has been an opportunity cost for just about every other potential military involvement.

You ask about Iraqi citizens even as Sudanese suffer and die in Darfur, even while violence racked different parts of the world. You ask about WMDs even as other countries develop them, with our full knowledge. This is not a simple world, and it doesn’t get any simpler if you approach it blind from an agenda.

The Duelfer Report is an example of this. Regardless of whether he kept stockpiles of dual use chemical lying around, his only real, current infraction was the missile programs. They merited concern, but not invasion. There was supposed to be a gun to our head, not one disassembled with parts missing on the table.

1400+ soldiers have died now, not to destroy stockpiles of WMDS, not to destroy a Baghdad/al-Qaeda conspiracy, but to redeem the strategical mistake of this invasion and our failure to plan for the aftermath. If I were a soldier, I’d sooner die to protect my country from the plots of terrorists and dictators, than give up my life to make up for a harebrained mistake higher in the chain of command. As for the troop recruitment information, your information is over six months old. What I’m hearing now is that The Navy and Air Force are seeing a surplus in recruitment, at the expense of our ground forces in the Marines and the Army, not to mention the National Guard and Reserves.

I would like more up to date information on troop recruitment, along with some kind of report detailing clearly what kind of economic progress we’re looking at. I’m not looking for the Wall Street Journal stock pages, I’m looking for the Business section. Analysis, not info-dump.

As for the Sunnis, you must first realize the support for the insurgents is not universal. At the same time, these people have experienced a historical fall from grace. They constitute only a fifth of the nation’s population, but that should not be sniffed at. Here in this country, the issues that affect the 13% of Americans who are black are no small matter. Equal respect should be paid to the concerns and issue of the Sunni.

Besides, there is hope: Though some may not know this, both sects in the Iraqi population tend to run towards the secular in the general population. If Sunnis and Shiites can be brought to common peace on that basis, Iraq may stand a better chance of redeeming its situation.

i know i tend to have a negative attitude toward this administration and its deeds but i found this interesting: from salon.com/politics/war_room
Democracy taking root?
First things first: It is possible to hope for democracy to succeed in Iraq — to wish for the best possible outcome for the Iraqis themselves, and for the rest of the world — while still being fully critical of the Bush administration’s numerous disastrous war policies. Setting aside all debate about the war’s inception, it is possible to criticize Bush’s policies precisely because one wishes for the best possible outcome in Iraq.

The high voter turnout across Iraq on Sunday, in defiance of terrorist violence, is a victory in its own right; President Bush is currently making that case to the Europeans, who, as Tom Friedman argued recently, have at least as big of a stake as the U.S. does in seeing Iraqi democracy succeed.

Still, many on the political right are quick to argue that skepticism amounts to betrayal of the cause — that any talk of a quagmire or any comparison of Iraq with Vietnam is not only defeatist, but is no different than rooting for the terrorists themselves.

Perhaps they’ve forgotten the adage: He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. A blogger over at Daily Kos posted this article today from the New York Times archive, which makes for some interesting reading at the moment.

“U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
“Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

“by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times — Sept. 4, 1967

“WASHINGTON, Sept. 3— United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

“According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

“The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

“A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

“The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government.”

As we know, the last U.S. helicopter took off from Saigon more than seven years later, on April 30, 1975, and the nascent government fell shortly thereafter.

Ray,

Kirk, one has to wonder why you would under report by over 300 the number of US casualties. Not so proud of old Dumbya now are you???

There is no under reporting here. The other casualties you speak of were non-combat related deaths caused by accidents. For instance vehicle crashes be they wheeled or winged occur on a regular basis regardless of where the vehicle may be. So, these accidental deaths for the most part cannot be associated with battle casualties. That is not to diminish the sacrifices these men and women gave for their country, just simply stating facts.

According to the US Army;

From 1992 through 2001, 8,570 servicemembers died while on active duty

More than half (53%) of all active duty deaths were attributable to accidents, Illnesses (18%)

So the 300 plus soldiers killed in accidents is not that far out of line with the historical average.

Bert / Stephen,

Here is a more detailed update on the rebuilding of Iraq from the US Agency for International Development dated Jan 26, 2005.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/jan05/iraq_fs13_012605.pdf

The update covers projects in Electricity, Water / Sanatation, Economic Governance, Agriculture, Education, Democracy / Governance, Election Updates, Disaster Relief, Transportation Innitiatives and a Financial Summary.

The informatio is there if you want to look for it. Unfortunately, the mainstream media tends to focus on the sensational rather than mundane construction projects.

AP,

So then you just don’t care that our leaders aren’t upholding our high American standards and ideals? That explains a lot.

My point is that if you wait until it is as good as it can be, you will never do anything. Once again, everything could be better than it is or was or will be. The wait for “as good as it gets” is an eternal wait.

Seriously, doesn’t it bug you that this election was marred by the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis?

Words have meaning and need to be used in the correct context.

The New American Standard Dictionary defines disenfranchisement as To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise.

To use a word that fans emotional rhetoric in an incorrect context reveals much about the strength of the argument and the motivation of the user.

The Sunnis were absolutely not disenfranchised, they had the right to go to the polling places just as every other Iraqi did. If they choose not to vote that is there choice and theirs alone. Roughly eight million Iraqis defied the terrorist threats to cast their votes, the Sunnis could have followed the same path to a democratically elected government. Their choice not to participate does not equal disenfranchisement.

But Iraq’s new government won’t be representative. It short-changes about 20% of the population. By any definition, a representative democracy should represent all its citizens. This one does not.

Is our government not representative? Does it short-change about 50% of its population because they choose not to participate in the electoral process?

I didn’t say you made anything up. I simply said that I could not believe someone would be brave enough to defy the terrorists warnings and then not be brave enough to tell a poll worker to take a flying leap if they told them how to vote.

most Iraqis had no idea who was running or what their platforms are. I pointed that out in a previous article.

I also pointed out in a previous post the many steps that were taken to insure that Iraqis knew who was running and the issues. In addition to those listed above by the State Department I have also found that the Civic Coalition for Free Election (CCFE) also worked to educate the electorate.

CCFE is a non-partisan movement of 76 civic organizations from across Iraq.

They produced 5 TV programs to encourage Iraqis to vote

Sponsored candidate debates

Distributed posters and fliers as part of a get out the vote campaign

Sponsored a series of Town Hall Meetings and Conferences

Obviously quite a lot was done to help insure an informed electorate. However, just as in the US some don’t care or just don’t get it.

All,

Sorry, the above was to have been posted under a different subjects string.

How about that, someone from the Red Side admitting they made a mistake.

Kirk-
Three things:

1)Don’t underreport. There are risks incurred in war, namely disease, psychological damage, and difficulties of terrain that put our soldiers at additional risks than just a bullet between the eyes.

2)Keep an eye on wounded totals. About fifteen percent fewer combat related injuries are resulting in death. However, that means that folks that might have died of their heavy injuries are nonetheless living. If one does the math, first year totals in the war are quite comparable to Vietnam’s casualty rates from 1964-1965. Wars do not necessarily start as bloody as they get. Greater casualties are not inevitable, but neither is the reduction or evening out of them.

3)The conditions for starting a democracy will be different from that of sustaining them. The real question here is whether the Sunnis will choose to participate, to sit on the sidelines, or pick up weapons and oppose the Shia government. If these next few months are mismanaged, they could make the last year in Iraq look idyllic by comparison.

One last note: quit using the term “homicide bombing”. We know it’s a homicide. The term just describes the way in which the murderer does his deed. That somebody actually thinks that Americans are so unclear on that concept that they need to make the homicidal part of it explicit just demonstrates how stupid and depraved these elities think the rest of us are. Trust me, you haven’t got any additional insight into these people’s behavior than the rest of us simply because you use that obnoxious term.

Calling them Homicide Bombers, in fact, gives them a degree of respect they don’t deserve. These people are catspaws for more cowardly leaders who sit safely in offices far away from the action. They are typically maladjusted, have poor relationships, and see this as their only way to distinguish themselves.

These people are losers. They don’t need to be elevated in status. That might just end up encouraging them.

Stephen,

One last note: quit using the term “homicide bombing”.

Calling them Homicide Bombers, in fact, gives them a degree of respect they don’t deserve.

These people are losers. They don’t need to be elevated in status. That might just end up encouraging them.

Homicide Bombers is precisely what these people are. Their goal is to murder as many people as possible. If suicide was their goal they could blow themselves up in the middle of an open field. The fact that they kill themselves while carrying out their murders is secondary to their homicidal mission.

Please explain how in the hell identifying them as what they absolutely are gives them a degree of respect or elevates their status. Is there a greater stigma associated with being identified as someone who commits suicide than someone who commits homicide? Maybe we should call them pyrotechnic technicians or explosive demolition technicians, just don’t call a spade a spade.

Kirk wrote:

The informatio is there if you want to look for it. Unfortunately, the mainstream media tends to focus on the sensational rather than mundane construction projects.

When are those of you on The Right going to stop blaming bogeymen for intentionally obscuring the wealth of ‘good news’, that in reality is lagging far behind in real effectiveness, and therefore, failing you and your argument?

The reason only 7,000 Iraqis voted in Fallujah, is because the city is virtually inhabitable. With the exception of the Green Zone, most of Baghdad is still without electricity. Those reports are encouraging, but let’s say the country of Iraqi is your home, and you’ve hired the Bush administration to rebuild it.

Would you except such progress after nearly two years?

Bert,

When are those of you on The Right going to stop blaming bogeymen for intentionally obscuring the wealth of ‘good news’, that in reality is lagging far behind in real effectiveness, and therefore, failing you and your argument?

I will stop blaming them when they quit obscuring the wealth of good news.

Below is just a sampling of just such good news that is not reported in the mainstream media.

Electricity

USAID’s project to increase generation at a thermal major power plant in Babil Governorate is moving forward and is now 56% complete…. To date, USAID’s rehabilitation efforts at the plant have increased net capacity by 355 MW.

That is an increase in production of over 81% at this facility, by May 2005 capacity will have increased a total 115% from pre-war levels.

USAID completed a project to convert two units that produce 80 MW each to operate on crude/heavy fuel oil instead of diesel which is in short supply.

USAID has added 535 MW of capacity through maintenance and rehabilitation work, and also repaired a 400 KV transmission line.

Water and Sanitation

Last month, engineers completed work on the rehabilitation of a waste-water treatment plant in Diwaniyah…This plant was designed to treat raw sewage from 80,000 users…however, prior to the beginning of the rehabilitation activity, the plant was not functional and its diverted flow of untreated raw sewage was being discharged directly into the river. Now that the activity is complete, the plant is once again treating waste-water

A major wastewater treatment plant in Baghdad began operating in June of 2004; this is the first major sewage plant in the country to operate in over 12 years.

The water treatment plant supplies potable water to the majority of the 563,000 residents of Najaf. Full operation of the plant should begin in early February 2005.

Rehabilitated 105 water treatment units and 396 kilometers of water networks to ensure the provision of potable water in critical areas

Rehabilitated a water treatment plant in a poor area of Baghdad. The rehab is benefiting 1 million residents.

Education

Rehabilitated 2,405 schools countrywide

Printed and distributed 8.7 million revised math and science textbooks to grades 1-12 by mid-February 2004.

Telecommunications

Audited more than 1,200 km of the fiber optic backbone network and performed emergency repair, reconnecting 20 cities and 70% of the population.

Reconstituted Baghdad are phone service by installing switches with 240,000 lines at 12 sites.

Healthcare

Rehabilitated 72 health facilities and re-equipped 238 to improve the quality of health care.

I could go on if you like, but I think you get the point unless you choose to ignore it.

Kirk-
Some Good stats there. Don’t mean to sound too hard on you, but do you have the stats on sabotage and total reconstruction needed? Your stats are start on the progress, but we need to know whether we’ve got a tailwind or a headwind on us. Let’s see what we got on that.

The term Homicide Bomber is artificial. It’s rhetoric. It’s moral superiority for those who use it. They understand something about these twerps that the liberals don’t. But in reality, we understand just who we’re dealing with: bombers who kill themselves in the process of their attacks. This as opposed to those who kill others with bombs remote detonated, or detonated on a fuse. It’s a description of means rather than morals.

I mean, really, if we call them homicide bombers, that is bombers that kill other people, how do you distinguish them semantically from those who run away or dead drop the mechanism with a fuse? They’re still killing people. So it’s not very useful of a description.

Suicide Bomber is precise. By definition, a bomber is a terrorist, one who’s aim is often is to kill. As I’ve already said, it’s not really an impression people have missed with the Suicide Bomber term. Additionally, it has better propaganda value. There’s a reason they call these things Martyrdom operations in the Middle East: It is permissable to die a martyr to God as a warrior. It is a mortal sin to kill yourself, doubly so if you’re committing an act of terrorism. What’s better, to send the message that these people died trying to kill their targets, or to call them terrorists who commit suicide?

I just think conservatives have fallen too much in love with these clumsy terms of spin.

Kirk,

This exchange will become pointless for me, unless you accept the fact that all of this progress falls short, and is way behind schedule.

Rehabilitated a water treatment plant in a poor area of Baghdad. The rehab is benefiting 1 million residents.

Does this mean the other 3 million residents have clean running water?

And please, do not belittle me as I have pointedly acknowledged your evidence. You can accuse the concerted Liberal effort to keep this news from positively changing American opinion, but explain why it has not changed the attitudes of ordinary Iraqis?

Nearly 80% percent want us out now! What is the basis for such a vehement demand by the Iraqi people?

How can you convince the American people things are much better than they look in Iraq, when it does not reflect in the attitude of the people who have benefited?

Brookings Institute: Tracking Variables of Reconstruction and Security in Post-Sadam Iraq

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf#search=’iraqi%20opinion%20polls’

Some interesting information here concerning everything from reconstruction to several Iraqi Public Opinion Polls taken over several different time periods.

There is information here that will support the arguments on both sides of this debate.

Bert,

but let’s say the country of Iraqi is your home, and you’ve hired the Bush administration to rebuild it.

Would you except such progress after nearly two years?

If my neighbors kept coming in after the work was done and destroying or vandalizing it again I could not expect much more and would take it upon myself to turn those neighbors in to the authorities so that the rebuilding could proceed.

This exchange will become pointless for me, unless you accept the fact that all of this progress falls short, and is way behind schedule.

Yes, I agree that much of the rebuilding is not as far along as we would have liked. However, we have to look at why it is behind schedule. Two of the main reasons are the continued attacks against the infrastructure by the terrorists who do not want the coalition to succeed and the other is the deplorable condition the infrastructure was in due to the neglect by Sadam’s regime.

This exchange will become pointless for me, unless you accept the fact that most of the positive strides made in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. If all viewers / readers hear is the negative and rarely the positive public opinion and perception of the rebuilding efforts will definitely move further and further toward the negative.

Nearly 80% percent want us out now! What is the basis for such a vehement demand by the Iraqi people?

Can you please offer a link to the poll you reference above? I have been unable to find any such poll that was not more than about 8-9 months old. If there is a newer poll, I would like to study it.

Kirk,

That brookings information is the most fantastic thing I have ever seen, and once again proves to me that the USAID and DOD information is the most terrible, biased source of information in the universe. Here are the statistics, all of the statistics that were systematically piece by piece removed from those reports. HERE THEY ARE! THEY EXIST! I AM NOT LOSING MY MIND!

This is so wonderful. I have missed these numbers. Truth exists. Light in the darkness. Oh, truth, I have missed you.

In any case, as you can see with the Brookings numbers, in spite of our best efforts to improve the sanitation and electric situation, life for the average Iraqi remains worse today than it was pre-war. This is especially true for the majority of the population which lives in Baghadd.

However, some areas in Basrah have shown marked improvement, and the Umm Qasr port has been a singular success.

Julia

And by being worse off, I mean in terms of electricity, sewage, and security.

Julia

However, we have to look at why it is behind schedule. Two of the main reasons are the continued attacks against the infrastructure by the terrorists…

Ahhh… You almost sound like a Democrat, Kirk. What’s the next question you should be asking? C’mon, you can do it… Two years into the occupation… Why don’t we have whatever is needed in Iraq to defeat the insurgency?

This is not rocket science, Kirk. Insurgencies have been successfully defeated before (by other countries, not by us). The reason these people aren’t turning in insurgents, is because other insurgents will come and torture and kill them and their wives and their children.

You can’t expect support from people you can’t protect. Why don’t we have whatever is necessary in Iraq to protect them?

Julia,

In any case, as you can see with the Brookings numbers, in spite of our best efforts to improve the sanitation and electric situation, life for the average Iraqi remains worse today than it was pre-war. This is especially true for the majority of the population which lives in Baghadd.

I think that you need to look at the surveys of the Iraqi people along with empirical data to get a true picture to the question of are their lives are better today than they were Pre-war.

1)Telephone Subscribers: Pre-war level 833,000 vs. January 2005 level 2,449,139.

2)Internet Subscribers: Pre-war level 11,000 vs. November 2004 level 110,000

3)Primary School Enrollment: 2000 level 3.6 million vs. 2004 level 4.3 million

4)Commercial Airport Departures per day: Pre-war 2 – 3 vs. October 2004 level 45

5)Irrigation canals in need of cleaning in km: May 2004 level 20,000 km vs. October 2004 level 3,500 km

6)Number of Local Governance Councils: November 2003 level 255 vs. September 2004 level 746

7)Do you think Iraq today is generally heading in the right direction or wrong direction? (12-26 to 1-7-2005): Right Direction 48.6%, Wrong Direction 39.2%

8)Thinking about the future, do you feel that things will be better, the same or worse in (12-26 to 1-7-2005): 6 months Better 52.3%, Same 23.8%, Worse 14.1%

9)On Iraqi Standard of Living, Since the invasion, which or the following happened to you personally or to members of your household?

a.Gone without Electricity for long periods of time: Within past 4 wks 3%, Since the Invasion 44%, In the Year Before the Invasion 68%

b.Without Clean Drinking Water for long periods of time: Within past 4 wks 4%, Since the Invasion 28%, In the Year Before the Invasion 36%

c.Been unable to obtain Medical Assistance or Medicine: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since Invasion 16%, In the Year Before the Invasion 15%

d.Felt afraid of Practicing Religious Beliefs: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since the Invasion 4%, In the Year Before the Invasion 54%

e.Gone without Public Sewage System: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since the Invasion 31%, In the Year Before the Invasion 37%

10)Do you feel the attacks emphasize the need for continued presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq? Nationwide: Agree 66%, Baghdad: Agree 61%

11)If Coalition Forces left immediately, would you feel more safe, less safe or no difference? Nationwide: Less Safe 71%, Baghdad: Less Safe 75%

12)Baghdad Public Opinion Poll (Aug-Sep 2004) Was ousting Saddam worth the hardships endured since the Invasion? Yes 62%

13)Baghdad Public Opinion Poll (Aug-Sep 2004) Would you like to see U.S. troops stay longer than a few more months? Stay Longer 71%

As I said above much of the rebuilding is not as far along as we would have liked. However, we have to look at why it is behind schedule. Two of the main reasons are the continued attacks against the infrastructure by the terrorists who do not want the coalition to succeed and the other is the deplorable condition the infrastructure was in due to the neglect by Sadam’s regime.

And it is obvious from the information above that if you ask the average Iraqi thing are better now than they were under Saddam. So, why is it that we never hear this in the media?

Kirk-
It’s not glamourous or permanent, and the Bush administration has cried wolf too much on what it deems successes for many journalists in the media to risk getting burnt once more.

But do you know what the proper response here is? Screw the media. Bush should lead well, and help brew improvements that are too far past prosaic to ignore.

“So, why is it that we never hear this in the media?”

c’mon kirk, be serious…good news doesn’t sell. It never has and it’s naive to think it would. We all like heartwarming stories, but only for a snack after the main meal. The media is about advertising. And be honest, when was the last time you were glued to a news story that wasn’t tragic?

Stephen / Brico,

Screw the media.

c’mon kirk, be serious…good news doesn’t sell. It never has and it’s naive to think it would.

You are exactly right and confirm my point.

Seeing as how most in this country are too damn lazy to do any research on their own all they know about anything (not just Iraq) is what they are spoon fed bye the mainstream media.

Since all anyone ever sees on the 6:00 o’clock news is the negative aspects of what is happening in Iraq, they soon start to believe that that is all there is going on their. I think 95% of the people in this country would be floored to see the statistics from the Brookings Institute that show more Iraqis believe the country is headed in the right direction than feel it is not, or that 62% feel the hardships endured were worth getting rid of Sadam.

Since the Pew Research Center (May 23, 2004) found that at national news organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), liberals outnumber conservatives nearly 5 to 1, I can only assume that the exclussion of positive stories is a deliberate attempt to discredit the president.

Sorry Kirk,

I am done trying to debate someone who is showing the clear signs of downing the Bush administration offered Kool-Aid.

You can cite all the superfluous data churned out by the Pentagon, but it will not change the fact that more could’ve been accomplished in the past two years. Is the infallible America your side paints only trotted out during campaign commercials? Otherwise, you cannot use the consist sabotage of Insurgents, because you failed to provide enough troops. And, you cannot blame the poor infrastructure you found, because Ambassador Negroponte is presently not living in a hut with no water or power, right now.

In about two weeks time, you’ll get your newest poll of whether Iraqis want us out of their country. Can’t wait to see how you dismiss that one.

Bert,

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Go ahead and keep those blinders in place.

Dan Rather is indeed the end all and know all supreme source of information in the world.

Kirk

1) Great, more telephone subscribers. However, more telephone outages.

2)Great, more internet subscribers! However, only two hours of internet access a day currently in the majority of areas in Iraq, because of electricity problems.

3) Great, more school enrollment! However, attendence is problematic because of fear that children will be murdered. Of the four Iraqi teenage bloggers, all four have quarrelled with professors over zero’s on tests because they were trapped in American vs Insurgent shootouts and couldn’t get to school.

4) No objections here. The airport is much improved.

5) The irrigation canal cleaning project, indeed, appears to have finally gotten some forward momentum. They are still two years past their initial deadline, however.

6) Members of the government council resemble poorly organized high school government organizations, however, you have to start somewhere. Still two years behind on their deadlines.

7) Belief that the country is heading in the right direction has fluctuated back and forth. It’s been higher, it’s been lower.

8) Belief that the future will be better is slipping, but for me, the nice part of these two statistics, is it shows that the Iraqis are more patient than we give them credit for

9) I find the elctricity answer hard to believe since the statistics show that we have been able to achieve pre-war electrical levels for 20% of the time in the last three years. That means 80% of the time the electricity has been worse than pre-war levels. In any case, the other statistics seem to mirror the Afghanistan problem, people feel like they have more democratic options, but they also fear rampant crime. (For example, women no longer have to wear Burkhas in Afghanistan, instead they are getting raped).

10-13) If you look through the whole report, you’ll see that the numbers are the exact opposite in response to the same questions, depending on the poll, and the time the poll was done. The most recent polls, in fact, show the least positive responses.

Acute malnutration in the under 5 age group is dramatically up.

Anyway, you complain about research, but if you’d been following, say, the electricity or sewage report from day one, you’d realize that the great projects they are talking about finalizing today, were supposed to be done months (and years) ago. You’d also realize, the fantastic news about repairing sewer works and 400KV lines is tempered by the fact that there are the same amount of KV lines down today as there were when we started. I think we may have finally gotten some small progress on the sewer issues.

You get a new generator online, and then the fuel line is blown up. We were supposed to be at 6000 MW capacity in March, then they moved it to July of 2004. Well it’s February, and they are back into “planned maintenance”. HA! They’ve taken down their plant by plant repair report, because if it was still up you could follow it month by month and then you’d see that they still haven’t gotten the parts in, and they still haven’t hired the experts they need to repair the Siemens geneartors because no one in their right mind wants to go to IRaq to get beheaded.

Why is Al Dora, the number one power plant in Iraq, still running under 60% capacity? All you have to do is a simple search on the “hiring” board under Siemens experts, and you’ll see they’re still trying to fill their positioins.

Meanwhile, the Army Corp of Engineers repairs a sequences of distribution electricity lines, and the outlying tribes blow them up. Some are stripping them for money. Some are blowing them up, so that Baghdad doesn’t siphon off their electricty, and a few are doing it to give the U.S. grief.

My point? According to what I’ve seen only 20 cents of every dollar ends up in an actual repair. The rest is for security, or disappears when a terrorist blows up what we just accomplished.

Now, I’m just as tired of hearing all the whining as you are. And I don’t like the lack of research that our reporters show.

It’s sad that the only people I know that look at USAID and DOD and Brookings are people on watchblog and my friends.

My point?

It’s not that I don’t believe that we can solve the situation in Iraq. It’s not even that I think this is the worst way to do it. The point is that the government falsifies and obscures its data, so that I’m uncertain if they were prepared for things to go this badly, and if they have any idea of how much treasure they are willing to expend to make this work. We are just reaching the point we should have been at 5 months post invasion.

Is it a suprise? Not to me. Did I think we’d have so little to show for 200 billion dollars? Yeah, this is typical, according to the War College papers. Do I think our journey is close to over? No.

More importantly, if we had known that these were the costs, would we have gone there in the first place? The answer to that is NO. No republican would have committed to such an expensive project with such risky outcomes. Wolfowitz said 10 BILLION dollars. HA!

We are the frog in the boiling pot. The heat keeps on turning up, and we get adjusted to it. But we forget what we were being pitched when this started.

http://www.thinktam.com/askiraq/viewtopic.php?t=191&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

For some perspective, see this conversation I had in June of last year.

(Under Iraq Reconstruction.. Reconstruction efforts starting to improve).

Note that all of the issues I was talking about not getting solved have still not been solved.

Nice post Julia.

4) No objections here. The airport is much improved.

That’s only an improvement when the road from Baghdad to the airport isn’t cut off by insurgents, which happens often.

I was watching CNN the other night and the reporter was talking about an attack on an oil pipeline. He said, “We’ve been assured that this will not affect oil exports. It’s only a domestic pipeline used for power generation.” - Thank God for that… :/

Julia,

You know, I would rather have phone or internet outages than no phone or internet at all.

As for the school attendance do you have any data on class attendance?

You state that we are 2 years behind schedule on the canal clearing and governance councils, yet OIF did not even start until March 19, 2003 so there is no way we could be two years behind schedule unless they started the clock before the first shot was fired.

No, the nice thing about these two statistics is that the Iraqi people recognize that the country is headed in the right direction and conditions are improving despite the rhetoric coming from the left.

On the electricity, you can find it hard to believe if you choose to. The responses came from the Iraqi people who are using the electricity. Maybe their history with electricity in Iraq and the massive decay of the infrastructure pre-OIF has them conditioned to accept outages lasting a few hours as not “a long period of time”. Regardless of how you want to view the maintenance cycles they must be performed especially considering the extent to which they had been neglected under Sadam’s regime. Once a piece of machinery has been neglected to the point of it no longer functioning it must be closely watched and maintenance levels must be at greater intervals than if it had been maintained properly in the first place.

you complain about research, but if you’d been following, say, the electricity or sewage report from day one, you’d realize that the great projects they are talking about finalizing today, were supposed to be done months (and years) ago.

I agree, that original estimates were that projects would have proceeded much faster than they have. However, as they got into further into the projects they found that the deterioration due to massive neglect was much greater than originally estimated.

If there are the same number of 400kv lines down today that must mean that new 400kv lines have been put into place. Further evidence that improvements have been taking place.

The point is that the government falsifies and obscures its data

Which is precisely why I used independent data to support my arguments. Yet you seem to think that this data is falsified or at least tweaked to agree with the information from USAISD, US State Department and DOD. How many people do you think would have to be involved in the conspiracy to falsify or modify the data from all four sources? Then think about the likelihood of one of these thousands of people spilling the beans on the corrupt data. Harder to believe than the fact that Iraqi’s feel their electrical infrastructure is improving isn’t it.

I agree, that original estimates were that projects would have proceeded much faster than they have. However, as they got into further into the projects they found that the deterioration due to massive neglect was much greater than originally estimated.

This is false. And everyone keeps parroting it. Here’s the truth: The UN oil-for-food reports from 1998, 1999, 2000… clearly state the exact repairs that the sewage and electrical grids would need. We had exact part lists, plant by plant modifications needed, sewage by sewage station parts needed, detailed blueprints, workups on each project, price projections, and estimated times for completion based on the situation on the ground, as verified by UN engineers and the Iraqi engineers on site.

Betchel went in and started over from square one, decided they did not want to go with the plans that had been worked up before, decided they wanted to completely scrap the old system, install an entirely new system, and ignore the advice of the Iraqi engineers.

Their contractors proceeded to rip them off, and do a shoddy job. This was excarbated by the fact that when they completed projects, the projects would be blown up. It was finally exacerbated by the fact that the engineers who were hired, quit, in fear for their lives, and projects had to be started over from the beginning.

Not one project has been delayed because they were “surprised by how bad things were”. They may state that those were the reasons, but they are not the reasons, because the exact situation was clearly outlined to everyone. I will admit that maybe the neo-cons refused to read the data that was pertinent to rebuilding, but they can’t use that excuse to say that there was no way they could have known how bad it was.

The fact that this lie is repeated on the white house site, the USAID site, and the DOD site is why I categorically believe that these sites release statements that I describe as lies and obfuscation. The reason these lies and obscurities are perpetuated is because the people who publish them dont’ bother to research what their superiors tell them.

If there are the same number of 400kv lines down today that must mean that new 400kv lines have been put into place. Further evidence that improvements have been taking place.

The same kv lines are repeatedly blown up. They are repaired, then they are blown up again. They gave up on one section, and decided to install a whole new line. That one got blown up.

However, I was impressed at the speed with which they replaced the lines, that were then blown up. I think they got up 132 towers once in two months. I think it took two weeks for the insurgents to then blast them all.

Yet you seem to think that this data is falsified or at least tweaked to agree with the information from USAISD, US State Department and DOD.

No, I think the Brookings numbers look pretty good. I also think that much of the information on the USAID and DOD site would pass a legal test (i.e. It depends on what your definition of “is” is). It tends to be misleading, and therefore often gives you a false result. They also selectively drop information as it suits the political climate of the time. They’ll report increased iraqi police numbers, indicating moving forward on security, and the same week they will drop their “coalition attack” numbers, so you don’t notice that the graph is steadily increasing in terms of bombing.

Another example. The endless parroting of the success of the October and 2003 date when electricity was restored to “pre-war levels”. For the entier year post invasion, there were two days when electricity was better than it was before the war. That means that 99% of the time, electricity was worse. Yet the impression is that we did better than Saddam did in the first war, when he restored electricity within 3 months. (permanantly restored it).

I hope you realize that’s not the same thing. I hope you can see how endlessly touting the October 2003 resoration date is clearly a peice of propaganda, and should never, ever, be published on the USAID or DOD site. It would be like your local power company restoring your power for 2 hours total, after 3 months of outages, and then calling you, and saying “Hey, did you notice yesterday that your electricty was back to pre-outage levels?” meanwhile, you are reading by candlelight.

In addition, the DOD actually used the megawatts generated by individual Iraqis generators as part of the electricity total. Would you like it if your power company called you and said “Hey, please congratulate us for the great job we’ve done by letting you run your generator, which enabled you to get your electricity back to pre-outage levels.”

As for your point about the sewage issue. For some reason I was thinking we invaded in 2002. We invaded in 2003 didn’t we? Most of the original deadlines were for October of 2003and on the late side, December of 2003. Then those deadlines went to June of 2004. They no longer post deadlines. So, to be perfectly accurate, projects can’t be overdue by more than a year and 4 months.

Here’s an old report from when June 2004 deadlines were being batted around:
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ES/consolidated/June4_ES.doc

Here’s all the original early reports:
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ES/consolidated/index.html

The oldest links don’t work anymore. They were the ones with detailed plant parts procurement information, and detailed information on the KV lines they were installing.

Here’s an article that outlines the original deadlines:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/17/BUGAI66IF61.DTL

(The 12 month deadline with the 75% figure is obviously a little gunked up. 6500 MW is above the pre-war level of 4400 MW. So they thought they’d have more than one and a half times the power in 12 months, not 75% of pre-war power).

The article also contains a lot of revisionist history. The benchmarks were never given up. They announced new benchmarks on the exact day they missed their old deadlines. They are also (AGAIN) outright lying about being surprised by how badly the infrastrucuture had deteriorated. I can hand them the U.N. report that described exactly what they faced. The U.N. said in 2000 that the electrity grid was on the brink of collpase. It said if a blackout occured it would take two years from the beginning of repairs to add a single megawatt to the grid. It described, down to the screws, what equipment was necesarry to repair the grid.

The article is also lying about the transmission lines being so bad that the electricity can’t be routed to Baghdad. They don’t want to cause sectarian tension by stating that the Marsh Arabs (who were cruelly tortured by Saddam), were deliberately targeting those lines. (among other tribes)

No, the things that we did right, were the Umm Qasr port, the Baghdad airport, and the delivery of food. The food delivery was the best handled, and the most impressive, and it doesn’t get the credit it deserves, because no one noticed it, and it wasn’t glamerous.

People usually starve after wars, and the fact that people had access to food is a major accomplishment.

The only reas