NYT: A Change of Tone: Pitfalls Emerge in Iraq

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — By the standards of a White House that insists that nearly everything at all times is proceeding precisely according to plan, and where misjudgment is typically held to be a stranger, the last few weeks have brought a new, unvarnished tone.

His plan to bring peace to the Middle East, Mr. Bush acknowledged on Thursday, is "stalled."

A few days after Vice President Dick Cheney said the government did not know whether Saddam Hussein had some connection to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, fueling criticism that the administration was still implying a possible link where none appears to exist, Mr. Bush all but contradicted him. Asked by reporters on Wednesday about Mr. Cheney's statement, the president replied, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

(snip)

Indeed, the White House said there was nothing new in Mr. Bush's language. "The president has always felt it is important to be up front with the American people about the challenges and threats we face," said Suzy DeFrancis, a spokeswoman for the White House. "He has consistently told the American people the facts as he saw them and urged us to take the actions necessary to prevent terrorist attacks."

To Democrats who have been saying since the 2000 campaign that Mr. Bush has misled the American people, any increase in straight talk from the White House now seems meaningless or self-serving.

"If they said with a straight face that the world was flat or the sky was orange, they would expect people to accept it, and would question the patriotism of those who didn't," said David Sirota, spokesman for the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and advocacy group.

more…
http://nytimes.com/2003/09/21/politics/21MEMO.html

[Paschall]

1. I liked this remark

<snip> "{Bush}'d like to stick with whatever vision thing he has in his head," Mr. Greenstein said, "but when it doesn't work out, he compromises and declares victory." </snip>

Thanks for the link.

[teryang]

2. Pitfalls emerge?

Misleading headline. Tens of millions were aware of the "emerging" pitfalls before the invasion, including the professionals in the Chimp Chechny Rumdum downsized Army.

To claim that only "postwar" planning was "inadequate" is to deny that the war continues. It is an attempt to take political credit for a "successful" invasion which had nothing to do with administration competence or judgement. The so called successful invasion is referred to as the war part and the current diastrous situation which is killing and maiming hundreds of Americans and bankrupting the nation is referred to as postwar. Funny how more people have been killed and wounded "postwar" isn't it?

To claim the war was successful and the postwar planning was defective is like saying the landing on the flypaper war successful and the getting off was poorly planned.

The request for 87 billion dollars is evidence of the huge lies told before the war and the greed of the contractors, lobbyists and energy companies the current junta works for. If they wanted a stable Iraq why did they destroy it?

[Jacobin]

3. Very well said

The canard floating around that more "planning" in post invasion Iraq would have "pacified" the Iraqis and made them happy with the occupation is absolutely absurd. They want the infidels to LEAVE.