How could we have been SO WRONG? - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 01:51 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
How could we have been SO WRONG?

Read this article from 2003, and weep:


Iraq: When Can We Go Home?
Continuing casualties prompt calls for Bush to spell out the cost, duration and purpose of the U.S. mission there
By TONY KARON
Time Magazine
Posted Thursday, Jun. 26, 2003


President Bush faced a call this week from a senior member of his own party's foreign policy establishment to "level" with the American people about Iraq. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar was not harping on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction; he was urging the president to give the electorate a more realistic picture of the scale and duration of the U.S. occupation mission in Iraq, and to impress on them the importance of staying the course. Fresh from a visit to Baghdad, Lugar warned: "The idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more — we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish! We're going to be there a long time."

A similar warning came from Thomas Pickering, who had served the first President Bush as UN ambassador and had headed up a Council on Foreign Relations study on Iraq which concluded that the U.S. mission had lacked "vision and strategy." Pickering, too, urged Bush to make clear that the current U.S. deployment of some 200,000 troops in and around Iraq would have to be maintained for a long time to come. Or, as General John Abizaid, who will assume command of the Iraq mission from the retiring General Tommy Franks next month, put it in congressional testimony this week, "for the foreseeable future."

For obvious domestic political reasons, the Bush Administration going into the war had downplayed the scale and duration of a post-war occupation mission. When then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told legislators that such a mission would require several hundred thousand U.S. troops, his assessment had been immediately dismissed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as "wildly off the mark." Wolfowitz explained that "I am reasonably certain that (the Iraqi people) will greet us as liberators,
and that will help us to keep requirements down." Six weeks ago, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was still suggesting the U.S. force in Iraq could be reduced to 30,000 by the end of the year. But the prevailing assessment in Washington appears to be shifting to the idea of a figure closer to Shinseki's.

The changing assessment in Washington is being spurred by the realization that the security problem confronting U.S. and British troops in Iraq is not simply maintaining order in the face of looting and lawlessness, but instead that coalition forces are facing what appears to be an escalating guerrilla insurgency. And that means the occupation mission is costing not only American treasure — currently an estimated $3 billion a month — but also American lives. U.S. forces come under attack every day in Iraq, and they have suffered combat casualties at a rate upward of one death every other day. Six British MPs were killed near Basra on Tuesday and eight were wounded in a second incident; a U.S. Marine was killed en route to help ambushed comrades Wednesday; two U.S. troops were reported missing overnight Thursday in Baghdad, and later in the day Centcom announced that a Special Operations soldier had been killed and eight wounded by hostile fire during an operation southwest of Baghdad. Two Iraqis employed to help restore Baghdad's electricity supply were among those killed in a rocket attack on a U.S. convoy Thursday, while saboteurs blew up two important oil pipelines earlier in the week, apparently recognizing their ability to disrupt power supplies by targeting some of the country's 4,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines.

The coalition body count is mounting steadily in the postwar insurgency, despite two large sweep operations north of Baghdad last weekend designed to eliminate resistance. U.S. commander have begun to acknowledge that they're facing an organized insurgency, blaming remnants of the old regime and jihadists from other Arab countries who had come to Iraq to fight the U.S. More worrying are the attacks that have occurred this week south of Baghdad, in predominantly Shiites areas. An insurgency confined to the Sunni minority is more easily contained than one whose base extends to the Shiite majority.

Average daily temperatures in Baghdad now are upward of 110 degrees, and U.S. troops who had hoped to be home in time for July 4th cookouts instead find themselves facing an enemy indistinguishable from the (often hostile) civilian population. And the enemy's strategy is to avoid ever presenting himself as a visible target, hoping to sap American morale and alienate the U.S. from the local population through hit and run attacks, and sabotage of reconstruction efforts.

Washington is hoping to lighten the load with an infusion of some 20,000 troops slated to be sent — in small contingents, mostly at U.S. expense — from those NATO countries that supported the war. But the number that actually arrive in Iraq may shrink somewhat if it turns out they're headed into a counterinsurgency mission rather than a more pedestrian peacekeeping affair. This week's British casualties, in what had ostensibly been the most tranquil part of Iraq, won't help Washington's recruitment efforts. Britain's own force levels in Iraq had been reduced from 45,000 during the war to around 15,000, although following the latest incident the government faces conflicting pressures to both increase and reduce its exposure in Iraq.

More robust contributions have been asked of India and Pakistan, but while the leaders of both countries are inclined to comply, both face strong domestic opposition. The U.S. is also embarking on a plan to train and equip a new Iraqi national army comprising some 60,000 men, although that project will likely take years to complete. In the short term, despite local recruitment and the planned deployment of more foreign troops, most, if not all of the heavy lifting will remain the preserve of the U.S. and British forces.

Iraq, of course, is not the only peacekeeping mission requiring the attention of the U.S. and its allies. Some 11,000 coalition troops remain deployed in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, while peacekeeping duties are the preserve of the 4,800 foreign troops grouped under the banner of the International Security Assistance Force, whose small numbers confine its work to the capital, Kabul. A number of U.S. legislators and South Asia experts are quietly warning that the security situation there is in danger of unraveling in the face of Taliban resurgence and internecine warlord conflicts, and that turning the situation around requires either expanding the terms of the U.S. deployment to stabilizing Afghanistan, or else significantly expanding ISAF. (ISAF has one advantage in that it has drawn on major troop contributions from NATO members that had opposed the Iraq war — Turkey, France and Germany.)

The U.S. exit strategy from Iraq has always been to install a stable, friendly Iraqi government whose oil revenues would give it financial independence and withdraw the bulk of the force that had overthrown Saddam's regime. But the scale of the challenge of remaking Iraq forced Washington to adapt its plans. When U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer arrived to take the reins from the hapless Jay Garner he chose to keep political authority in U.S. hands rather than betting prematurely on any Iraqi group. To the chagrin of most of Iraq's many political factions, Bremer has put talk of a transitional government in the deep freeze, and instead plans to draw Iraqis into a much slower process of consultation over a new constitution. That, of course, leaves the occupation authority without an Iraqi face, which further inflames nationalist passions — but managing an occupation mission such as Iraq invariably throws up mostly lesser-evil choices.

It was clear from the moment Bremer took over that the process of achieving the Bush administration's political objectives in post-Saddam Iraq might take years of patient nation-building. But what has become equally clear, in recent weeks, is that it may also require winning a second war, of counterinsurgency.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 01:54 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

All who vehemently opposed this invasion from day one (or before), please raise your hand.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #3 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 01:54 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

This article from 2004, on Iraqi recruits, is no different from one I read the other day on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272786/site/newsweek/


Iraqi recruits still a thorn in U.S.'s side
Efforts to restock nation's military thwarted by betrayals, corruption
In-Depth Coverage By Borzou Daragahi

BAGHDAD -- It seemed like a good idea to Americans at the time: Get rid of the nepotism and corruption that afflicted Saddam Hussein's bureaucracy by opening the doors of the army and police to any able-bodied Iraqi who wanted to join.

The result has been disastrous, some Iraqi security officials say.

As U.S. forces struggle to bring interim-government control to restless swaths of the country and put an Iraqi face on the continued occupation, they once again are finding themselves dependent upon security forces that seem ill-equipped to control the country and often are supportive of insurgents.

Last week, officials fired the police chiefs of Samarra and Mosul, cities that descended into chaos as American forces stepped up attacks on Fallujah.

According to news accounts, Mosul -- Iraq's third-largest city -- was on the brink of anarchy as masked insurgents roamed streets and police officers disappeared. The interim government dispatched four Iraqi National Guard battalions to the city, drawing away forces meant to protect the country's borders with Iran and Syria.

Iraqis themselves say many of the tens of thousands of police and thousands of armed forces recruits remain untrained, inexperienced and even worse: informers for the insurgency they were supposedly being trained to fight.

"The problem is that the police and security forces ... do not do their job," said Dana Ahmad Majid, regional director of Asayesh, a security force based in the autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. "The choice of police in particular has been riddled with mistakes."

Betrayal, the security people say, led to the murder of nearly 50 Iraqi Army recruits in a remote corner of the country last month, when unarmed men traveling from their base were murdered execution-style near the Iran-Iraq border town of Mandali on Oct. 23.

"People inside the (recruits') camp must have signed up just to give information to the resistance," Iraqi Army Maj. Emad Farman said. "There had to be cooperation between people inside and outside the camp."

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's military forces grew to be one of the world's largest. During the 1980s, the deposed dictator increased the number of troops from 180,000 to 900,000 and more than doubled the number of tanks from 2,700 to 5,700, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a national security information archive.

But Saddam's military wilted under 12 years of sanctions after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and both the army and police melted in the face of the 2003 U.S. invasion.

In one of the most contentious actions in postwar Iraq, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer signed an order formally dissolving the former Iraqi Army, an action many say fueled the growing anti-American insurgency. Bremer then began establishing Iraqi police and military forces as crime and terrorism mushroomed.

Iraqis and Westerners have long assumed this new Iraqi police force to be riddled with corruption and sentiment for insurgents. Iraqis blame early recruitment efforts in the haste to get forces up and running.

"When the Americans first came here, they tried to deal with people as if they shared the American mentality," said Iraqi National Guard Maj. Alaal-Khifajey. "The Americans' way was, you fill out a three-page application form, they check your name against their list of terrorists, and after a medical and fitness test, you had the job."

A U.S. diplomat, conceding recruitment problems plagued security forces, said not all army and police failings could be blamed on hiring alone. Some of the many problems were equally the result of intimidation by insurgents, he said on condition of anonymity.

"In Ramadi, or Samarra ... I'd put more weight on intimidation (than infiltration)," he said. "In Najaf, probably both infiltration and intimidation in April and very little by August."

Iraq's security forces remain under constant threat.

Each day, Iraqi police and soldiers are killed or kidnapped by insurgents. The videotaped execution of 11 purported Iraqi National Guard members was posted on the Internet last month. They were accused of "protecting the U.S. crusader occupation forces."

Marines battling insurgents in Fallujah and Ramadi have publicly complained the Iraqi forces do little fighting. And police often publicly express support for insurgents and have been seen standing idly by as insurgents plant roadside bombs.

In April, when fighting broke out across the country, many soldiers and police ran or, in some cases, handed their weapons to insurgents.

"There are some good people in the security services who are the ex-military people," said Iraqi Army Lt. Bashar Sadigha, who attended a military academy near Baghdad during Saddam's rule. "But there are many people who signed up just to be able to earn a living."

After assuming security powers following the July 1 transfer of power from the U.S.-led occupying authority, the leaders of Iraq's security forces have begun clamping down. They started cutting thousands of police officers from the ranks, either for incompetence or suspected insurgent leanings, U.S. and Iraqi officials confirmed.

And the armed forces recently have taken over the recruitment efforts from the Americans, to the relief of U.S. forces unfamiliar with Iraq's language and culture, unable to tell a hardworking, pious Iraqi from a religious fanatic or a plain criminal.

"Most of the screening as far as the staff is up to the Iraqi staff now," said U.S. Army Capt. Kevin Bradley, who trains Iraqi National Guardsmen. "Right now, whether or not the person is clean depends on the Iraqis."

Iraqis raised the recruitment age from 17 to 20 and instituted tough new regulations to keep insurgents and sympathizers out of the ranks, rules that might raise the hackles of American labor rights advocates.

Each recruit must now bring a letter of approval from his local community council. Each military base now dispatches committees to new recruits' neighborhoods to check on their "moral background," Khifajey said.

What's more, nepotism is now on the rise, the U.S. diplomat said. Khifajey said recruits must have someone already in the service -- a cousin, or other relative -- to vouch for them.

"We know our people," Khifajey said. "We know who to recruit and who to reject.

"Maybe 10 years down the line we'll have the kind of society where a man can just walk in off the street and sign up for the army," Khifajey said, "but definitely not now."


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #4 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 02:06 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
How could Shinseki BE SO RIGHT?

From 2003:

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003


In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."

kv note: we are at 350 billion and counting

Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

get ready to throw up:

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.


In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many nations agreed in advance of hostilities to help pay for a conflict that eventually cost about $61 billion. Mr. Wolfowitz said that this time around the administration was dealing with "countries that are quite frightened of their own shadows" in assembling a coalition to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

get ready to barf again

Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high,
(again, we are at 350 billion an counting)
and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.


At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #5 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 02:07 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

A great summary of the utter pack of lies we have been fed:

http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM#3

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #6 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 02:16 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

And this, from 2003:

Posted on Fri, Oct. 31, 2003
Analysts made accurate Iraq war estimates

By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Months before the U.S.-led war in Iraq, independent and congressional analysts made remarkably accurate predictions of the costs of a post-war occupation, even as the Pentagon refused to do so, or gave very low estimates.
The discrepancy is gaining new attention with lawmakers complaining of the costs as they approve the president's request for $87 billion to occupy and rebuild Iraq. The House approved the package Thursday, and the Senate is expected to do so Monday.
"We were all hit with sticker shock: $87 billion is a huge number," said Rep. Zack Wamp, R-Tenn., during House debate Thursday night. "I'm going to grit my teeth and vote yes tonight and say that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq."

Bush administration officials repeatedly insisted before the war that they could not estimate how much the war or the postwar occupation might cost.

But the Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimated in September 2002 that occupying Iraq would cost between $1 billion and $4 billion a month.

The current figure? About $4 billion a month.

"The American people were taken by surprise by the administration's budget request, because there was not enough lead-up to explain how much of a sacrifice would be needed," said Bathsheba Crocker, a former State Department budget adviser now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent Washington think tank.

The administration's aversion to cost estimates was intertwined with Pentagon officials' reluctance to estimate how many troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.

Before the war, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials disputed a prediction by then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki that more than 200,000 troops would be needed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

The occupation now occupies some 132,000 American troops, supported by 22,000 troops from other nations and more than 90,000 Iraqi security forces - more than 244,000 people under arms. The money to pay for both the U.S. troops and the Iraqi forces comes almost exclusively from the United States.

"The problem is, the administration didn't ever publicly come up with how many troops they thought would be there, or how long they would be there," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It's not that difficult to estimate what the costs will be if you have some idea of the numbers of troops."

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating the total cost to occupy Iraq from 2004 through 2013 at between $85 billion and $200 billion, depending on how many American soldiers are needed and how soon they can leave Iraq.

Rumsfeld defended the Pentagon's pre-war vagueness at a news conference earlier this month.

"We were criticized for not giving answers because we didn't know the answer," Rumsfeld said. "There are so many variables involved that people with good judgement don't try to say, 'I'm smart enough to take all those variables and make an appropriate estimate and come out with a single-plan answer.' So I haven't done that."

Former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey also came under fire last year when he estimated a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then Bush's budget chief, discounted the estimate as "very, very high," and the issue was cited as one of the reasons why Lindsey resigned in December.

Lindsey's estimate has proven to be on the mark, with the two funding bills, mostly for Iraq, that Bush proposed this year totaling more than $160 billion.
kv note: two years later, $350 billion
Other guesses by Bush administration officials have been well off the mark.

Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years.

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,"
Wolfowitz said in testimony March 27, a little more than a week after the war started.

Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 - a fraction of Wolfowitz' pre-war boast.

Administration officials have pointed to Iraq's billions in international debt as a reason to reject congressional moves to make some of the Iraq reconstruction funding a loan. Iraq doesn't have the money to finance its own reconstruction, Pentagon finance chief Dov Zakheim said this week.

The Congressional Budget Office projections, released about six months before Wolfowitz' statement, said Iraq could produce enough oil to generate about $3 billion a year for reconstruction. Using current oil prices of about $27 a barrel and the CBO's estimate that 400,000 barrels a day of Iraqi production could be used to finance reconstruction, Iraq would have about $3.9 billion extra for reconstruction - in line with the Pentagon's current estimates.

Democrats have assailed Wolfowitz for his prewar comment. "Talk about a rosy scenario," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, when Wolfowitz addressed the panel in September. Wolfowitz did not address the criticism.



Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #7 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 02:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

KV, you are going to get a conniption if you keep digging up the nasty shit this administration laid out off it posterior.
I am starting to give up, since I know now where this is heading.
1. The world will never be a safe place for anyone
2. There are not enough energy resources in the form of hydrocarbons for everyone
3. The US will stick to this line of lies as long as its people stay asleep
4. The people will stay asleep since the majority follows Alfa’s line of thinking
5. The majority of the people will stay asleep since the smart ones like Azimuth will stay in denial.
6. You my friend is seen like you are in the fringes since any resentment is considered a leftist, liberalist and borderline anti American rant.
7. Me I am seen as a terrorist just because I am not “one of you� and I wear a towel over my head.
8. This world is messed up as it always has been and always will be.

I am tiered of this, I going to go play doctor with the neighbor girl, at least that’s a lot more fun.
Shabah is offline  
post #8 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 02:51 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Well if you don't like it link something proposing a point of view you can rally behind. Botnst tries, and every now and then actually enjoys a marginal victory of the Napoleon kind.
Shane is offline  
post #9 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 03:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/11/2005 1:54 PM

All who vehemently opposed this invasion from day one (or before), please raise your hand.
(hand rises)

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #10 of 46 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 03:08 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: How could we have been SO WRONG?

Remember when we were just part a lonely little group with everyone else shouting us down?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome