McClatchy: Administration leaving out important details on Iraq

[Pirate Smile]

Administration leaving out important details on Iraq

By MARK SEIBEL
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

-snip-
Much like the administration's pre-war claims about Saddam's alleged ties to al-Qaida and purported nuclear weapons program, the claims about the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra ignore inconvenient facts and highlight questionable but politically useful assumptions.

-snip-
The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.

Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16460924.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Quibble, quibble, quibble.

It's just not possible to satisfy you damn liberals.

[ClintonTyree]

2. "honest but gullible mistakes".....

:wtf: I think not! How many times can one administration screw up "honestly but gullibly". No, there a systematic cycle of deceit from the White House that makes Richard Nixon's crimes pale in comparison.
There is a critical need for Speaker Pelosi to rethink her stance on impeachment. These bastards MUST go! :mad:

[gratuitous]

18. And somehow, these lethal mistakes

And every time this administration screws up, another billion dollars or so leaks out of the Treasury and somehow finds its way into the overstuffed pockets of some of the administration's overrich friends. It's just the darnedest coincidence!

"Thousands of you may (and probably will) die while my buddies siphon several billion taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts, but it's a risk I'm willing to take."

I think "honest but gullible" describes something here, but it surely is not the Bush administration's mistakes.

[bleever]

3. Oil rights and permanent mega-bases.

Those are a couple of unmentioned elephants in the room.

[bonito]

4. Oversight is a an understatement

When it comes to this administration's actions.

[creeksneakers2]

5. Bush was rewriting History again on 60 Minutes

Bush told Scott Pelley that he was the first to admit it when weapons of mass destruction weren't found. I remember years of claims that the weapons were going to be found as soon as Saddam was captured, claims that biological weapons trailers were found, etc.

This McClatchy article is great. Says what all the others are afraid to say. What ever did come of the revelations about under-reporting of violence?

[Rose Siding]

6. K&R for the kind of piece that should have been written in 2002

[Say_What]

7. K & R

:kick:

[Olney Blue]

8. Liars.

[niceypoo]

9. Given that every statement, claim, promise, etc that we have been told about Iraq has been false...

It is safe to assume that anything we will ever hear from them on Iraq will be untrue also. Its par for the course. What we have is a rogue presidency running amock, drunk with unchecked power bestowed upon them by a cowardly GOP congress. Only a flurry of subpoenas will make them think twice.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. This just has to GOD DAMN STOP! There's got to be a word for the

way these people have been operating: burying the facts that are contrary to their decisions, and accentuating, even fabricating, information to support whatever course of action they decide on. This is Cheneying the facts.

[maddogesq]

11. Duhhhhhh!!!!

Coleman young reminded us that if you lie enought times, folks will believe you. I say that he is right, and will add that if you omit enough in this day and age, people are too damn lazy to read and realize you are lying by leaving it out.

[Quantess]

12. No offense to you, Pirate Smile, but.... this ain't news. (no text)

[jimlup]

13. Don't assume incompetence

I agree but there may be another reason for the current surge and administration position on Iraq. The admistration is preparing for an attack by either Israel (or itself) on Iran. Iraq is essentially irrelevant to the adminstration as long as they are not forced to withdrawal the troops. Iraq has simply become a political problem but when the attack on Iran occures, the administration is probably thinking that it would be prudent to have additional troops on the ground in Iraq.

Just speculation - as an attempt to understand the apparently irrational actions of this reckless administration.

[Quantess]

14. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[KoKo]

15. I dunno....this article keeps mentioning Iran...saying it sponsored Golden Dome Mosque

bombing and alluding to other Iranian influence. Also says that Colin Powell wanted to go after al Sadr but Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rummy were against it because they didn't want to fight a "two-pronged war" in Iraq.

Sounds like the article is saying that Bush wasn't tough enough and that we need to know that Iran sponsored bombing of the Mosque that caused all the violence afterwards.

One quote from the article about Iran..among others:

"But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.

Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing risks policy errors because it underestimates the depth of sectarian hatred in Iraq and overlooks the conflict's root causes. The Bush account also fails to acknowledge that Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite groups stoked the conflict."

[magellan]

16. This is no surprise to BushCo

It's probably what Bush** wanted, seeing as it took me all of 5 minutes to understand the cooperation between the Iraqi and Iranian Shia groups going back decades. If this administration couldn't grasp that much before invading and leaving the borders wide open for the Iraqi Shia exiles to return from Iran with their Islamic Revolutionary agenda, not to mention ignoring the grim black-robed figures who almost immediately began appearing on the streets of Baghdad and enforcing their extremist Islamic laws on everyone, then we have yet another reason to think BushCo are dumber than rocks and don't deserve the public trust.

The fact is it was BUSH** who not only let the radical Iraqi Shia return from Iran, but frankly welcomed them and did virtually nothing to hinder them from building their power bases in the militias and infesting the government.

Of COURSE Iran would prefer a Shia puppet gov't in Iraq friendly to their own, the same way Bush** would prefer a pro-American Iraqi puppet gov't. What did they expect? Is it possible BushCo are THAT incompetent? Or is it more likely Bush** allowed this to happen on purpose -- perhaps even provided the false flag catalyst to the sectarian violence -- so he could eventually tie Iran to the trouble in Iraq as is now happening, giving him yet another excuse to stay in Iraq and also to attack Iran?

[Felix Mala]

17. "...incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events..."

From this administration? Are you sure?

Funny, for some reason they've decided to try to convince the public that all this nastiness started in February '06. They seem to want the public to forget about the period between April '03 and January '06. Why? What do they get out of it?

Mind you, February '06 is a full nine months after our savvy VP estimated that the insurgency was in it's "final throes..."

Hmmm, nine months... That's just enough time to gestate another little cannon fodder for the Neocons permanent war (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!!!)

[Styve]

19. Isn't McClatchy a neocon mouthpiece?

I recall hearing that Scaife had some involvement.

[lonestarnot]

20. bushitler you LIAR!