Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Now the Iraqi's can't defend themselves...which is it ? Lying again?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 09:34 AM
Original message
Now the Iraqi's can't defend themselves...which is it ? Lying again?
Dubious Data
Days after U.S. commanders announced that training Iraqi security forces will be a primary strategic goal of U.S. troops in Iraq, the Bush administration abruptly altered its weekly reports on the status of Iraq’s police and military forces.

This week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the Weekly Iraq Status Reports “the best data anyone has in the world” on the pace of Iraqi security force training. Yet recent reports include several extreme changes that require White House explanation. For example, the status report issued on 1/19/05 documented 7,598 personnel in Iraq’s Army; just two weeks later, the number of Army personnel had reportedly ballooned to 56,284. The purported number of Iraqi Navy and Air Force personnel also changed dramatically. On 1/19/05, the status report listed 145 Iraqi Air Force personnel and 495 Iraqi Navy personnel; the numbers are seemingly swapped in the latest report, with 139 Navy personnel and 526 Air Force personnel listed.

Several important statistics have also been consolidated or eliminated entirely from the latest reports. For example, over at least the last five months, the reports have included both the number of “Trained/On Hand” soldiers as well as the target “Required” number; the “Required” category has been completely removed as of 1/26/05. Also, the categorization of security forces has been consolidated from twelve categories to only five, making it impossible to distinguish, for instance, between the numbers of personnel in the National Guard, the Intervention Force, or the Army. Since these different force components require different amounts of training, the conflation of categories makes it even more difficult to track the pace of Iraqi security force training.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plus a "Rummy story from this weekend"

Rumsfeld: Iraq Needs Time for Military

Mon Feb 7, 1:52 AM ET White House - AP Cabinet & State


By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Once its internal security forces are trained to handle violent insurgents, Iraq (news - web sites) will require more time to build a military force strong enough to meet any threats from Iran or other neighbors, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says.

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Rumsfeld, appearing separately on Sunday talk shows, agreed Iraq will shape its own government and will reflect its political and social demands in that system, not those of the United States. The role religion will play will be for Iraqis to decide, Cheney said.


"This is going to be Iraqi, whatever it is. It's not going to be American. It's not going to look like Wyoming or New York when they get their political process all put together," Cheney told "Fox News Sunday."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20050207/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

When Rice testfied...the Iraq's are all trained and ready to go. BUT..that would mean the US would have to leave....get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. I thought Bernie Kerik trained these guys months ago -
at least that's what he was supposed to be doing while he was over there earning a boatload of cash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. the point is...they cannot be trained --- the US would have to leave then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I get it now - they're just not smart enough to protect themselves.
I'll start the firearms and hand-to-hand combat training with my kids tomorrow. That way, when they're drafted they'll be leaps and bounds ahead of their contemporaries.

At 9 and 6, they should suck up this training like a sponge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC