PDA

View Full Version : Official: Iraq gov't missed all targets



LiberalNation
07-10-2007, 06:53 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=AjluPjLtVb3RLDUGm57nYhwDW7oF

WASHINGTON - A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft is still under discussion.

But another senior official said Bush's advisers, along with the president, decided last week there was not enough evidence from Iraq to justify a change now in current policy.

They had launched discussions about how to react to the erosion of support for the president's Iraq approach among prominent Republicans, that official said, and the debate was part of a broader search for a way out of a U.S. combat presence in Iraq by the end of Bush's presidency.

The second official said the decision was to wait for the September report — one originally proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials, and then enshrined into law by Congress — before deciding whether any course shift is warranted. The official spoke on condition of anonymity so he could talk more freely about internal deliberations.

The July report, required by law, is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill by Thursday or Friday, as the Senate takes up a $649 billion defense policy bill and votes on a Democratic amendment ordering troop withdrawals to begin in 120 days.

The second administration official said the report "will present a picture of satisfactory progress on some benchmarks and not on others."

Also being drafted are several Republican-backed proposals that would force a new course in Iraq, including one by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would require U.S. troops to abandon combat missions. Collins and Nelson say their binding amendment would order the U.S. mission to focus on training the Iraqi security forces, targeting al-Qaida members and protecting Iraq's borders.

"My goal is to redefine the mission and set the stage for a significant but gradual drawdown of our troops next year," said Collins.

GOP support for the war has eroded steadily since Bush's decision in January to send some 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. At the time, Bush said the Iraqis agreed to meet certain benchmarks, such as enacting a law to divide the nation's oil reserves.

This spring, Congress agreed to continue funding the war through September but demanded that Bush certify on July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that the Iraqis were living up to their political promises or forgo U.S. aid dollars.

The official said it is highly unlikely that Bush will withhold or suspend aid to the Iraqis based on the report.

A draft version of the administration's progress report circulated among various government agencies in Washington on Monday.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report, contending that all of the additional troops had just gotten in place and it would be unrealistic to expect major progress by now.

"You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."

In recent weeks, the White House has tried to shore up eroding GOP support for the war.

Collins and five other GOP senators — Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Robert Bennett of Utah, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Pete Domenici of New Mexico — support separate legislation calling on Bush to adopt as U.S. policy recommendations by the Iraq Study Group, which identified a potential redeployment date of spring 2008.

Other prominent Republican senators, including Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, also say the U.S. should begin redeployments.

Several GOP stalwarts, including Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Jon Kyl of Arizona and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, said they still support Bush's Iraq strategy.

Kyl said he would try to focus this week's debate on preserving vital anti-terrorism programs, including the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The defense bill is on track to expand the legal rights of those held at the military prison, and many Democrats want to propose legislation that would shut the facility.

"If Democrats use the defense authorization bill to pander to the far left at the expense of our national security, they should expect serious opposition from Republicans," Kyl said.

As the Senate debate began, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee arranged to run television commercials in four states, beginning Tuesday, to pressure Republicans on the war.

The ads are to run in Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable officials, but the DSCC so far has committed to spending a relatively small amount of money, less than $100,000 in all. Barring a change in plans that means the ads would not be seen widely in any of the four states.

The targets include Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Collins of Maine, Sununu of New Hampshire and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. All face re-election next year.

The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, with the overall tally for Iraq alone nearing a half-trillion dollars, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.

The figures call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost $5.6 billion through the end of September.

Psychoblues
07-12-2007, 03:50 AM
They certainly have failed and also most certainly nobody here wants to talk about it. Did you notice that? I think they are all swimming in a river in Egypt. The one called denial.

Kathianne
07-12-2007, 03:52 AM
Well seems the first 'leaks' were not quite factual:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3368117&page=1


Security Forces Improve in Baghdad, Politics Founder
First White House Report Since Troop Surge Finds Mixed Success

July 11, 2007 —

An eagerly awaited White House report on Iraq will be released tomorrow, which will claim that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress.

This is the first assessment of the Iraqi government's success rate since President Bush ordered the troop surge last January. White House officials tell ABC News' Jonathan Karl the report will cite encouraging signs that should eventually lead to a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The report notes that progress is "satisfactory" on eight of the benchmark criteria, the criteria that deals mostly with the Iraqi security forces.

In one case of a "satisfactory" benchmark, the Iraqi army sent three brigades to help secure Baghdad, as promised.

But a senior White House official told ABC News the report would also show disappointments, as progress on eight other benchmarks is described as "not satisfactory"  that includes most of the benchmarks on political reconciliation.

Progress on the remaining two benchmarks is labeled "mixed."

Overall, the report points to an eventual draw down of U.S. troops and claims "some encouraging signs that, over time, should point to a more normal and sustainable level of U.S. engagement in Iraq."

New Strategy 'Succeeding'

In advance of the expected White House report, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham  who both recently returned from Iraq  gave their own assessment in a briefing with Bush today.

"We adopted a new strategy, and this strategy is succeeding and should be given a chance to succeed," McCain said.

But ABC News has also learned of a recent military intelligence assessment that offers a more mixed picture.

This report notes a decline in attacks on civilians and a near miraculous turnaround in Anbar Province, which, just last year, was considered the most dangerous in Iraq.

At the same time, the intelligence assessment said attacks on U.S. forces are way up, with the overall number of violent incidents in June reaching a record high in Iraq with an average of 178 attacks a day  the overwhelming majority against U.S. forces.

Still, the surge of additional forces in Iraq has only been fully in place for about three weeks, and military officials indicate it's simply too early to say whether it is working .

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said again today that fighting a counterinsurgency war takes time  and in his assessment, that is about 10 years.

Psychoblues
07-12-2007, 04:28 AM
The fact is, kitty, you are so drunk on whatever it is that you drink that you can't even present any credible argument. What in hell does "Well seems the first 'leaks' were not quite factual:" mean? Well WHAT seems?

Kathianne
07-12-2007, 04:31 AM
The fact is, kitty, you are so drunk on whatever it is that you drink that you can't even present any credible argument. What in hell does "Well seems the first 'leaks' were not quite factual:" mean? Well WHAT seems?

:pee:

Psychoblues
07-12-2007, 04:48 AM
You and others are so interested in the cartoons!!!!!!!!!



:pee:

Here's a few for you:

:lame2::lol::cheers2::dance::poke::laugh2::pee::fu :

Psychoblues
07-12-2007, 04:49 AM
You and others are so interested in the cartoons!!!!!!!!!



:pee:

Here's a few for you:

:lame2::lol::cheers2::dance::poke::laugh2: :fu:

Psychoblues
07-12-2007, 04:51 AM
Here's another one:

:pee:

ain't all that funny? lolololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!