Facts have a well-known liberal bias

So, how are things in Iraq?

Civilian casualties remain high, sectarian groups can’t get along, al Qaeda in Iraq is still pulling off high-profile attacks and “to date, Iraqi leaders remain unable to govern effectively,” said the declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate released Thursday.

The intelligence community briefed the media on the assessment hours after senior Bush administration officials told CNN the classified version of the report expressed doubts that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is able to lead the war-torn country.
The report concluded that al-Maliki may not have the ability or capacity to “push forward” legislative reforms, according to one of the officials who read the classified version.

The declassified version, however, points to the security situation, political system and economy as hindrances to Iraqi progress and states that improvements in these areas are “unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments.”

In other words, for all the talk about “progress” and “turning the corner,” the reality is just as we’ve feared: Iraq isn’t getting better and there’s no reason to believe it will improve.

Indeed, the intelligence estimate indicated that security conditions are precarious (Iraqi security forces have not improved and are still dependent on us) and political conditions may get even worse “over the next six to 12 months.”

Let’s not brush past that too quickly. According to the best intelligence we have, no matter what we do in Iraq, if we stay, there is no reason to expect conditions to be any better in August 2008 than they are in August 2007.

This tidbit from the AP report is a real gem:

The estimate says that Iraqi Security Forces, working alongside the United States, have performed “adequately.” However, it says they haven’t shown enough improvement to conduct operations without U.S. and coalition forces and are still reliant on others for key support.

The findings could provide support for the Bush administration’s argument that coalition forces need to stay in Iraq in order to avoid letting security lapse, should they withdraw from certain areas.

Iraqi security forces still can’t operate, which means we should stay to help them. Except, if they could operate, we should still stay because two effective armies are better than one. And if they could kinda sorta operate, well, you get the picture.

And what about Maliki? Spencer Ackerman explains.

The NIE doesn’t predict that he’s going to be ousted — legally or otherwise. Rather, it seems that the intelligence community thinks Maliki will remain in office out of fear among Shiite leaders that “searching for a replacement could paralyze the government.”

The trouble is that the government is paralyzed right now. The cardinal factors characterizing Iraq’s political scene are Shiite fear of losing dominance, inter-factional fighting, and Sunni unwillingness “to accept a diminished political status.” Levels of “insurgent and sectarian violence remain high.” Most importantly, no meaningful political compromise is assessed to be likely “unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments.”

The reaction from Harry Reid’s office is a pretty solid response.

“Today’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq confirms what most Americans already know: Our troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and the President’s escalation strategy has failed to produce the political results he promised to our troops and the American people.

“Our troops have done everything asked of them and more. Unfortunately Iraq’s leaders have not. And as today’s NIE makes clear, a political solution is extremely unlikely in the near term. Further pursuit of the Administration’s flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation’s best interests Every day that we continue to stick to the President’s flawed strategy is a day that America is not as secure as it could be.”

I don’t doubt the White House and its like-minded allies are going to argue that this latest estimate is exactly what they wanted to hear, and further proof that the status quo is exactly what we need in Iraq. I only wish I were clever enough to imagine just how foolish their talking points will be.

Frankly, how anyone outside the Weekly Standard and Joe Lieberman’s office can perceive today’s news as anything but a disaster is beyond me.

They had a Lieberman quote at the Connor this morning. I think it was that crazy Lopez again. He was blabing about Iran. yet again.

  • I bet Harry Reid missed this line ..

    Perceptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourage factions anticipating a power vacuum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and intra-sectarian competition.

  • I’m all for shutting down the government over this issue. Bush is to blame for years of failure in Iraq and we must do whatever it takes to “force” him to withdraw from Iraq. The same way he has been “forcing” our soldiers to fight and die refereeing a civil war. Congress must refuse to fund anything but a withdrawal and redeployment. This occupation stops now.

  • I think the new line will be that we need to attack Iran because they’re the ones who are keeping the progress in Iraq from happening.

    Yes, it’s batshit insane, but the almighty AIPAC will make every congresscritter either parrot this line of crap or at least not point out how stupid it is or who’s pushing it.

    That would be antisemitic.

  • notice how secterian groups just “can’t get along” while al Qaeda seems to be doing all the attacks? One would think that only party actually doing violence and fighting a war over there are Bin Laden’s guys. Nice piece of propaganda there

  • I’m glad that news stories are starting to show that security, the portion of rehabilitating Iraq that our miltary can assist with, is but one of three prongs that need to used effectively to bring peace to Iraq. A U.S. soldier with a gun cannot improve Iraq’s political problems nor will bullets improve the economy. The failure of the other two legs is why Iraq can’t stand up on its own and those other two legs are solely the responsibility of George Bush and not our armed forces. How does anyone expect Iraq’s economy to improve when the U.S. backed hydrocarbon law is meant to screw Iraq out of the economic value of its mineral resources. The failure happening Iraq is squarely the fault of Bush.

  • Ethel-to-Tilly said: “notice how secterian groups just “can’t get along” while al Qaeda seems to be doing all the attacks? One would think that only party actually doing violence and fighting a war over there are Bin Laden’s guys. Nice piece of propaganda there”

    No, see, that’s a perfect example of how we’ve imported ‘American values’ to Iraq! Local Iraqi sectarian leaders, trying to save a buck or two, have outsourced all the attacking to cheaper, Al Qaeda labor (“It’s like they’re willing to blow themselves up for free!”). And the Iraqis are way ahead of us in terms of crumbling infrastructure… Do they have a collapsing mortgage industry yet?

  • This new NIE sounds to me like the WH is laying down the ground ground for a change in govt — Maliki can’t cope, parliament isn’t working, etc. We’ve already had the military say that it’s an option (by constitutional or non-constitutional ways). We have that group pushing Allawi. By the time Betrayus shows up for his Congressionl testimony, the testimony will be moot, because conditions on the ground will have changed (Maliki out, someone else in). And we’ll need to give the new govt a couple of Friedman Units to see how well *it* can get our oil for us.

  • Assuming there may be some purpose behind the Bush gang’s Iraq and foreign policies, it’s interesting to speculate what that might be.

    We know for sure that it has nothing to do with terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or democracy and freedom. These are tinkly, glossy facades used to divert attention, and cover-up a more scary and sinister agenda, about which nary a word is spoken. Occasionally, a loose comment slips the lock down, and from that — such as Bush’s throwaway about oil on Limbaugh — we get a hint of the underlying truth.

    Still, it would be nice to have something more than hints. It would be nice to have — don’t laugh — an honest, out-front statement of intention. Without it, all the NIEs, reports, assessments or statements in the Universe mean diddlysqueak. There’s no frame or base of criteria upon which to interpret, understand or assess any of them. They and we are flotsam spinning in space with not as much as a straw to clutch hold of. Absent a true, honest exposition of purpose, how is it humanly possible to judge any report about any conditions anywhere? — It isn’t, and we’re daft to even try.

    I can only imagine Bush gang laughing their heads off (nice if literally) at everyone trying to comprehend the incomprehensible — because they have never once articulated a valid, credible reason for the invasion and occupation in the first place. Thus we are thrown back on entertaining but vain speculation.

    It’s one of two things, and probably a mixture of both. And, let’s face it, though we know this already, we are denied a basis on which to claim to know it. The two candidates are : Crusade and Oil. See, it’s simple.. but they won’t say it.

    So, if the object is to destroy Islam and replace it with Christianity (which millions of extremists pray and work for daily), then BushCo are clearly not doing enough. They’re slackers and should be ashamed of themselves. They’ve got all the power they need and they don’t use it? Now we can judge the report as indication of total failure to effectively accomplish a goal.

    And if it’s Oil? Then basically the same — failure to achieve an objective.

    The point about this is that, by not coming clean in the first place, they’ve simultaneously protected themselves from condemnation for failure and any claim to success. Thus they’ve effectively consigned themselves to an indeterminate limbo out of which there is no obvious escape.

  • But really, CB, can’t you just post about “some of the good news coming out of Iraq”?? There has got to be some, someplace. Really. To make the chickens over here in the US at least have the impression of safety?

  • Oh, please.

    When your “facts” are provided to you by CNN and AP news reports — then yeah, I guess facts do “have a well-known liberal bias.”

  • Greg.
    You’re an idiiot.
    The facts come from the 16 US Intelligence agencies that contribute to the NIE.

  • I’m sure this wasn’t intentional on your part, but why omit the part of the report that noted al Qaeda’s support has dropped significantly, and that attacks are down since the surge began?

  • Comments are closed.