As I expected and mentioned in the debate thread on Digital Dissent, Bush bloated the number of trained Iraqi forces, claiming that 100,000 fully prepared Iraqis are currently on patrol. In fact, the number is much lower according to Reuters, which cites the Pentagon as claiming that 8,169 Iraqis, not 100,000, are fully trained. Plus, only 53,000 have seen any sort of training whatsoever. No matter which number one chooses, the disparity is huge and Bush must be held accountable as the great spin machine revs into full gear later today.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
in fairness, Kerry said the war has cost $200B, the GAO says $130B at most
2 - Hal Pawluk
I noticed that, Eric. The $200 billion includes Afghanistan authorizations, too.
But minor compared to the numbers game played on how many troops were trained.
The administration has been saying 200,000 for quite a while. A week or so ago Rumsfeld dropped that to 95,000, then the Pentagon came out with the 8,000 number.
I don't see how Bush and his crew can be believed on anything.
3 - RedTard
Hal,
You are misstating the facts, Bush did not say 100,000 "fully trained" as you indicated. That is at the heart of the problem. There are 100,000 Iraqi security forces with some level of training that we gave them, aka, heres your gun, go kill some insurgents. To be "fully trained" requires 24 weeks of field training exercises. There are only 8000 who have went to the 24 week course. So, in essence neither group is lying.
4 - RedTard
That's only eight weeks required, not 24. maybe I should check my facts first.
5 - Hal Pawluk
Right, the administration never lies.
6 - Shark
"...Bush bloated the number of trained Iraqi forces, claiming that 100,000 fully prepared Iraqis are currently on patrol."
Keep your eye on the swinging pocketwatch, America.
For almost a year -- every time the Bush Admin. is painted into a corner by the horrible news in Iraq -- their standard fall-back position is to quote some "100,000 Iraqi security forces" trained and on the street (some days, it's "police" and "80,000 -- but don't bother Bush with details).
I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe it. NEVER HAVE. There is NO FUCKING WAY these people have that many 'police' or 'security forces' up and running. NO WAY.
Each time they've tossed out a number like that, the media lets it slide and goes into a Homer Simpson donut dream mode. It's as if any bad news out of Iraq is instantly negated when a Bush official tosses out the latest (huge!) number of Iraqi security forces.
Like every 'buzz phrase' repeated like a tape loop by the Bush Junta, it's a verbal Soma, a rhetorical Oblivion that shuts down all brain synapse function in the listener.
My reactions: "Where are these Iraqi 'forces'? What are they doing? Why are things so bad? And how often do they toss their weapons and join the partyers lobbing bombs at the Americans?"
7 - Justin Delabar
RedTard,
Bush said the following according to the debate transcript: "We've got 100,000 trained now." So, we're not talking "fully trained" but "trained", which doesn't look so well, either.
In reality 50,000, at best, have seen training in some form. While that is indeed better than 8,000, being 50,000 off is inexcusable and an obvious error.
8 - Shark
With this administration, "errors" are usually LIES.
9 - Hal Pawluk
Bullshit, RedTard. I am not "misstating the facts" - you're just propagandizing them.
When Bush said we had 100,000 trained troops he expected everyone to believe they were "fully-trained," and I'm certain everyone except those who knew the truth got the message that he was saying that these troops were fully trained.
It's the kind of skating around the truth that Clinton did, so why would you defend it?
It's a way to mislead without telling an outright lie you can get pinned down on - anyone who has raised a child recognizes it instantly.
And calls it what it is - a lie.
10 - Joe
LTG David Petraeus is going with the 100,000 figure, too.