Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reuters wire not as biased as AP)Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute

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 » Topic Forums » Media Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-27-04 02:05 PM
Original message
Reuters wire not as biased as AP)Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute
Reuters reports that Bush assertions have met with skepticism from key lawmakers, congressional aides and experts, and Pentagon documents, given to lawmakers and obtained by Reuters, paint a more complicated picture.

Reuters does seem less biased than AP WIRE :-)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=5&u=/nm/20040926/pl_nm/iraq_usa_assertions_dc

Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute

Sun Sep 26, 4:39 PM ET


By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Many of President Bush's assertions about progress in Iraq -- from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections -- are in dispute, according to internal Pentagon documents, lawmakers and key congressional aides on Sunday.

Bush used the visit last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to make the case that "steady progress" is being made in Iraq to counter warnings by his Democratic presidential rival, Sen. John Kerry, that the situation in reality is deteriorating.

Bush touted preparations for national elections in January, saying Iraq's electoral commission is up and running and told Americans on Saturday that "United Nations electoral advisers are on the ground in Iraq."

He said nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already at work, and that would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year.

(A BUSH LIE - "The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force. Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralized training to date, despite earlier claims they had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush.")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ivan Sputnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-27-04 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Reuters is British
That's why they're less biased.

In general, I find the British media (BBC, Guardian, Reuters, etc.) much less biased than the US equivalents. Thankgod they're all on the Web.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Media 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