Hey, you go to war with the President you have...

Good thing Lincoln and FDR didn't have Power Point presentations during their wars.

NTodd,
You beat me to it. What's with Smirk's minions and their love of PowerPoint?

Over-reliance on PowerPt is what destroyed the Roman Empire.

This Machine Kills Fascists >"...What's with Smirk's minions and their love of PowerPoint?"

They brief by numbers, much like the old oil paint by numbers product

"Everyday reality now is a complete fiction, manufactured by the media landscape and we operate inside it." - JG Ballard

It's all just a bunch of boxes.....it's so easy to draw them and move them around...

It's easy to fill them with text....

It's looking two or three years into the future....

It's so easy to predict exactly what will happen in each and every box from now to then....

It's all just boxes......

Nearly a trillion dollars later, over 3,000 soldiers dead, our military reduced to recruiting felons to keep up its numbers, well over 20,000 wounded...many of them greivously for life.....with estimates of lifetime medical bills to treat veterans of $350 billion to $650 billion and rising the longer this drags on....and our foreign relations in tatters....

It's all just boxes....look....I can animate the boxes....I can make them pretty colors....I can make them say anything I want....

And best of all, nobody will ever come and ask me...what the f..k was I thinking? Because ......I am the decider.

dweb: wikiwarplan.com?

I haven't gone through the Powerpoint yet but is it marked anywhere, Unknown Unknowns?

Apollo if you are here, I posted a question on the thread above this one. Thanks.

"Good thing Lincoln and FDR didn't have Power Point presentations during their wars."

Don't be so sure . . .

http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/

There is no bigger waste of taxpayer dollars than the Pentagon.

Says it was declassified 2 years ago. Wonder how they dragged out the release past the midterms.

BTW, where's the real plan? I see "SEIZE OIL" but I don't see "DEBATHIFICATION", "PRIVATIZATION", "CRONYISM", and "SEND IN YOUNG REPUBLICANS".

That's got to be the least persuasive and attractive PowerPoint slide I've ever seen. They couldn't even make the Iraq Attaq look good in PowerPoint, a program designed to mislead.

rea,

I believe Lee used PowerPoint at Gettysburg - Phase Four was the aftermath of the victorious charge by Pickett in Phase Three.

No plan survives contact with the enemy.

I'm reading the Woodward "State of Denial". On page 90 it talks about a September 2002 meeting of General Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld, Franks's operations director General Renuart, and Douglas Feith. Apparently the Deputies has been meeting and discussing Iraq post-war planning and Feith said he wanted his group to be in charge.

Franks walked out of the room with the impression that OSD Policy (i.e. Feith) had responsibility for post-conflict planning and reconstruction. All Centcom had to plan for was security, which probably included things like seizing the oil fields.

From the last slide:

"Phase IV: Notional Ground force Composition"

According to the plan, there should be only 5,000 troops in Iraq after 3-4 years.

Quite a notion.

Important point: I notice on the slide that it anticipates 270K in ground forces for the immediate postwar stabilization period. That's at least a little closer to Gen Shinseki's number. How many did we actually have? ~180K?

If the Bush Administration had planned and executed post invasion Iraq as well as they did the "Mission Accomplished" operation Bush might not be the worst president ever.

And then there's this slide, showing the "Phase IV" plans. That's mil-speak for "after the invasion," and it shows that they figured they'd be down to 25,000 troops within a couple of years

Look, you're looking at the wrong end of the chart, if you want to criticize the administration. Instead, look where it starts. The necessary troop strength at the beginning of Phase IV was 270,000. Remember when how much the political leadership of the administration denied they'd need more troops for the stabilization than the 150,000 or so they'd need for the invasion? Remember how the actual US troop strength peaked at 161,000?

It wasn't one general's wacky, off-base testimony to Congress. This is a document providing evidence for the fact that it was the Pentagon's assessment that more troops would be needed, and proof that this Administration's failure to tell the truth about what was necessary and lack of will to do what was necessary was not something that they should have known would make a quagmire likely.

Debates about whether the war was justified aside, this bursts the myth that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. had some kind of steely-eyed resolve, were determined to do whatever it took, pay whatever price, to make the war they chose turn out well.

It shows that, from the outset, not only were they misusing the troops, but they were shortchanging them either in favor of Rumsfeld's "war on the cheap" delusions flying in the face of the facts, or simple political cowardice, being afraid to be honest with the American people on the real needs of the war to which the Administration was committing the nation.

Unfortunately, they deleted the slide where it says "Higher-ups screw this up massively". They probably assumed that most military officers who saw this would just assume that was so, and most higher-ups who saw this would be unable to concieve of such a notion.

Military intelligence isn't worth 1 cent dot com.

270,000 is low, too.

In 1999 CENTCOM did a series of war games known as Desert Crossing that was designed a working template for an invasion and toppling of the Iraqi regime. Desert Crossing showed that 400,000 would be needed, and the country would probably still devolve into something resembling chaos.

If true, this would seem to support the idea that the military estimates were wrong, i.e. that Bush was ill-informed by his military.

Of course, we know that the CIA was not very good at predictions or assessments either.

Underpaid Troll - do you know any MI people? Or are you making assumptions?

I do know some MI people (sleep with one every night, in fact) and just like any career field, there are competent people who actually perform their duties, and their are jackasses, jerks and jokers. Those who don the cloth are just normal folks for the most part, and exhibit all the normal halmarks of humanity, good and bad.

cmdicely at 10:40 AM:

Spot on.

I saw that one assumption was that Iraq had WMD--seems the military also assessed WMD.

So Bush did not lie about that as some seem to want to believe. Maybe that can be put to rest now.

Of course, Rumsfeld was right that so many troops were not needed to win the conventional war.

I saw that one assumption was that Iraq had WMD--seems the military also assessed WMD.

Of course the military had to be prepared for the contingency of Iraq having chemical weapons. (And, of course, the conflation of chemical weapons -- which are relatively ineffective in terms of "mass destruction" -- with biological and the dreaded cuclear weapons into the inherently misleading rubric "WMDs" is another matter entirely...indeed, that conflation was one of the first tip-offs for me that Bush was not serious.)

So Bush did not lie about that as some seem to want to believe.

Sadly, No! Bush's lies -- both about the weapons he "knew" Iraq had or was developing, as well as the quality of the intelligence he was pushing, have been documented too well. "Pasha" also omits the fact that UN inspectors were going where our own intelligence was sending them -- and finding zilch.

It's amazing that some Bush Cultists still cling to the faith that Bush made his case for his coveted invasion in anything resembling good faith.

But Bush said nothing on his desk, no plan to invade Iraq.
They are experts in manipulating puplic opinion, give them A plus.

Money Quote: "[The Bush administration] assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."

Bushies live in a world of delusion.

The rest of us prefer the world of reality.

It seems that Gregory would like to subdivide what is clearly before his eyes. Bush and Powell said WMDs. WMDs are what is on the assumption slide--as a certainty of operation--a primary assumption--a state of assumed fact.

Would Bush tell military he knows and they would take it on his word without their own assessment (maybe he peeked under Saddam's bed while Saddam slept.) Or maybe military with all their satillites and intelligence tell Bush. I think later. Maybe Gregory knows better--he might be in bed when nasty peeking happened.

Hey, that Gordon's pretty good when somebody does some research for him, and he's not just an Administration stenographer. Did you read his piece today containing a load of statements by "administration officials," all unwilling to be named, that it was perfectly understandable why they were just now focusing on arms coming from Iran, even though they'd known about those arms since 2003? No explanation why those officials wanted to be anonymous. Except the obvious one, that they were shading the truth, if not outright lying.

Christ, Gordon isn't any good unless somebody -- the National Archive Society or those helpful "administration officials" -- writes his story for him.

Hey, I've got an idea. Congress should just force the army to abide by its 2002 plan and reduce forces to 5000. Now. It was their idea, after all.

google guy--I will help you with actual quote:

DoS will promote creation of a broad-based, credible provisional
government -- prior to D-day

Maybe you google not so good.

It seems that Gregory would like to subdivide what is clearly before his eyes.

No, it seems that Gregory is aware of the bullshit conflation of chemical weapons -- which Saddam may well have had, and which posed no threat at all to the US -- with nuclear weapons -- which would certainly have posed a threat, but which Saddam certainly didn't have.

But "Pashas" gives away the game when he/she/it acknowledges the presence of WMD as a "state of assumed fact." Indeed -- again, of coure the military would assume Iraq might use chemical weapons against it. They'd be thoroughly incompetent not to.

That fact, though, does not mitigate the lies Bush told in ginning up support for his coveted war. And do Pasha's posts provide a convincing rebuttal? Sadly, No!

Actually, I've obtained from sources inside the White House a more accurate version of the Bush plan for Iraq:

Step 1: Invade!

Step 2: [to be filled in later -- D.F.]

Step 3: A miracle happens!

Step 4: Mission Accomplished.

Thank you Stefan! Brilliant! (the "miracle happens here" cartoon is above my desk in the lab)

Don't think that is going to be topped any time soon, so I'm going back to work.

Thanks for the chuckle, once again.

But "Pashas" gives away the game when he/she/it acknowledges the presence of WMD as a "state of assumed fact."

Not to mention the tension inherent in the phrase "state of assumed fact." If something is an assumption it isn't exactly a known fact, is it? One may assume the worst outcome for planning purposes without necessarily knowing or even believing in the reality of that assumption.

Pasha: I will help you with actual quote.

Uh, no, the actual quote was . . .

"[The Bush administration] assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."

I know, because I cut and pasted the quote.

Trying to "help" by pointing to some other quote and pretending they are the same thing is not "helping."

It's "lying."

Or "delusional."

Just like Bush.

Maybe you google not so good.

Or maybe you read not so well.

Maybe military assume WMD when they plan every invasion so and don't need to list it since they already know it. Since they plan for worst, I suppose they already plan to invade Canada and that Canada has WMD.

I will not go there for vacation this year.

Bush exhorts allies to support Afghanistan fight

That's funny.

All the wingers posting here have repeatedly claimed that the Taliban is through, the war in Afghanistan over, and sending the troops to Iraq instead was the right thing to do, since they were no longer needed in Afghanistan.

Now, if Bush would just send the troops back to where they were supposed to be in the first place, fighting actual terrorists instead of reducing another nation to chaos, he wouldn't need to beg for help from the very nations he's spit upon and lied to.

google guy--maybe check the real slide. Someone is making a fool for you.

Pasha: maybe check the real slide

Since I wasn't quoting any slide, but instead National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton, it would do me little good to check slides that have no quotes by this man.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Repeatedly.

But that is okay.

In America, freedom of speech allows any fool, even you, to write about things they clearly don't comprehend.

google guy--I will give you more help.

go to real article that WM says to read, click on the assumptions slide.

Or can quote national baseball archive deputy assistant janitor.

Pasha, once again: The fact that the military planned for the contingency of chemical weapon use by the Iraqis doesn't validate the prewar claims of the Bush Administration, and all your handwaving fails to obscure that fact.

Pasha: I will give you more help.

Don't need your help.

Don't need your quotes.

It's America.

I get to quote what I want to quote, not what you want me to quote.

If you don't agree with the interpretation given to the slide presentation by the person quoted, then just say so.

But insisting that those who disagree with you haven't presented accurate quotes, when they clearly have, or that they must quote someone or something else of your choosing, or that they must provide a particular interpretation you agree with, isn't "helping", much less is it proof that I somehow didn't provide an "actual" quote.

My quote of Mr. Blanton was an "actual" quote and was in fact a literal "actual" quote of Mr. Blanton; your dishonest claim that I didn't provide the "actual" quote doesn't fly, no matter how many ways you try to word your claim and no matter how many other quotes you point to.

Some people tell me car is good, but I look for myself. If they show me horse cart instead of car and tell me it is Porshe, I know that horse's name is Porshe, not that cart is better than Hyundai.

Pasha: Some people tell me car is good, but I look for myself. If they show me horse cart instead of car and tell me it is Porshe, I know that horse's name is Porshe, not that cart is better than Hyundai.

Some people tell me Iraq has WMD, but when I look, no WMD.

Some people tell me look at slide and ignore context and other information that informs slide, but when I look at slide in context with other information, slide supports quote by Blanton.

Some people tell me my quote is not an accurate quote, but when I look at what Blanton said, my quote is word for word what Blanton said, so I know people who tell me my quote is not accurate are lying.

Some people try pretend they are challenging quote, when really they challenging the interpretation by person quoted, then having been shown for dishonestly challenge the wrong thing, divert everybody attention with stories of Porsches and horse carts.

Fake WMDs are still fake WMDs by any other name, even if you call them a Porsche.

And delusions are delusions by any other name, even if you call them horse carts.

Provisional government in place by D-Day?

Ok, if provisional government was Saddam's.

Janitor at NS Baseball Archive made joke. Goggle guy has no humor?

Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq -- both in American lives and dollars. The American people do not understand the consequences of abandoning that effort or the extreme views, goals, and intentions of the radical Islamist movement that is fueling the war in Iraq and the attacks on westerners and unbelievers throughout the world.

In other words, the GOP is saying Americans are too stupid to understand what is going on in the world and they need to simply sit back and trust conservatives, who have performed so admirably in Iraq, to understand what is going on and what is best for the country and to do anything else is treason or in yet other words, if you don't suppor the GOP, you are a delusional traitor.

No wonder they lost the last election.

As the wingers are always telling us (with the false implication that liberals actually do this), telling the American people they are stupid is no way to win their votes.

Pasha: Goggle guy has no humor?

Sure I do.

I'm laughing at you so hard for trying to squirm out of responsibility for your false claim that I posted an inaccurate quote that I'm crying!

Some people tell me car is good, but I look for myself.

Someone whose bullshit detector is on the fritz -- as evidenced by his/her/its defense, however feeble, of Bush's WMD claims -- probably shouldn't go around writing posts boasting of one's market savvy...

Ah, Kevin.

And you guys wonder why your seen as soft on security issues.

Here's a previously classified document, being freely published by Kevin during a time of war. Yeah, technically its not classified, but you'd think any decent person would exercise a little restraint and good judgement. This is just shoddy.

But whatever gets the most eyeballs, eh Kev?

Here's a previously classified document, being freely published by Kevin during a time of war.

Something the Bush administration has repeatedly done.

Hmmmmmm . . . I guess this means that the Bush administration is soft on national security, as well as being soft in the head.

Not as soft in the head as egbert, though!