PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Intelligence report contradicts Bush's rosy outlook for Iraq



PeedeeShaolin
16th September 04, 02:01 PM
Reuters today reported that a National Intelligence report offers a bleak outlook for Iraq.

A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity

Bushie has been saying things like "We're making progress on the ground," and alot of other happy-crappy joy-joy bullshit.


The latest assessment was undertaken by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials who provide long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community but report to the director of central intelligence, now acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. He and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved it.

The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

CNN reported that this is the very first formal assessment of Iraq since October, 2002.

Democrats AND Republicans in the Senate BOTH blasted Bush for failures in Iraq:

Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.

"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing where the State Department explained its request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year mostly for public works projects

Senate Republican Chuck Hagel went further to blast the Administration by saying "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

Yes....Iraq is indeed going just fine and dandy!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html

CaptShady
16th September 04, 02:05 PM
1) Kerry is saying he can pull it off too.
2) This is the same CIA that gave "intelligence" reports of WMD's, associations with the Taliban ...

Ronin
16th September 04, 02:18 PM
Is there anyone who believes that Iraq WON'T get worse before it gets better ? IF it gets better at all ??

garbanzo
16th September 04, 02:20 PM
Can we all agree that Bush fucked up big time?

punchingdummy
16th September 04, 02:26 PM
PeeDee...just so I understand...if the intel community makes an assessment which the President acts on and turns out to be false, then the President is at fault...AND... If the intel community makes an assessment that the President disagrees with (if he does, I really don't know), then he is wrong for not acting on it?


BTW, I happen to agree that the situations is not going well. The reason that the construction money hasn't been spent, I would guess is because relative secuity has not been established.

SRK85
16th September 04, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Can we all agree that Bush fucked up big time?

I Totally agree.

katana
16th September 04, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Can we all agree that Bush fucked up big time?

Ditto.

Balloonknot
16th September 04, 02:46 PM
**Balloonknot hovering over this one; holding himself back from saying I told you so****

Zendetta
16th September 04, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
PeeDee...just so I understand...if the intel community makes an assessment which the President acts on and turns out to be false, then the President is at fault...AND... If the intel community makes an assessment that the President disagrees with (if he does, I really don't know), then he is wrong for not acting on it?


BTW, I happen to agree that the situations is not going well. The reason that the construction money hasn't been spent, I would guess is because relative secuity has not been established.

The faulty assessments were simply what was used to justify the war to the public. The real reasons, and thus the true blame, lies elsewhere. I remember reading several articles by CIA analysts denying the threat of Iraqi WMDS BEFORE the war.

Remember the ambassador who called bullshit, and then his CIA agent wife had her cover blown? Evidence seems to point to Scooter Libby, aid to Cheney.

ALOT of people saw that this was going to be a disaster. MANY of them protested and were in vocal disagreement. They were roundly accused of a lack of patriotism, and most then either shut up or bought in to the Bush Admin's propaganda machine's lies.

This so-called war on terror may well morph into something very different (I think it already has). Kind of like the war on drugs.

Paraphrasing Orwell: "Perpetual war for perpetual peace."

Balloonknot
17th September 04, 09:43 AM
You are on to something there Zendetta, just like the "war on drugs," it can't be won.

Dralion
17th September 04, 10:40 PM
Balloonknot.

I actually see this like the "Cold War" (that may have helped spawn this), only without and end.

Phrost
17th September 04, 10:46 PM
Anyone in Bush's position, getting that crappy intel would have made the same decision.

Even Kerry said he'd have done the same thing.

Then he didn't.

Then he did.

Then he didn't.

I lost track.

The Mad Hatter
17th September 04, 10:51 PM
I actually see this like the "Cold War" (that may have helped spawn this), only without and end.

I don't think it is exactly like the cold war, because that was more of an economical struggle, being a race to see which country can bankrupt itself before the other with military expansion and programs.

I lean more towards a drug war similarity because we really don't have a "tangible" enemy. Like drugs we see he results of terrorism, but it is very hard to capture and punish those directly involved in the big decisions because of government sheltering ... much like the cartels of South America are often protected by corrupt governmnets there.

Jo Vale Tudo
18th September 04, 01:59 AM
Of course things in Iraq aren't find and dandy. That doesn't mean you have to overlook and overshadow the good works of the coalition troops and blame every mishap on the President.

Every plan is perfect until you meet the enemy.

Dralion
18th September 04, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
I don't think it is exactly like the cold war, because that was more of an economical struggle, being a race to see which country can bankrupt itself before the other with military expansion and programs.

I lean more towards a drug war similarity because we really don't have a "tangible" enemy. Like drugs we see he results of terrorism, but it is very hard to capture and punish those directly involved in the big decisions because of government sheltering ... much like the cartels of South America are often protected by corrupt governmnets there.

OK, maybe it's the Drug War being fought with "Cold War" style rhetoric.

I also still have to read House Of Bush--House Of Saud. Actually I need to listen to it as my Aunt's friend gave me a book on CD--but my CD player (that I bought in 1999) TAPPED!

punchingdummy
18th September 04, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Zendetta
The faulty assessments were simply what was used to justify the war to the public. The real reasons, and thus the true blame, lies elsewhere. I remember reading several articles by CIA analysts denying the threat of Iraqi WMDS BEFORE the war.

Largely correct, but because the Bushies made a calculated risk and put too many eggs in the WMD basket. There was a case to me made for war, but the administration failed to do so. Now, half the world is focused on the WMD agle to te exclusion of others.

And as far as the CIA analysts are concerned, the vast majority believed the WMD threat. There were a few UN inspectors who thought they did not have have, but the majoiry opinion of experts was that they existed.


Originally posted by Zendetta
ALOT of people saw that this was going to be a disaster. MANY of them protested and were in vocal disagreement. They were roundly accused of a lack of patriotism, and most then either shut up or bought in to the Bush Admin's propaganda machine's lies.

This happens in every war...even the "justified" ones. There were protests over WWII, Korea, obvioulsy Vietnam , and even Gulf I. Do you remember the commonly reported estimate of 5-10,000 US casualties expected as part of Gulf I? It was going to be a disaster!


Originally posted by Zendetta
This so-called war on terror may well morph into something very different (I think it already has). Kind of like the war on drugs.

I'm curious why you believe it is a "so-called" war on terrorism?

cyrijl
18th September 04, 02:47 PM
There were actually three reports this week. One was negative, one positive and one that was neutral. Bad reports alweays get more news. Anyone remember the reports of the promised land in the bible?

Zendetta
18th September 04, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Phrost
Anyone in Bush's position, getting that crappy intel would have made the same decision.

Even Kerry said he'd have done the same thing.

Then he didn't.

Then he did.

Then he didn't.

I lost track.

LOL!

I know... what a shmuck.

Zendetta
18th September 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
I'm curious why you believe it is a "so-called" war on terrorism?

There are a couple of reasons for my cynicism here, PD:

Prior to 9/11, the most destructive instance of terrorism on US soil was carried out by a right wing nutcase, a crazy cracker by the name of McVeigh. Yet you don't see Homeland security profiling blond haired, blue-eyed guys from the midwest. Thus it is a war on some terrorists, not others.

Spceifically a war on anti-american elements in the middle east.

It is true that Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. Neverthless I feel strongly that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was driven by ideology and US geopolitcal goals in the region, not terrorism. They planned to invade before 9/11, terrorism just provided a (weak) justification.

Fianlly, the "war" thing. Well, sacrifices are made in times of war. Ok. Americans have been asked (perhaps compelled) to surrender certain freedoms and liberties in time of war.

But is this really a "war" in the classical sense? Perhaps wars should be declared against a coherent enemy that can be pinned down, decisively beaten. and forced to sign a peace treaty, thus ending the war and signaling a return to said sacrificed liberties.

(I do realize that things aren't done this way anymore - I think thats a big problem. It prevents the executive branch from being held accountable to the system of checks and balances in this country)

"Terrorism" does not have a homeland, a leader, a name or an address. It will never sign a treaty.

So we have something called a "war" (with the attendant sacrifice of liberties), but under conditions that may never end.

Like the war on drugs, it seems likely to me that it will never come to a coherent end due to the fact that the vagueness of the conflict will allow it to justify all kinds of geopolitical goals that do not relate to terrorism. Like invading and occupying Iraq, for example...

punchingdummy
18th September 04, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Zendetta
Prior to 9/11, the most destructive instance of terrorism on US soil was carried out by a right wing nutcase, a crazy cracker by the name of McVeigh. Yet you don't see Homeland security profiling blond haired, blue-eyed guys from the midwest. Thus it is a war on some terrorists, not others.


True, but we were able to capture and kill the ring leader. The main accomplice is in custody for life. That threat no longer presents the clear and present danger that islamic extremists do. Furthermore, the active attacks (or at least significant ones) were not coming from internal militias or extremist groups.



Originally posted by Zendetta
It is true that Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. Neverthless I feel strongly that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was driven by ideology and US geopolitcal goals in the region, not terrorism. They planned to invade before 9/11, terrorism just provided a (weak) justification.

I think your feelings are well founded. Never-the-less, Saddam had many more terror ties than simply funding the families of palestinian suicide bombers.


Originally posted by Zendetta
Fianlly, the "war" thing. Well, sacrifices are made in times of war. Ok. Americans have been asked (perhaps compelled) to surrender certain freedoms and liberties in time of war.

But is this really a "war" in the classical sense? Perhaps wars should be declared against a coherent enemy that can be pinned down, decisively beaten. and forced to sign a peace treaty, thus ending the war and signaling a return to said sacrificed liberties.

(I do realize that things aren't done this way anymore - I think thats a big problem. It prevents the executive branch from being held accountable to the system of checks and balances in this country)

"Terrorism" does not have a homeland, a leader, a name or an address. It will never sign a treaty.

So we have something called a "war" (with the attendant sacrifice of liberties), but under conditions that may never end.

Like the war on drugs, it seems likely to me that it will never come to a coherent end due to the fact that the vagueness of the conflict will allow it to justify all kinds of geopolitical goals that do not relate to terrorism. Like invading and occupying Iraq, for example...

Again, you are right in that this is NOT a war in the classical sense. Hell, we haven't had a formal war since 1945! During this time warfare has "progressed" to the asymetrical, stateless conflict we have today. What we must understand is that the expedition into Iraq is part of a greater geo-political campaign against a contemporary threat. If more people understood the threat environment, then we could have a constructive and well-needed debate on the merits of the conflict. Unfortunately, it's been boiled down (by many) to a war about WMD, oil, corporate greed and finishing a job someone's Daddy started. These all may play a part, but (even collectively), they miss the bigger picture.

Finally, keep in mind that there those who insisted there was no feasible end to the cold war. They were wrong. This war has some similarities. We just need to make sure that the US does not sufferthe same fate as the USSR.

Colin
18th September 04, 06:10 PM
Get Bush the fuck out. He didn't even win the vote.. What the frick is going ON in America..

punchingdummy
18th September 04, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by KungFuColin
Get Bush the fuck out. He didn't even win the vote.. What the frick is going ON in America..

The Supreme Court of the US doesn't agree with your analysis. What's going on is called following the law.

SRK85
18th September 04, 08:43 PM
Ok fuck Iraq where the fuck is Osama.

Dralion
19th September 04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
The Supreme Court of the US doesn't agree with your analysis. What's going on is called following the law.

If you ask Vincent Bugliosi, it's called "Making Law"

read Betrayal Of America

Dralion
19th September 04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Finally, keep in mind that there those who insisted there was no feasible end to the cold war. They were wrong. This war has some similarities. We just need to make sure that the US does not sufferthe same fate as the USSR. [/B]

If you mean being unable to maintain an empire, then we may.

see Chalmers Johnson's Blowback and Chomsky's Hegemony Or Survival