'03 intel report warned us

[Old Dude]

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3556210

Washington - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings was a major study completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists - and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The existence of the secret document, the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

...

click on link for full story.

[Rohirrim]

Scowcroft published a paper to that effect in '90. It's why Stormin' Norman stopped his invasion short of Baghdad. Amazing to read that paper now. Point for point, it's right on the button about everything that has unfolded in Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush gets his advice from a "higher father."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3556210

Washington - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings was a major study completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists - and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The existence of the secret document, the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

...

click on link for full story.

So who do we blame and hold responsible for the cost (over 2,200 American deaths, 20,000+ injured and maimed, 2 trillion and counting) of this gargantuan blunder?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So who do we blame and hold responsible for the cost (over 2,200 American deaths, 20,000+ injured and maimed, 2 trillion and counting) of this gargantuan blunder?

Probably Bush.....right?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Probably Bush.....right?

No, let's have those who put him in office share the blame. f***ing dumba$$ lemmings will follow their leader over the edge regardless how far they fall!
At least some have the balls to recognize a mistake!

[baja]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Scowcroft published a paper to that effect in '90. It's why Stormin' Norman stopped his invasion short of Baghdad. Amazing to read that paper now. Point for point, it's right on the button about everything that has unfolded in Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush gets his advice from a "higher father."

You wouldn't have a link to that would you Ro, I wouldn't mind reading the report.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So who do we blame and hold responsible for the cost (over 2,200 American deaths, 20,000+ injured and maimed, 2 trillion and counting) of this gargantuan blunder?

Why God of course He's the one that has been whispering in Georgie's ear

[Traveler]

OT- Here's a story on how torture laws were sanctioned by administration officials.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/


THE MEMO
How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.
by JANE MAYER
Issue of 2006-02-27
Posted 2006-02-20

One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers' Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to th Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club's ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in hi mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments

"Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity," David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, "He surprised us into doing the right thing." Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora's boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

continued...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by baja fan

You wouldn't have a link to that would you Ro, I wouldn't mind reading the report.

Actually, it was a book. Here's an excerpt from an article published in Time.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

[Spider]

Bush cant even read a freaking news paper mush less an intell report on Iraq ............Then the dumbáss people that voted for him ....... are not much better ....... Just goes to show , they didnt give rats áss about America , they helped sell us down the freaking river ..........Remember all that outsourcing is good for America bullshít they tried to sell ?

[Jesterhole]

The worst part is that HIS FATHER'S administration had come to the same conclusions during the first Gulf War, and decided to not invade Iraq because of it. Hell, we actually had a decent reason to invade back then...

So did his father change his mind? Was W not willing to hear advice?

[alkemical]

Skull & Bones horse****

[baja]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Actually, it was a book. Here's an excerpt from an article published in Time.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

THANKS RO

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.



...if for no other reason

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Scowcroft published a paper to that effect in '90. It's why Stormin' Norman stopped his invasion short of Baghdad. Amazing to read that paper now. Point for point, it's right on the button about everything that has unfolded in Iraq.

And those of us who pointed this out three years ago were vilified as "America-haters" by the right-wing yahoos on this board.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Unfortunately, Bush gets his advice from a "higher father."

Named "Jim Beam," no doubt.