Another Irony

Spread the love

Loading

BUMPED TO THE TOP DUE TO THE UPDATE BELOW

Some more irony:

“In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.

“Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.”

“In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community’s think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”

“[…] Both assessments were given to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees.

[…]“These should have been very sobering reports,” says Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst at the Brookings Institution. “The administration should have taken them very serious in preparing plans for a difficult post-Saddam period. And yet the administration did not do so.”

And those same "intelligence" agencies were concerned about Iraq’s WMD’s.  As were the Democrats who listened to those "intelligence" agencies.

Point being that the Democrats have been crying from every tall mountaintop that Bush should of ignored those warnings about WMD’s (even tho they did not ignore them) but now they believe he should have listened to them about the aftereffects of an invasion.  I mean how much more explicit can a report get with the words "could" and "seemingly"….rough stuff there.  Hindsight, what a beautiful thing huh?  Wish we could all have the benefit of it….

Jeff Goldstein:

Examine, if you will, what the anti-war press has done here in trying to shape the overarching narrative of Iraq.  First, it has placed the blame on the Administration for its failure NOT to dismiss CIA intel about WMDs—shared by virtually every intelligence service in the world, and backed to this day by several reports (the “stockpiles” have never been found, but the ability to quickly make and mobilize weapons has)—spinning that, with the help of furiously backpeddling and cowardly Democrats (with certain exceptions, Bob Kerrey and Joe Lieberman notable among them), into the suggestion that Bush, having weighed the bulk of the intelligence, “lied” about WMDs and “misled” us into war.  Of course, Congress had access to that same intelligence—and it was a Democratic administration that, too, was certain about Saddam’s danger—but that fact is consistently bracketed from the Iraq war narrative as it has been consistently pushed by Democrats and the press.

Too, what the press fails to mention, in the wake of all this backpeddling by Congressional Democrats, is why we, as an electorate, should trust them on national security if they can be so easily “misled” by intelligence they themselves had access to (which they most certainly did, though they will cavil and squirm about certain intel they didn’t have access to that the President did, as if the President was poring through raw intel data).

And the reason the press avoids the topic is because no one with any access to the intel truly believes that Bush “misled” us into war—though the Democrats have managed to get their anti-war contingent and allies in the press to parrot these assertions, without risk of having it pointed out that were such true, the Democrats have, as a group, proven themselves either inept or unserious, and ill-prepared to defend the country.  Instead, it is precisely because the Congressional Democrats believed the CIA’s pre-war intelligence assessment about WMDs that so many Democrats made so many strong statements regarding the danger Saddam posed.

Sorry, they can’t have it both ways.

Well, we would like to think they can’t have it both ways but with the aid of our MSM they sure do.  They (meaning the Democrats AND the MSM) cherry pick reports and assessment’s that fit into the image they are trying to project and then ignore all the rest.  Meanwhile the lefties ignore all the contradictions…

But in the end it’s apparent that Bush took the intelligence agencies reporting very seriously on ALL The matters and came to the right and just conclusion.  The positives outweigh the negatives.  A risk of a "internal violence" is necessary to ensure that a madman with WMD’s does not remain in power in a post-9/11 world.

Jeff again:

Only by consistently imputing bad-faith motives to the Administration—and by covering for the opportunism, cynicism, and inconsistencies of the anti-war Democrats—can the press even run stories such as this one, whose main intent seems to be to suggest, yet again, that Bushco, in the wake of terrorist attacks and an anthrax scare, should have been prescient enough to know in advance everything we’ve now learned through hindsight.

Worse, this suggestion is often accompanied by the (incongruous) intimation that the Bushies were just this prescient, but that they went ahead with the war anyway—duping the Democrats in the process—so that they could, uh, find themselves in an unpopular war, with gas prices the highest in memory?  Put themselves in a position to lose both Houses of Congress as well as the Presidency?

But we all know Bush is the all-knowing, the all-seeing, Bushitler!

Must be nice to have the MSM watching your back for you as they do for the left in this country.  If your argument is contradictory, or just plain silly, the MSM will package it up as they did with this report and ta-da!  You have another conspiracy to spout.

Sigh….

UPDATE

Protein Wisdom notes that the MSM can’t even check their own archives since they completely missed their reporting in Jan of ’03.  Here is the New York Times:

Pres Bush’s national security team is assembling final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after expected ouster of Saddam Hussein; plans call for heavy American military presence in country for at least 18 months, military trials of only most senior Iraqi leaders and quick takeover of country’s oil fields to pay for reconstruction; proposals amount to most ambitious American effort to administer country since occupations of Japan and Germany at end of World War II; many elements of plans are highly classified, and some are still being debated as Bush’s team tries to allay concerns that US will seek to be colonial power in Iraq; broad outlines show enormous complexity of task in months ahead, and point to some of difficulties that would follow even swift and successful removal of Hussein from power […]

[…]Officials involved in the planning caution that no matter how detailed their plans, many crucial decisions would have to be made on the ground in Iraq. So for now they have focused on legal precedents – including an examination of the legal basis for taking control of the country at all – and a study of past successes and failures in nation building, reaching back to the American administration of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.

The plans presented to Mr. Bush will include several contingencies that depend heavily, officials say, on how Mr. Hussein leaves power. “So much rides on the conflict itself, if it becomes a conflict, and on how the conflict starts and how the conflict ends,” one of Mr. Bush’s top advisers said.

Much also depends on whether the arriving American troops would be welcomed or shot at, and the CIA has been drawing up scenarios that range from a friendly occupation to a hostile one.

[…]It is widely assumed that in the first chaotic months, the military commander will have unquestioned authority. “Remember, you will have decapitated the command and control for the Iraqi military forces,” a senior official said. “Who is going to make sure that score-settling does not break out, that there is not fights between the various ethnic communities? It is going to have to be the U.S. military for some period of time, and if there is a military command, there will certainly be a military commander.”

But the handover of more and more responsibility from the military administration to an international civilian administration – and several years down the road to an Iraqi-run government – is still murky. Officials, referring to the ruling Baath Party, say “de-Baathification” of the nation will be at least as complex as de-Nazification was in Germany.

Nope, no planning there.

The left, and some on the right suffering from BDS, still cling to this belief that Bush went into Iraq with no thought’s, no plans….just sent in the troops.  But as the reporting from that time shows, this is NOT the case. 

What we have learned is that planning for future events is not an exact science.  For one thing, these plans were being implemented in a warzone where others are trying to ruin your plan.  So you improvise, try different thing, adapt….as any good leader does. 

But I guess if Bush had just used the Democrats plan, surrender….things would be a lot easier.

Make no mistake about it, the MSM will continue to rewrite history to undermine Bush and the war. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I dunno Curt, every pre-war study I’ve stumbled across paints the reconstruction/occupation as risky and extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible). Here’s another one:

Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario (pdf- 84 pages)

BTW- There WERE Dems warning about this, just the “wrong” ones (like Howard Dean ).

There are other risks.

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.

There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq’s oil fields.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

“And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror”.

My God, where have you been or were you born yesterday? How many massive attacks on Americans preceeded the invasion of Iraq?

I believe they hated us before the invasion, (remember 9-11) and were carrying out terrorists attacks on a regular basis. Nothing has changed other than the fact they have not attacked ‘American’ in number anywhere off the batttlefield, and have not attacked America at all.

What’s the matter? Do the poor wittle lefties miss reading about people in wheel chairs being pushed off of ships? Did you get your jollies reading that and listening to news about what can be done with a cigar by a totally warped mind? Help is out there folks, even free in some cases.

Support the troops and their mission 100%. Don’t abandon them like Shrillary and Osama Obama.

Do you think there will EVER be a day when the Democrats look forward and plan for the future? Or will they forever be stuck looking over their shoulder with a magnifying glass?

Do you think they’ll EVER let the Republicans continue to look ahead and deal with the future without being beaten over the head with the Dems'”magnifying glass of past”?

Can you say, “Can’t see the forest for the trees?”

The democrats in congress will buy this pig in a poke without question. Did I not read just today that only 8 senator even read the 2003 CIA terrorism assessment used to base the decision to go to war in Iraq on? Was that 8 total or only 8 democrats. Shrillary is one that definitly did not read the report, but voted for the war. Osama Obama probably read it, to his mentor Osama the killer in a cave somewhere.
Hey dhimmi’s, how does it feel to be lead down the sewer path by people that have no knowledge of what they speak? And you want these sorry people to lead the country? This is a comedy in the making, a dangerous, deadly, comedy, but a comedy non the less. No democrat has a right to complain if and when their family members are slaughtered by a terrorists.

My take on Hill voting for the war is that she already KNEW the score from Bill’s days in the White House…and there was no question in her mind that Saddam needed to be taken out.

But now that the Dems are styling the bills in such a way that they know will never get passed, Hill and Obama Hussein (& every other Democrat who needs help in the upcoming elections) have a large enough cushion to comfortably vote for the Cut & Run to buy votes.

Two things:

This blog is completely missing the point. The point is not that this means we should not have gone to war, there is plenty of reasons for that. Anybody that thinks this has made us safer is a fool. The point of this release is that the Bush administration did nothing to plan for these possibilities. The point is that George Bush and the idiots that work(ed) for him ignored everyone that said it would take more troops or cost more money. The point is that it is further proof that this president did what he wanted to do in the fashion that he wanted to do it without regard to the facts. That is point #1.

And a second point brought up by the amazing comment of scrapiron. Unbelieveably just like this blog missed the point of the 2003 NIE release, you scrapiron missed the point of the first comment. Yes, there were terrorist attacks before 9/11. There were terrorists attacks before we invaded Iraq. But we have made things WORSE by doing so. Every report that has come out since 2005 has said without question our invasion of Iraq has fueled hatred of our country and provided a reason and place to become an anti-American terrorist. And back to the first point of my comment all of this was predicted. And if this president did not believe that this was possible he was still responsible for preparing for it. But he chose not to and those troops that you claim to support are paying the price for it. If you don’t believe that then you simply have your head in the sand.

Anybody that thinks this has made us safer is a fool.

And anybody who believes it has NOT made us a safer is a fool.

The point is that it is further proof that this president did what he wanted to do in the fashion that he wanted to do it without regard to the facts.

The fact is he listened to his generals at the time, like a good President should, instead of micro-managing a war. They made mistakes, as mistakes are made in every war we have ever had. Lincoln went with the wrong general for many years until he found the right one. But mistakes were made. The sign of a good President is one who will adapt. Your Bush hatred has blinded you so severely you ignore all these points to keep your hatred alive. Quite sad really.

But we have made things WORSE by doing so. Every report that has come out since 2005 has said without question our invasion of Iraq has fueled hatred of our country and provided a reason and place to become an anti-American terrorist.

Quite amazing how foolish you are.

That hatred was there before, and will be after we leave. It was because we were in Saudi Arabia, it was because we supported Israel, it was because we allowed people to vote which is a power only God should have. The positives outweighed the negatives in Iraq by a huge amount. You don’t agree, I know….but thats the BDS for you.

If you don’t believe that then you simply have your head in the sand.

Lol….yeah, thats it.

Your blind man…blind.

CentFla: The point is that it is further proof that this president did what he wanted to do in the fashion that he wanted to do it without regard to the facts.

Curt: The fact is he listened to his generals at the time, like a good President should, instead of micro-managing a war. They made mistakes, as mistakes are made in every war we have ever had. Lincoln went with the wrong general for many years until he found the right one. But mistakes were made. The sign of a good President is one who will adapt. Your Bush hatred has blinded you so severely you ignore all these points to keep your hatred alive. Quite sad really.

But we have made things WORSE by doing so. Every report that has come out since 2005 has said without question our invasion of Iraq has fueled hatred of our country and provided a reason and place to become an anti-American terrorist.

Curt: Quite amazing how foolish you are.

That hatred was there before, and will be after we leave. It was because we were in Saudi Arabia, it was because we supported Israel, it was because we allowed people to vote which is a power only God should have. The positives outweighed the negatives in Iraq by a huge amount. You don’t agree, I know….but thats the BDS for you.

Yes, Bush listened to his generals, how many times have we heard that one? Generals like Batiste and Eaton and Shinseki, Zinni, McPeak, Turner, Odom, Kennedy – check votevets.org and then make up some reason for Bush ignoring them. You can keep believing that if you like. I know how much you believe the idiot walks on water.

And please, tell me that you actually believe that we are safer because of Bush’s war. You seem so much smarter than that Curt. If you actually believe that then you disagree with every reputable account to the contrary. The war in Iraq has made us more hated, weaker militarily, and with far fewer allies in our fight. How exactly has it made us safer? Because Saddam is gone? so naive… so trusting…

If you actually believe that then you disagree with every reputable account to the contrary. The war in Iraq has made us more hated, weaker militarily, and with far fewer allies in our fight. How exactly has it made us safer? Because Saddam is gone? so naive… so trusting…

Please, take the blue pill…

Maybe it will help you get over your intense BDS which is misplaced and absolutely kooky, but at least you have good company with Rosie.

Our military is not weaker, in fact we now have officers who have actual combat experience which is invaluable as they go up in rank and someday become the generals the Presidents listen to. And believe me, Presidents should listen to them.

VoteVets! Yup, your BDS in full display. Please don’t point me to a obviously biased and leftist site such as that to make your point. I’m not surprised since you spout the Salon and MoveOn talking points like they are the holy grail but please, don’t expect me to drool over their drible.

The whining of retired Generals are much like McClellan in Lincoln’s day. But go ahead and listen to the McClellan’s, I know they make you happy.

We have always been hated by the radical Muslims and always will…get over it. We freed 25 million people from a tyrant and now a Democracy is working smack dab in the middle of our enemies. But I get it, you don’t find this a just, noble, and right cause….I do.

Nice discussion to watch between Centfla and Centfla.

First we see this:
“Every report that has come out since 2005 has said without question our invasion of Iraq has fueled hatred of our country and provided a reason and place to become an anti-American terrorist.”

Then we see this:
“That hatred was there before, and will be after we leave. It was because we were in Saudi Arabia, it was because we supported Israel, it was because we allowed people to vote which is a power only God should have.”

I’ll ignore the schpeel about supporting Israel (as if the US and west don’t give 100x as much money to Arabs via oil revenue and aid), and I’ll ignore the completely unAmerican claim that only God should have the power to vote. Nah, I’ll stick with the simple duplicity of they hate us more, but they always hated us line. That’s a GREAT ONE! Truly a classic.

Have a beer, take a deep breath, and face it, removing dictators is never wrong. It’s not removing them that causes problems.

Scott I I have no mastery of HTML so that conversation was actually between me and Curt. I said they hate us more, Curt said they always hated us.

Curt, You couldn’t possibly know if I have BDS or not, I only hate what he has done in Iraq. Check my blog, I agree with him on immigration, agreed with him on SS., it is just this war that I curse him for.

And one day Curt you will see that Bush has steered you away from Conservative values. He has expanded government, limited personal liberties, spends more money than any president. His presidential library will probably be built in China because of his bending over backward to them in unfair trade. Reagan negotiated with people that had nukes pointed at us, Bush won’t negotiate with enemies. He is no conservative.

I have said this before but you should stick to issues when we argue. I have no idea why you try and paint me with a moveon or salon brush. Check my site, I am a Hagel conservative. You keep believing in Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith. Fukuyama, George Will, Novak, Carlson, and countless other conservatives agree with me.

Centfla,
I understand that conversation was between the two of you, but it is open, no? And both those quotes were from you-not Curt.

If you think they hate us more now, then why? Why do they hate the fact that we removed a dictator and are fighting for Iraqi Freedom? Could it be the misrepresentation that it’s a blood for oil war, or any of the buzzillion conspiracy theories ranging from daddy-complexes to skull and bones cabals? Could it be that the political opposition to the war has been detrimental to the war effort?

I’ve put the quotes up in blockquote format for you Cent.

And one day Curt you will see that Bush has steered you away from Conservative values.

Oh please…I would say the same for you about the righteousness of this war. But I doubt it, your too far gone.

I have said this before but you should stick to issues when we argue.

Yes, you do use this sentence alot when I do address your issues….you choose to ignore it, fine and dandy. As you ignore Scott’s argument.

How is Sen Hagel a conservative?

Whoa, missed that one Scott.

Check my site, I am a Hagel conservative.

Hagel, a Conservative….wow!

And then this one:

Curt, You couldn’t possibly know if I have BDS or not, I only hate what he has done in Iraq. Check my blog, I agree with him on immigration

You agree with Bush on immigration (one of the issues which I and most every conservative alive disagree with him about) and love Hagel…

I think you’ve made my point.

Okay, I’ll show my ignorance…what is BDS?

As for being in Iraq? For every terrorist we kill over there, that’s one less we have to deal with over here.

first of all thanks for blocking my quotes.

I never ignored anything scott said, and if you mean his question as to why this war makes us hate us more you may want to check with the CIA and the ISG who both said they hate us more (muslims in general) because we invaded one of their countries and did not provide for security causing many of them to die needlessly. That is why the whole world thinks we are more hated today. I am shocked that you have not read or heard this somewhere. I understand that you may disagree, but shocked that you did not know that.

First, I said I agreed with Bush on SS and Immigration simply to show that I do not have BDS, not that I think there is anything wrong with that (check wikipedia FGOP). not to prove my conservatism.

hagel is a conservative to every organization that measures such a thing through their votes. NARAL gave him a 0% for abortion rights. NEA only gave him 36% because he believes that the States should have more power than the Fed. LCV gave him a 0% for environment laws, Christian Coalition gave him a 100% on pro family voting, AFL/CIO gave him an 8%, NRA gave him an A. And there is more. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm
He is a conservative that disagress with this president.

As always, thanks for the forum.

I wonder if it was CentFla who stopped Tony Blair:

I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims felt angry.

I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a UN-supervised democratic process.

And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.

Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd thing about the conversation is I could tell it was the first time he’d heard this argument.

I’m betting he was on vacation in Australia.