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.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

listening or reading only one side of an argument.  For every reason to invade Iraq there was a reason to stay out.  We ALL agree that Saddam was a bad, very bad, dude.  But, he filled a power vacuum and kept the lid on a volitile region.  

Many within our society choose NOT to be informed or read up on either side of a debate... and these are the folks who most often don't know who the VP is, or who Condolezza Rice is... or much else for that matter... they vote....

Then there are those who read one side of an argument, and figure "well, there is the truth"!  or worse, they listen only to network news and NPR or worse, to "the talk radio spinmeisters" such as Hannity, Limbaugh and so on...  and they vote....

Very few - go out and read the text of what is said and analyze it.  I am gratefull to some on this board... Sunsword, Jack0, Dr Gonzo, jeramy bender, AManLikeAnyOther, the dreaded Mister Spock, NOSCTRADAMEUS, even GOPGeezer, FreedomRider, and many many others who both challenge me, but more important - they are well read, well informed and well aware of the oppositions point of view... they keep me thinking... and I LIKE that!

GW seems to squash all descent... he never looks at alternative interpretations... that makes him an easy foe to defeat, and a very poor leader...

But hey, that is just my opinion....  

-- Modified on 5/25/2007 11:21:50 AM

to turn back the clock to before 2003? It's obvious to everyone that Bush chose to take the advice of others (Rumsfeld, etal.), rather than or certainly more strongly than those writing this report.

But what is the point? You may WANT to turn back the clock. You may have CAUSE to turn back the clock. BUT YOU CAN'T.

So why do these drums keep beating? Purely political? Chumming the impeachment waters? How does it help Iraq?

How about trying to come up with some solutions to the problem as of TODAY? It's this shortcomming that leads some people to believe that you're only in this for the political gain.

If you truly think that debating what happened over 4 years ago will be fruitful, then lets point out two things.
1) The Congress had the same intelligence and you and the media seem perfectly OK with granting those that voted for the war then, to be granted a second chance.
2) Tell me just what is your statute of limitations for OFN debate. 5 years? 8 years? (Clinton talk is still OK?) My guess is your thinking Jan 20th 2001.

-- Modified on 5/25/2007 4:06:04 PM

Maybe not since I have to ask...

Don't repeat what?

1) Pre-emptive war? That concept certainly never gained traction around the world and the U.N. sanctions that Bush used to justify things will already be harder to obtain next time. I, like most, agreed with pre-emption.

2) Not getting out after Saddam was over thrown (come what may)? I think that Ben is fairly alone with this position.

3) Screwing up the aftermath? I don't know of ANYONE that doesn't ever want to repeat this.

4) Getting out now (come what may) or not getting out now? Each choice is a mistake to the "other" side. This is the debate today, but those proposing getting out now or soon (regardless of the consequences) are the ones that seem to think the clock can be turned back.

The problem is that these are 4 distinctive issues and choices, but they all seem to get muddled together when any one of them is brought up.

-- Modified on 5/25/2007 9:12:32 PM

This CIA Bush "should have listened to" is the same one that was wrong about WMD.

All we really have here is Monday Morning quarterbacks crowing "I was right" when in reality we'll never know that to be sure.

You can't prove a negative.

not listening to both sides of the argument.  In several instances Bush has proven to be the type of person who cannot or will not listen to data or info or intel that fails to support HIS world view.  And that is what needs to be avoided.  I am not advocating changing anything but that behavior.

You need a different verb.
I do NOT believe that he did NOT listen. What I said above was "that Bush chose to take the advice of others (Rumsfeld, etal.), rather than or certainly more strongly than those writing this report."

You can't follow EVERYONE'S advice. I think he listened. He then chose unwisely. You and I are both getting Bush to the same place but the dynamic of how he got there is different.

Some may say it is due to his stubborn gene or his loyalty gene. Either way, there has been plenty of mistakes, all his responsibilty, but most he did not make directly.

To be evenhanded, let's impeach Clinton too!  

You are terribly misinformed.  Congress did **not** have the same intelligence as the administration. If you'll notice how the administration struggles against giving any information to Congress. The idea that the House and Senate Intelligence committees knew anything more than what the Administration deigned safe for  Congresses is ludicrous. The idea that the Republicans in the 109th Congress then shared any of that with Democrats is naive.

the Congress had access to ALL of the Executive's intelligence. I DID say (as the above article clearly states) that the Congressional Intelligence Committees DID have access to the CIA report under discussion here.

and don't be pretending this was some innocent mistake that anybody could have made.

It's a massive and predictable fuckup of historical, if not Biblical proportion; and while Dubya may be playing the part of Alfred E Neuman, the Cheney RNC knew goddamned well what they were doing.  

-- Modified on 5/27/2007 3:13:30 PM

as somebody pointed out, this is the same CIA that got other things wrong.

ANY undergrad should see the logic:  if we do this, then what happens next?

If we knock over Saddam, what will replace him?  Us?  A democracy sympathetic to US interests?  How long, and how much will it take to re-build that state into something that is not as bad for us as Saddam?

30 minutes in wikipedia will show anybody with an 80 IQ (BenD, you'll just have to take my word here, because I know you can't follow, and that's fine, just don't slow us down) that Iraq is an artificial state created by colonial powers less than a century ago, and that Saddam, like Tito, had troubles holding the place together.

OBVIOUSLY, knocking over Saddam would touch off a tinderbox.  

Now, can we possibly win that, or control that situation?  Any LCpl with 90 days in country knows that you cannot civilize dinks by pointing a weapon at them.  You can KILL them, and sometimes that's necessary and good.  But you're a FUCKING MORON if you think that's going to make their relatives love you and want to imitate you.

The logic is simple and inescapable, even from the outside.  Iraq was an abortion the day we crossed the line of departure, and there were plenty of people who understood that (Read the COIN draft Petraus supervised; listen to Jimmy Webb; read what Mao wrote about his wars; look at what happened in every damn guerrilla action since 1920.)

Bush didn't pay attention, because he's a slackjawed loser who owes Cheney and the RNC.  Pilots rarely understand talking to your target, and that pilot was AWOL most of his tour anyway.

The RNC knew this, but didn't care, because they knew they could control votes by quoting scripture to Bible-thumping idiots who were too cowardly to sign up and find out what it's like to get shot at, but still wanted the entertainment, thinking that it's cool to kill indiscriminately.   The RNC knew that they could make a fucking killing in Iraq, not by taking oil money, but by sucking money out of the US treasury - so now we have Triple Canopy, Blackwater, and any number of contractors paying people $200K for jobs we pay LCpls $20K for.  And all of the things they are building at inflated prices are going to be destroyed by the war, and that's happening as we speak.

AND THEY KNEW THAT GOING IN.   This war has been a crime against the American people, and particularly against the casualties.  

It's not rocket science.   If we take on an impossible task, ie., making Iraq into a pro-US democracy in an acceptable time & cost, and we fail, the inevitable result will be to set the mideast on fire, or hand over the place to the ayatollahs - that is happening as we speak, and it was PREDICTABLE.

What SHOULD we have done?  Look what has worked.  American commercial capitalism has succeeded in flattening the Soviets and the Vietnamese where military force didn't work.   What was inevitable?  It was inevitable that the regional powers would be involved, and we should have worked with that, instead of killing thousands of our people to get to the same result.   Basic Sun Tzu - spending lives doesn't improve your position - having an army intact does.

How did we fuck it up?   We put the Republicans in power, and they owe the crony capitalists and right wing theocrats who provided their predictable margin of victory.  

These people have fucked us, and their leaders knew they were doing it.   They did it because they're disloyal to their nation, just like gutting a corporation, except that it's lives, instead of money.

-- Modified on 5/27/2007 3:14:17 PM

Which was undoubtedly the origins of the Iraq strategy too.  

When it comes down to it, that's the truth that you can't run away from. Dissenters were treated like traitors, were called traitors.  If Congressmen hand access to the CIA report, they certainly had no reason to believe it was the only evidence the Bush administration had.

With debate shut down, and pressure to "support the president" being so strong, I'm more forgiving of the democratic Congressmen because like the other 90 percent of the public behind the war, they simply trusted that Bush and the Cabinet of Cronies knew what they were doing. It was a matter of the administration manipulating the mob-- another reason why I hate this administration.

Now, what I don't like about the Hillary Clinton: none of them just admit that this was what happened.