Politics > Politics-USA > Re: BUSH PUTS MORE LIPSTICK ON THE MILITARY BLUNDER PIG, GONZALES, IMMIGRANTS
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 May 2007 09:47:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: BUSH PUTS MORE LIPSTICK ON THE MILITARY BLUNDER PIG, GONZALES, IMMIGRANTS |
MSNBC.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
NBC: CIA warned of risks of war in the Mideast
Pre-war reports say agency predicted dangers of toppling Saddam's
regime
By Lisa Myers and Robert Windrem
NBC News Investigative Unit
Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET May 25, 2007
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."
It also warned that "many angry young recruits" would fuel the rank of
Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with
mores (opposed) to the democratic experience ... that it may resist the
most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."
None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's
predictions about the war.
In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, "Now, I
think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of
the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as
liberators."
A second assessment weeks before the invasion warned that the war also
could be "exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq."
The same assessment added, "Iraqi patience with an extended U.S.
presence after an overwhelming victory would be short," and said
"humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not
understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require
time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid."
Both assessments were given to the White House and to congressional
intelligence committees.
Even more warnings
And according to the Former CIA Director George Tenet's new book, "At
the Center of the Storm," the reports to be released Friday were not
the only ones out there.
One of Tenet's clearest arguments regarding the administration's
dismissal of all but the rosiest assessments of post-war Iraq comes in
his description of a White House meeting in September 2002. There, a
briefing book on the Iraq war was laid out for policy makers.
"Near the back of the book, Tab 'P', was a paper the CIA analysts had
prepared three weeks earlier," Tenet writes. "Dated August 13, 2002,
it was titled, 'The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative
Consequences of Invading Iraq.' It provided worse case scenarios:
"The United States will face negative consequences with Iraq, the
region and beyond which would include:
Anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;
Region-threatening instability in key Arab states;
A surge of global terrorism against US interests fueled by (militant)
Islamism;
Major oil supply disruptions and severe strains in the Atlantic
Alliance."
"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."
William Harlow, part of Tenet's senior intelligence staff and co-
author with Tenet on his book, added: "Although the intelligence got
the WMD case in Iraq wrong, it got the dangers of a post-invasion Iraq
quite right. They raised serious questions about what would face U.S.
troops in a post invasion Iraq. The intelligence laid out a number of
issues of concern. It's unclear if administration officials paid any
attention to those concerns."
It is likely that Democrats and Republicans on the Hill will question
how the administration could have predicted a short, easy war given
these warnings and why it has taken more four years for them to
surface.
=A9 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
MSN Privacy . Legal
=A9 2007 MSNBC.com
On May 24, 6:24 pm, "Shakespeare...@hotmail.com"
<Shakespeare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Obviously Gonzales should be fired for his Violations of oath of
office~he lies, then Bush lies to support him, ..then THE FAKE
DEMOCRATS GIVE HIM MORE MONEY FOR HIS QUAGMIRE AND BLUNDER IN IRAQ
WHILE CUTTING ALL PROGRAMS OFF TO THE U.S. WHICH CAN'T EVEN FIX ITS
BRIDGES OR BUILD A NEW REFINERY FOR GASOLINE...You have wishy-washy
Democrats that just want to go home and give Bush what he wants, don't
care about
the widow making and tragedy of Iraq. A war and Bush would never go
to.
The U.S. could put up a cement barrier on wheels, like Israel has, for
its borders with TV
and a surveillance system.
Is there a way to keep track of the burros they bring with them?
Twelve million burros.?
~
Do you think the wheels would be safe?
~Any way al this this is years late and the Bridges in many states
falling down....?
MSNBC.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD-----
Congress set to approve Iraq war funds
Democratic presidential contenders now face critical votes
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET May 24, 2007
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Congress was expected Thursday to approve money
that President Bush seeks to continue the war in Iraq, marking a
failure by Democrats to impose a timetable for withdrawing troops from
an increasingly expensive and unpopular conflict.
Democrats and the White House have engaged in fierce debate since
January, kicked off by Bush's request for $100 billion for the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan and to pay for the 30,000 extra troops he is
sending to the war zone.
If all goes as planned, the House of Representatives will vote first
on Thursday, before sending the bill to the Senate for final passage
of the measure that will bring total war spending to more than $500
billion since late 2001.
Lawmakers were racing against a deadline this week to give Bush the
money, just before a congressional recess and as combat money was
running out.
In a strange turn, Democrats are shepherding an Iraq bill through
Congress that many of them do not support.
Bush vetoed an earlier version setting an October 1 deadline for
starting a troop withdrawal from Iraq and Democrats figured they could
not hold up the war funds any longer with a protracted fight with the
president.
Despite their majority in both chambers of Congress after November's
election, Democrats have not been able to muster a two-thirds vote
needed to overturn a presidential veto.
Democrats also gave up for now on their plan requiring Bush to certify
U.S. troops sent to combat are adequately trained, rested and
equipped, as Pentagon rules require. That provision could have put
serious constraints on the military.
Instead, the new war funding bill will require only that Bush certify
the Iraqi government's progress in stabilizing the country. The
penalty for failure would be denying around $1.6 billion in
reconstruction aid to Iraq, but even that could be waived by Bush.
No withdrawal timetable
The bill funds the war through September as Bush wanted and does not
set a date for troop withdrawals. In exchange for dropping
restrictions on the military, Bush agreed to some $17 billion in
spending added by Democrats to fund domestic and military-related
projects.
"By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops
and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our service
men and women in harm's way," Bush said in a Rose Garden news
conference.
Some Democrats said they were disappointed with the deal.
"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.
Obey said the deal was the best that Democrats could manage because
"the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the
realities in Iraq."
The bill includes the nearly $100 billion that President Bush
requested for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as billions in domestic spending, including $6.4
billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance.
Mixed support
Republicans were unhappy about the added domestic spending, but said
they were relieved the final measure did not attempt to set a
timetable on the war.
"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these
terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we
cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is
starting to be made."
While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does
threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to
make progress on political and security reforms. The president,
however, could waive that restriction.
Bush said Iraq's ability to meet the benchmarks outlined in the bill
would be difficult.
"It's going to be hard work for this young government," he said.
"After all, the Iraqis are recovering from decades of brutal
dictatorship."
The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political
attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which
has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops. But it also has exposed a
sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the
war.
Presidential contenders
Democratic presidential contenders on Capitol Hill are vying for the
anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though
they are turning their backs on the military.
"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to
have to protect them," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "We're going to
have to fund them."
Biden was alone among the potential Democratic candidates in
immediately pledging his support for the bill.
Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack
Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the
measure.
Challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis
Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their
view it issued a blank check to President Bush on the Iraq war.
"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in
Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the
war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now -
with clarity and conviction."
Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House on Thursday to
ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements
among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war
funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for
domestic and military-related projects.
While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds
measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the
added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support
for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.
=A9 2007 MSNBC InteractiveReuters and The Associated Press contributed
to this report.
URL:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18841182/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD-----
MSN Privacy . Legal
=A9 2007 MSNBC.com
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
