Once upon a time.. there was a president.....

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

From the looks of all the information now coming out.. they fit the intelligence to fit the stated goal of getting Sadaam.

Can you please give me an example of this information? It might make interesting reading, and I am sure some on here would like to read it as well.

Quote

They did not listen to the people who actual esperience in taking troops to war.

This I agree with.

Quote

They have it on high from the omnipotent that what they are doing is right.

I try not to put faith in anyone that claims to have been talking to God. Bush does seem a bit fanatic in his religion, as often people are who are "born again".

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Can you please give me an example of this information? It might make interesting reading, and I am sure some on here would like to read it as well.

( My Disclaimer)
Well the information is out there although I would be hard pressed to find any mention of it on some of the approved websites that are held as gospel by the Administration and their supporters and there by the only true sources of information.. if it agrees with them.


http://www.martinirepublic.com/item/bush-ignored-pre-war-guesses-that-warned-of-iraq-quagmire/



Bush ignored pre-war “guesses” that warned of Iraq quagmire
September 28th, 2004
In his current campaign rhetoric, Bush dismissed a National Intelligence Estimate which pointed to a gloomy future belying his claims of success in Iraq as "guesses." It now appears this is not the first time Bush blithely dismissed intelligence which was not in line with his ideology (sub req’d):

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein’s government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

. . . .

Last week, Mr. Bush dismissed the latest intelligence reports, saying its authors were "just guessing'’ about the future, though he corrected himself later, calling it an "estimate.'’

In packaging himself as the War President, and selling the invasion of Iraq as a necessary step in the war against Islamic extremists, the President and his supporters have denied, over and over again, that there is any evidence to support the contention that the Iraq invasion has increased sympathy for Islamic terror groups, and aided their recruitment. As it turns out, Bush et al. were provided with an NIE which predicted this before they launched the invasion, and never levelled with the American people.

What would cause Bush to disregard these estimates, to fail to plan for the predictable insurgency which followed? The answer lies in part in the ideology pervading his administration, and the summoning of intelligence from other sources within the government, such as the Department of Defense, and the influence which Iraqi exiles exerted at the top levels of the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz are the architects of the disaster in Iraq. All are members of the neoconservative group, the Project for a New American Century.

The PNAC believes that American military dominance gives America the power, and even the right, to reshape the political map in the Middle East to better suit American national interests. In arguing for the feasibility of the Iraq invasion, which it argued in favor of for years before Bush ever took power, the PNAC ideologues embraced Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi, who provided an utterly false, but happy picture of what a post war Iraq would look like.

It is now clear that Chalabi and his INC provided the Bush administration with mountains of false intelligence, from proven liars, regarding the supposed activities of the Hussein regime, and gave an optimistic portrait of a thankful, post-Baathist Iraq embracing American troops as liberators. From the PNAC’s own website, here is a description of Chalabi’s contribution to gathering intelligence on Iraq:

Chalabi also established his own intelligence service, which dwarfed the reach and understanding of the CIA’s clandestine service. . . . . When the going gets tough in Iraq, as it surely will if there is war, we will be thankful that Chalabi can discuss in nuanced English the complexities of the situation on the ground. If we had to depend on the CIA’s intelligence resources, our understanding would be thinner, our approach much more likely to be wrong.

The CIA deemed Chalabi an unreliable opportunist; the PNAC, however, he was the authority on Iraq, a counterbalance to the "wrong" approach of the CIA, and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were prominent within the PNAC, particularly in terms of advocating a regime change in Iraq. The fable Chalabi sold to the PNAC and our top Pentagon officials, was the fable of a post-war Iraq moving easily towards a pro-Western, pro-Israel democracy.

When the definitive history of the current Iraq war is finally written, wealthy exile Ahmed Chalabi will be among those judged most responsible for the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. More than a decade ago Chalabi teamed up with American neoconservatives to sell the war as the cornerstone of an energetic new policy to bring democracy to the Middle East — and after 9/11, as the crucial antidote to global terrorism. It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country’s readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation’s leaders to predict — and apparently even believe — that they would be greeted as liberators. Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them.

That Pentagon planning was influence by Chalabi is no longer deniable. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General John Keane, testified before the House Armed Services Committee regarding the insurgency:

"We did not see it coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it. . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be."

Keane said an insurgency in Iraq after the end of major combat was discussed during months of war planning but was not made a priority.

The picture which emerges ought to frighten the hell out of Americans. A President who dismisses intelligence reports as "guesses" and plans policy and military contingencies on the basis of fables. Iraq is, for the Bush administration, a staggering tale of ineptitude. The Bush administration has consistently seen Iraq and made policy on the basis of distorted, ideologically driven falsehoods, rather than any fact-based vision of reality.

[micro 0]

Quote

Well lets see I can GET PA's// outright vitriolic name calling.....and the person making them suffers no repercussions or even a warning...

I guess the old term turn about is fair play.. does not apply

I have seen and experienced that double standard at work. And i'm sorry that it happens.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

( My Disclaimer)
Well the information is out there although I would be hard pressed to find any mention of it on some of the approved websites that are held as gospel by the Administration and their supporters and there by the only true sources of information.. if it agrees with them.

How about a news source like CBS, CNN, FOX....Not any website with any (or much) bias? One of the first lessons in critical thinking is to consider the source. A blog that includes such "balanced" information as

Quote

:In other news, the Republican congressional “leadership” has been covering up a GOP member’s attempts to diddle pages for years and years. Just in case you missed it. Which is doubtful, since it’s the lead story everywhere, while more Americans dying in Bush’s Iraq fiasco isn’t.

So while I did read your source, if this were a school assignment I would not let you use it.

Can you supply a source from a major new network, or a government agency and not a weblog or hate site?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Do you not think that many people given the same intelligence would come to the same conclusion?

Sure. However, fortunately for our species, many of us have more intelligence than him.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)