EaseUp....feel free to also ignore the findings of the Senate Intel Committee report on the WH use of pre-war intel:
Quote:
“These reports lay out the facts and show that the Administration did not use intelligence the way it was intended – to inform policy makers. Instead, Administration officials cherry-picked, exaggerated, or ignored intelligence to justify the decision they had already made to go to war with Iraq.”
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/pr090806.html
|
Of course, its a Dem speaking, so I guess its irrelevant.
As noted in the OP, the last phase of the Senate Intel Committee report released last month had these findings, re: pre-war intel:
Quote:
“A stable democratic government in postwar Iraq would be a long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge.”
“Al Qa’ida probably would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a U.S.-Iraq war.”
“Rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or Coalition forces.”
“A US-led defeat and occupation of Arab Iraq would boost proponents of political Islam and would result in ‘calls for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West.’”
“Funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over US action.”
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf
|
Like several other intel reports that did not fit the pre-determined decision to invade Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed these findings. Its also not clear if the WH shared these findings with Congress prior to the vote.:
The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President.”
...
A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to go to war had been made months before the 2003 papers were drafted and analysts had no delusions that they were going to head off military action. Rather, the official said, they hoped their warnings would be considered in the planning.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...d.warnings.ap/