tecoyah

Turns out there was quite a bit of accurate intelligence available after all...we just never saw it. I suppose Bush never really saw this part either....Right?

"U.S. intelligence analysts predicted, in two papers widely circulated before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape the post-Saddam era.

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, turbulent challenge.

Democrats said the documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.

"Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings - and worse, to plan for them - has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price," said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

But some Republicans rejected the committee's work as flawed. The committee's top Republican, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, said the report's conclusions selectively highlight the intelligence agencies' findings that seem to be important now, distorting the picture of what was presented to policymakers.

He said the committee's work on the Iraq intelligence "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

Publication of the 229-page document was approved by a vote of 10-5, with two Republicans - Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - joining with Democrats in the prevailing position.

Asked about the report at his Thursday news conference, President Bush stood by his decision to topple the Iraqi regime. He said he firmly believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3759516.html


I suppose he could of just asked his Dad....he likely got a very similar report.

seretogis

My beloved tecoyah, please use [ quote ] tags.

As for that story, there's nothing really surprising or new there. It's nice that Bush believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, but Bush is not President of the World, he is President of the United States. Maybe he, and others holding political power, should be doing what is best for the US, not what is best for the world.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

EaseUp

If you like learning about prewar intel, you should enjoy this video.

Click here

filtherton

I'm not going to watch the video because judging by its url, it's probably just a montage of democrats talking about wmds. If you like learning about prewar intel, and despite your contribution perhaps you do, you might want to look up all the intel that made invading iraq seem like a bad idea, and how the administration conveniently ignored it.

EaseUp

Or I could just ignore it, like you ignore anything that might interfere with your perception of reality.

Relax--you're no different than every Democrat in the US, and a great deal of the world outside the US.

dc_dux

EaseUp....feel free to also ignore the findings of the Senate Intel Committee report on the WH use of pre-war intel:
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:
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/

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

Well, i'm not a democrat, and speaking of ignoring anything that might interfere with perceptions of reality, how about you post something about democrats and wmds in a thread about how the president was completely aware that invading iraq would likely have the troubled and unsuccessful outcome it has thus far had? Yeah, that makes sense, because the correct response to valid criticism of the president is to try to point out how certain democrats are full of shit. Are you allowed to consider the possibility that the president can be wrong, or even negligent, or would that upset your world too much?