Bush knew of bleak intel on Iraq back in July

[Darth Wong]

From CNN:

Report finds Iraq prospects bleak

Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 12:36 AM EDT (0436 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has sought to downplay the significance of a U.S. intelligence forecast painting a pessimistic picture for the future of Iraq, insisting that predictions of difficulties ahead -- including the possibility of civil war -- were not a surprise.

Sources have confirmed to CNN that a National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was "tenuous stability" and the worst case was civil war.

The Bush administration, however, continues to argue publicly the U.S. is making good progress in Iraq, with the President saying Thursday that "freedom is on the march" in Iraq, citing scheduled elections in January next year.

But the intelligence report raises serious questions about Iraq's ability to achieve political solutions in the next year or two, noting the country's "limited experience with representative government" and "history of violence".

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a report to the U.N. Security Council last week, said the persistent violence in Iraq would make it difficult to hold elections in January.

"I think that anybody that thinks that you can hold elections in the Sunni Triangle by the end of January is really smoking something," military historian Frank Fukuyama said.

And the Pentagon also admits the insurgency in Iraq is growing in both size and sophistication, and as a result, the number of U.S. war dead -- now over 1,025 -- is climbing at a faster rate than any time since major combat ended.

Spokesman for the National Security Council, Scott McCormack, Thursday described the report as "more of an academic think piece" than a forecast.

"The functions of these kind of documents and analyses is to lay out the possibilities, the variables that can affect the outcome of various scenarios, both in a positive way and a negative way," he said.

"It's the policymakers' job to write prescriptions to address those problems that are out there."

Democrats seized on news of the gloomy forecast to push their case that the Bush administration policy has gone awry.

Democratic nominee John Kerry accused the President of not leveling with the American people about the situation, telling a National Guard group in Las Vegas that Bush had "ignored" assessments from his own intelligence officials who "have warned him for weeks that the mission in Iraq is in serious trouble."

The 50-page national intelligence estimate on Iraq, completed in July, was not prepared for President Bush but was commissioned internally within the intelligence community. It contains both classified and declassified portions.

A U.S. government official familiar with the report conceded the estimate "does not offer a great deal of optimism" -- and that it concludes the "outlook is not very positive."

A senior Defense Department official said the estimate was "one view," and that it also concluded that "Iraq will be challenged in the next year or two in achieving political solutions."

--CNN Correspondents Suzanne Malveaux and Jamie McIntyre contributed to this report.

If only the Democrats had picked someone other than Kerry, they'd be raking Bush's ass over the coals for this shit.

[Joe]

Actually, Kerry seems to have been hitting his stride recently, at a speech to the National Guard:

"[The president] did not tell you that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder ? that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists. He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away... You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines."

[Iceberg]

Whoa, did somebody strap a modular spine replacement to Kerry?

[SirNitram]

Whoa, did somebody strap a modular spine replacement to Kerry?

Titanium-carbon steel-calcium composite, welded directly to the 'warm jelly' model he had.

[Durandal]

Whoa, did somebody strap a modular spine replacement to Kerry?

Must've been a field medic.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, Kerry seems to have been hitting his stride recently, at a speech to the National Guard:

"[The president] did not tell you that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder ? that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists. He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away... You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines."

That's better, but when he won't take a very clear and intelligible stand on whether it was the right decision to go to war in Iraq, it still doesn't cut the mustard.

What he should have said from the beginning was something like "I voted for it because President Bush fooled me with his false claims about Iraq having something to do with 9/11, just like he fooled the American people. Knowing what I know now about how we were all deceived by this administration, I would never have approved this war. The Bush Administration has been trying to use my Yes vote against me; well, they can crow that they fooled me once. They fooled the entire country, and our brave soldiers are paying the price for that deception. But they won't fool me twice, and I hope the American people won't let themselves be fooled twice either."

But nooo, he always answers questions about his vote with some mumble-mouthed explanation about voting to give him the authority but not actually voting for the war, yadda yadda yadda. Even if it makes sense when you think about it, political statements have to be distilled into a form that does NOT require you to think about it. They are designed to hit you on an emotional level, because people vote with their hearts.

[Patrick Degan]

Actually, Kerry seems to have been hitting his stride recently, at a speech to the National Guard:

"[The president] did not tell you that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder ? that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists. He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away... You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines."

That's better, but when he won't take a very clear and intelligible stand on whether it was the right decision to go to war in Iraq, it still doesn't cut the mustard.

What he should have said from the beginning was something like "I voted for it because President Bush fooled me with his false claims about Iraq having something to do with 9/11, just like he fooled the American people. Knowing what I know now about how we were all deceived by this administration, I would never have approved this war. The Bush Administration has been trying to use my Yes vote against me; well, they can crow that they fooled me once. They fooled the entire country, and our brave soldiers are paying the price for that deception. But they won't fool me twice, and I hope the American people won't let themselves be fooled twice either."

But nooo, he always answers questions about his vote with some mumble-mouthed explanation about voting to give him the authority but not actually voting for the war, yadda yadda yadda. Even if it makes sense when you think about it, political statements have to be distilled into a form that does NOT require you to think about it. They are designed to hit you on an emotional level, because people vote with their hearts.

Too late to fix it. When Kerry essentially said that he'd have made the same decision in Bush's place, he'd already conceded the issue. Kerry himself took Iraq off the table, the dope.

[Darth Wong]

Too late to fix it. When Kerry essentially said that he'd have made the same decision in Bush's place, he'd already conceded the issue. Kerry himself took Iraq off the table, the dope.

The entire Democratic Party is at fault for this. They chose Kerry because they thought he had strong war credentials, and they didn't want to go with an antiwar candidate like Dean. Now they're simply reaping what they've sown; juicy political opportunities being thrown their way left and right, and they can't do a damned thing with them.

[Stormbringer]

Too late to fix it. When Kerry essentially said that he'd have made the same decision in Bush's place, he'd already conceded the issue. Kerry himself took Iraq off the table, the dope.

The entire Democratic Party is at fault for this. They chose Kerry because they thought he had strong war credentials, and they didn't want to go with an antiwar candidate like Dean. Now they're simply reaping what they've sown; juicy political opportunities being thrown their way left and right, and they can't do a damned thing with them.

I don't think they wanted a pro-war candidate either. I think all in all they were looking for a candidate that would have a chance at being able to solve the problem, or at lead us further into it with confidence. For all his bluster Dean mostly just pointed fingers and had no plan or credentials.

I think that backfired simply because Kerry's a lot like Bush. He won't admit even a tiny slip up, let alone a gigantic fuck up. And of course he's also just a shitty campaigner. These are oppurtunities Kerry still could have taken had he had the balls and brains to.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think they wanted a pro-war candidate either.

Not a pro-war candidate, but one who was sort of in the middle of the road and wouldn't piss off the pro-war crowd. That's what they were aiming for, and for that cowardice, they deserve what's happening now.

I think all in all they were looking for a candidate that would have a chance at being able to solve the problem, or at lead us further into it with confidence. For all his bluster Dean mostly just pointed fingers and had no plan or credentials.

Do you really need a complicated plan or military credentials to say "we shouldn't have gone?"

I think that backfired simply because Kerry's a lot like Bush. He won't admit even a tiny slip up, let alone a gigantic fuck up. And of course he's also just a shitty campaigner. These are oppurtunities Kerry still could have taken had he had the balls and brains to.

That is also true, but the Democrats consciously chose a middle-of-the-road take-no-stand approach, and they're paying for it now.