09-16-2004, 11:31 AM #1
And BUSH says things are going well in IRAQ
Intelligence report: Iraq prospects bleak
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.
The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."
The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for President Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document, which spans roughly 50 pages, draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there. (2 Americans, Briton kidnapped in Baghdad)
The latest assessment was undertaken by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials who provide long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community but report to the director of central intelligence, now acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. He and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved it.
The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night, and a National Security Council spokesman could not be reached for comment.
The document was first reported by the New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.
It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
A review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing where the State Department explained its request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year mostly for public works projects. (U.S. shifts Iraq rebuilding funds to security, oil)
The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and a variety of Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections slated for January.
"We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. "It's important that you have some flexibility."
But Hagel said the shift in funds "does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we're winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble."
Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, and other committee members have long argued -- even before the war -- that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators. (Biden questions fitness of Iraqi security force)
But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the presidential election in which President Bush's handling of the war is a top issue.
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.
"This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating from anybody looking at this from any vantage point," he said.
State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.
Schlicher said the department hopes to create more than 800,000 short- and long-term jobs over two years, saying, "When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence."
Congress approved the $18.4 billion in November as part of an $87 billion package mostly for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the time, administration officials said the reconstruction money was just as important as the military funds. But only $1.14 billion had been spent as of September 8.
"It's incompetence, from my perspective, looking at this," said the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware.
In separate action Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to shift $150 million from the $18.4 billion to buttress U.S. efforts to help victims of violence and famine in the Darfur region of Sudan and nearby areas. The transfer was approved by voice vote with bipartisan support.
Hey bros.....you need to vote this incompetent liar GW and his staff OUT.
09-16-2004, 11:34 AM #2
man, he is running for a second term of course he is going to feed us bull****! hell the past 3 years has been bull**** except for a few things.. i agree anyone who cant even run a baseball team needs to leave.. but there are people that are closed minded enough to really think he is doing a good job.
09-16-2004, 05:52 PM #3
I'd rather fight em there, than fight em here.
09-16-2004, 06:00 PM #4Originally Posted by Badgerman
Geez, just watch the 6pm news here and you can figure out things aren't working out quite the way dubya claim in Iraq...
You know things are really getting out of control when the humanitarian organisations are all pulling out their people (as has been going on the last 2-3 weeks).
It's a pretty sad situation... and the fact that plane loads of soldiers are coming home in boxes every week (for what???) is downright tragic.
09-16-2004, 06:19 PM #5
1000+ dead in Iraq. Osama still in afghanistan. its obvious things are going badly. heres to hoping the rest of the troops get back safely.
09-17-2004, 12:26 AM #6Originally Posted by symatech
anyway......now they are starting to take mortar fire every day and the civilian workers are being sent home......things are coming apart folks......all those lives and money for what???.......a pipeline and a big poppy crop...
09-17-2004, 12:50 AM #7
So if Bush just kicked the sh!t out of everyone there and scared the wits out of them you would be happy?????
Ooh yeah and for all the people saying that saddam wasnt a threat I watched a pretty neat special tonight on Saddams weapons. He was building a super cannon as they put it. Built into the side of a mountain aimed at only Isreal. He hoped this super cannon could be outfitted with a nuclear shell.
09-17-2004, 08:15 AM #8Originally Posted by Anhydro78
And this project was stopped COLD by the UK and US when they found out about it... 10 years ago.
09-17-2004, 09:30 AM #9Originally Posted by Jdawg50
I've got news for you pal . . . the US military is not fighting the folks most likely to bomb US targets. Those terrorists are definately stirred up like a nest of fireants, pissed as hell and wanting more blood, and it all boils down to two things: (1) the Palestinian issue, and (2) infidels in their holy territory--they don't want us there, and since it's their country, I see no reason why we shouldn't respect their wishes.
Bush did something incredibly stupid -- sending the military in to get Saddam in Iraq instead of getting Osama in Afghanistan. So now the guy responsible for the 9/11 bombings is free and thumbing his nose at the US, and the US is stuck in the Iraqi quagmire, that mess is only going to get worse, we've lost over 1000 US servicemen and we're gonna lose a lot more over the next few years. And none of what the US has accomplished in Iraq is worth a single American life.
09-17-2004, 09:48 AM #10
Really another nice assertion. So once again what you say is fact. None of the people we are fighting in Iraq want to kill us??? Have you even listened to any of the Al Zarqakowi recording's bro?
maybe you need to watch the CBS evening news, even they think the people there want to kill us.
Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 09:51 AM #11
people want to kill us everywhere. in fact, the only guy that was killing us -osama- is still at large and in a completely different country. probably planning on how to kill a few thousand more of us. is it going to take another 3000 dead americans to finally realize that the war in iraq was a bad idea?
09-17-2004, 11:46 AM #12Originally Posted by Jdawg50
09-17-2004, 07:03 PM #13Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Well, after we bombed and blasted their country to smithereens and boogered up what little infrastructure they had and jacked up their unemployment rate, not to mention killed 20,000+ Iraqi citizens, most of them uninvolved with Saddam's organization, ya, NOW they do. In their eyes, the US should be able to have fixed everything we bombed by now. That's unrealistic, but it's what they think.
Ya, Bush created a heckuva lot more terrorists in Iraq than he got rid of, and the US is less safe because of his action. He should have gone into Iraq only in the company of the United Nations.
But things are as they are, and because of Bush, the US is less safe than it was before.
09-17-2004, 07:06 PM #14Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Oh, and by the way, what do you make of Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes' confession that he was asked to use his influence to get Bush II a position in the Texas National Guard to avoid having to go to Vietnam?
09-17-2004, 07:14 PM #15Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 07:24 PM #16Originally Posted by Jdawg50
And no, I've never done that.
09-17-2004, 09:50 PM #17
Sure you havent bro
You have never used a bro you knew to get into a club, or maybe get a discount at a store somewhere. You have never used anyone to get you anywhere huh? I'm sorry your full of it. I have gotten preferencial treatment many a times because I know the right people, and anyone that says they dont is full of it. Guess what? I don't have a problem at all doing that. If my Dad knew someone up top that could get me a better job or something I would take full advantage of that in a heartbeat. Is that a crime or something? Treason Maybe... Please bro
09-17-2004, 10:03 PM #18Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Seriously, I haven't.
I tend to avoid social situations where ya gotta "know people" to get in; it's just not my karma.
I'm actually quite, um, polite, I'm the sort who's usually cheerful in public, holds doors open for folks, seldom drives faster than the posted speed limit, and in general does things "by the book" (so much so that I'm a bit of a corporate whistle blower--long story). When fixing my car, I follow the shop manual's recommendations for torque on all the bolts. I don't even fudge on my taxes. I could, but I don't. It's an issue of personal integrity with me.
That's just me, though, and it works pretty well. If your personality inclines you to frequently trade favors, there's nothing wrong with that, unless it unfairly puts someone else at a disadvantage. Of course, that's not something you would do . . .
09-17-2004, 10:08 PM #19Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 10:12 PM #20Originally Posted by Jdawg50
09-17-2004, 10:12 PM #21Originally Posted by Jdawg50
I smell the typical conservative bullsh*t mantra that dubya will keep us safe even though he has never put his own a$$ on the line for anything…Can we say hypocrisy!
09-17-2004, 10:18 PM #22Originally Posted by saboudian
09-17-2004, 11:20 PM #23
All im saying with saddam is that he showed over and over he had intent. They found all the paper work for his nuclear program. This guy would buy a nuke if he could and thats good enough for him to be a threat.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)