Bush knew

[TexasTiger 13,017]

and kept it to himself. Can't blame the intel on this. Bush/Cheney only focused on the intelligence that supported their agenda-- i.e. the part we got wrong.

Bush was twice warned of Iraq challenges

Prewar reports alerted the president to the difficulty of establishing democracy, among other assessments that proved accurate.

By James Gerstenzang

Times Staff Writer

Published May 26, 2007

WASHINGTON — Two months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies twice warned the Bush administration that establishing a democracy there would prove difficult and that Al Qaeda would use political instability to increase its operations, according to a Senate report released Friday.

The report, issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, brought to light once-classified warnings that accurately forecasted many of the military and political problems the Bush administration and Iraqi officials have faced since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states.

Although many names were left blank to protect members of the intelligence community, the report's 81-page list of who received the predictions included figures throughout the national security bureaucracy.

One of those was then-deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley, now the national security advisor.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said the report demonstrated that "the intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war."

He added: "These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it's clear that the administration didn't plan for any of them."

Unlike previous studies of the buildup to the war, the Senate report did not focus on the intelligence community's flawed information, which included overstated assessments of Iraq's potential for developing weapons of mass destruction.

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, criticized the report, saying that it highlighted only elements that seemed important in retrospect and that it distorted what was presented to policymakers in 2003.

He said the committee's inquiry into the intelligence community's prewar assessments "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

At a news conference Thursday, Bush was asked about the impending release of the report. He responded that "going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen.

"I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision," he said, reiterating his view that removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the price.

Bush also said, "Al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are."

The report spotlighted two documents prepared in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council. One document was titled "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," the other "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq."

These papers warned that:

• Establishing "an Iraqi democracy would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent process, with potential for backsliding into Iraq's tradition of authoritarianism."

• Unless the occupying forces prevented it, "score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it."

• Among the majority Shiite population, which Saddam had kept out of power, a political form of Islam could take root, "particularly if economic recovery were slow and foreign troops remained in the country for a long period."

• Iran would probably try to shape the post-Hussein Iraq, in a bid to position itself as a regional power.

• Al Qaeda would probably take advantage of the war to increase its terrorist activities, and the lines between it and other terrorist groups "could become blurred."

Each of these assessments was prescient. And Bush now cites the danger posed by Al Qaeda forces in Iraq as a major reason for resisting calls that the U.S. begin decreasing its troop levels and set a firm deadline for withdrawal.

In early 2003, even as their deputies were receiving the intelligence community papers, top administration officials — among them Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — publicly speculated that U.S. troops would be greeted warmly as liberators and gave no hint that some analysts were raising red flags about difficulties to come.

[AURaptor 1,126]

*sigh*

There's no 'KNOWING' here, only whose point of view are you going to listen to, and then what are you going to do about it. This from the various folks who claimed ( long before Bush was in office ) that Iraq had a far more advanced WMD program than it did.

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

Got a link to Bush or Cheney saying it was going to be hard before we went in?

BTW, the problem with Iraq is just not the cost in lives. It's that the ultimate mission will not be accomplished. In fact, just the opposite. The world is worse off. The Middle East is worse off. We are worse off. You just can't see it yet. And when you do, you still won't see it. You'll find a way to blame the Dems.

BTW, here's a gem from Cheney from a source you can trust:

He predicted any war with Iraq would end "relatively quickly," defining that as "weeks, not months."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81291,00.html

[CCTAU 3,345]

The war WITH Iraq did not take long at all. Unfortunately folks like you cannot differentiate between the continuing war on terror and the war WITH Iraq. We are not at war WITH Iraq any longer. We are at war WITH TERRORISM.

But you knew that. You just cannot help but post whatever the great dim, Dean, tells you too.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The war WITH Iraq did not take long at all. Unfortunately folks like you cannot differentiate between the continuing war on terror and the war WITH Iraq. We are not at war WITH Iraq any longer. We are at war WITH TERRORISM.

But you knew that. You just cannot help but post whatever the great dim, Dean, tells you too.

Did we go to war WITH Iraq, or to LIBERATE Iraq? I can't keep up with the changing stories/rationales.

Of course, the implication of your "argument" is that there was not Terrorism in Iraq until AFTER we won the War WITH Iraq.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

Got a link to Bush or Cheney saying it was going to be hard before we went in?

BTW, the problem with Iraq is just not the cost in lives. It's that the ultimate mission will not be accomplished. In fact, just the opposite. The world is worse off. The Middle East is worse off. We are worse off. You just can't see it yet. And when you do, you still won't see it. You'll find a way to blame the Dems.

You know what ? I'm getting kinda sick and tired of you asking 'gotta link' on every damn topic. Yeah, I gotta link, but I'm not gonna post it, you know why ? Because it's such common knowledge that Bush said the overall war on terror would last YEARS, and that's what we're facing in Iraq.

It's YOU who refuses to see things as they really are.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

Got a link to Bush or Cheney saying it was going to be hard before we went in?

BTW, the problem with Iraq is just not the cost in lives. It's that the ultimate mission will not be accomplished. In fact, just the opposite. The world is worse off. The Middle East is worse off. We are worse off. You just can't see it yet. And when you do, you still won't see it. You'll find a way to blame the Dems.

You know what ? I'm getting kinda sick and tired of you asking 'gotta link' on every damn topic. Yeah, I gotta link, but I'm not gonna post it, you know why ? Because it's such common knowledge that Bush said the overall war on terror would last YEARS, and that's what we're facing in Iraq.

It's YOU who refuses to see things as they really are.

I think you have to be insane to really believe that Bush/Cheney planned to have troop levels this high in Iraq 4 years in. You'd have to be insane to say Bush thought this is where the overall "War on Terra" would go. You'd have to be insane to think that when Cheney said, "Weeks, not months" that he REALLY meant the worst of it in Iraq would start more than a year in and we would have lost this many troops. Oh yeah, I'm talking to you.

[CCTAU 3,345]

The war WITH Iraq did not take long at all. Unfortunately folks like you cannot differentiate between the continuing war on terror and the war WITH Iraq. We are not at war WITH Iraq any longer. We are at war WITH TERRORISM.

But you knew that. You just cannot help but post whatever the great dim, Dean, tells you too.

Did we go to war WITH Iraq, or to LIBERATE Iraq? I can't keep up with the changing stories/rationales.

Of course, the implication of your "argument" is that there was not Terrorism in Iraq until AFTER we won the War WITH Iraq.

Both, drum-boy. You can't liberate a people without deposing their current regime. And yes there was ties to terror before the war. Just keep posting Dean's talking points. You look more and more ignorant with each post.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The war WITH Iraq did not take long at all. Unfortunately folks like you cannot differentiate between the continuing war on terror and the war WITH Iraq. We are not at war WITH Iraq any longer. We are at war WITH TERRORISM.

But you knew that. You just cannot help but post whatever the great dim, Dean, tells you too.

Did we go to war WITH Iraq, or to LIBERATE Iraq? I can't keep up with the changing stories/rationales.

Of course, the implication of your "argument" is that there was not Terrorism in Iraq until AFTER we won the War WITH Iraq.

Both, drum-boy. You can't liberate a people without deposing their current regime. And yes there was ties to terror before the war. Just keep posting Dean's talking points. You look more and more ignorant with each post.

See above post.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

Got a link to Bush or Cheney saying it was going to be hard before we went in?

BTW, the problem with Iraq is just not the cost in lives. It's that the ultimate mission will not be accomplished. In fact, just the opposite. The world is worse off. The Middle East is worse off. We are worse off. You just can't see it yet. And when you do, you still won't see it. You'll find a way to blame the Dems.

You know what ? I'm getting kinda sick and tired of you asking 'gotta link' on every damn topic. Yeah, I gotta link, but I'm not gonna post it, you know why ? Because it's such common knowledge that Bush said the overall war on terror would last YEARS, and that's what we're facing in Iraq.

It's YOU who refuses to see things as they really are.

I think you have to be insane to really believe that Bush/Cheney planned to have troop levels this high in Iraq 4 years in. You'd have to be insane to say Bush thought this is where the overall "War on Terra" would go. You'd have to be insane to think that when Cheney said, "Weeks, not months" that he REALLY meant the worst of it in Iraq would start more than a year in and we would have lost this many troops. Oh yeah, I'm talking to you.

You'd have to be insane? Based on what do you say those things? All I know is that Bush indeed said this struggle would take years, not ' weeks or months'. I think you're intentionally distorting the issue so you can take another swipe at Bush/ Cheney and anyone else you despise.

Hope it makes your day.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Sometimes the experts are spot on, sometimes they miss by miles. And even if they're right, and they say a chosen path will be hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or that they can plot out exactly what will happen. Bush knew it would be hard, said so, and it's been pretty much all that.

p.s. Those who planned the D-Day invasion or Guadalcanal certainly knew things would be extremely hard , we'd lose high numbers of men and suffer with many wounded, but they still carried though with the plans. And with all things in perspective, the losses in Iraq are minor to the price we've paid elsewhere.

Got a link to Bush or Cheney saying it was going to be hard before we went in?

BTW, the problem with Iraq is just not the cost in lives. It's that the ultimate mission will not be accomplished. In fact, just the opposite. The world is worse off. The Middle East is worse off. We are worse off. You just can't see it yet. And when you do, you still won't see it. You'll find a way to blame the Dems.

You know what ? I'm getting kinda sick and tired of you asking 'gotta link' on every damn topic. Yeah, I gotta link, but I'm not gonna post it, you know why ? Because it's such common knowledge that Bush said the overall war on terror would last YEARS, and that's what we're facing in Iraq.

It's YOU who refuses to see things as they really are.

I think you have to be insane to really believe that Bush/Cheney planned to have troop levels this high in Iraq 4 years in. You'd have to be insane to say Bush thought this is where the overall "War on Terra" would go. You'd have to be insane to think that when Cheney said, "Weeks, not months" that he REALLY meant the worst of it in Iraq would start more than a year in and we would have lost this many troops. Oh yeah, I'm talking to you.

You'd have to be insane? Based on what do you say those things? All I know is that Bush indeed said this struggle would take years, not ' weeks or months'. I think you're intentionally distorting the issue so you can take another swipe at Bush/ Cheney and anyone else you despise.

Hope it makes your day.

Bush has said that more recently--- he did not say it before going into Iraq.

A sane person could say, "You know, I thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq, but it hasn't gone as we thought." I will still disagree with them about it having been a good idea, but I could at least see they were in touch enough with reality to recognize that things have not gone at all to plan, in fact, they have gone far worst than expected.

[AFTiger 282]

Same song verse 43.

The enemy is George Bush. When we defeat George Bush we will win.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Bush has said that more recently--- he did not say it before going into Iraq.

Wrong as usual.

From the 2001 State of the Union address, delivered Sept 20, 2001. Read it here.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bush has said that more recently--- he did not say it before going into Iraq.

Wrong as usual.

From the 2001 State of the Union address, delivered Sept 20, 2001. Read it here.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

Nice try. He never told the American people to prepare for a long war IN IRAQ. You can slice it, dice it, call it different "wars" to try to make it fit, but he never sold this war as what it has become. You look silly trying to make that case.

[CCTAU 3,345]

4 years later and all they have is the same thing in a different wrapper:

BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!

[TexasTiger 13,017]

4 years later and all they have is the same thing in a different wrapper:

BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!

And you have this:

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Nice try. He never told the American people to prepare for a long war IN IRAQ. You can slice it, dice it, call it different "wars" to try to make it fit, but he never sold this war as what it has become. You look silly trying to make that case.

He did most certainly. He told the American people that the fight was going to be long, with high points and low. He also asked that our resolve remain firm. That was asking too much, I suppose.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Nice try. He never told the American people to prepare for a long war IN IRAQ. You can slice it, dice it, call it different "wars" to try to make it fit, but he never sold this war as what it has become. You look silly trying to make that case.

He did most certainly. He told the American people that the fight was going to be long, with high points and low. He also asked that our resolve remain firm. That was asking too much, I suppose.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

So your saying his preparation of the American people for an Iraq war longer than WWII was that broad comment a year-and-a-half before it? I bet most Americans didn't make that connection. Got any links to the what he said just before the invasion?

Don't you feel really silly sometimes saying stuff like this?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Keep barking out the talking points. What will be the next timetable comparison to be brought up?

You said he didn't say the war on terror was going to be long. I showed you he did in fact say it, and now you have your knickers all in a twist. Don't get mad at me for not foolishly following a ding-dong like Dean. Learn to think for yourself and get your story straight before you go making an ass out of yourself.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Keep barking out the talking points. What will be the next timetable comparison to be brought up?

You said he didn't say the war on terror was going to be long. I showed you he did in fact say it, and now you have your knickers all in a twist. Don't get mad at me for not foolishly following a ding-dong like Dean. Learn to think for yourself and get your story straight before you go making an ass out of yourself.

Virtually all your arguments on this subject require you to play fast and loose with the facts. I never said "he didn't say the war on terror wasn't going to be long." Read the thread starter and work you way down from there. I'm talking about the War in Iraq. You guys keep trying to shift the terminology and goalposts. There is a war in Iraq. Our efforts against terror are worldwide and ongoing, but we have about 150,000 troops in the country of Iraq where we have been engaged in war for over four years. Change the names, play games with words, but that it what this is about.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The war in Iraq is just 1 front in the war on terror. I really don't care whether you believe it or not. Just be thankful for those of us who do see the threat for what it is. That's all you need to do.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The war in Iraq is just 1 front in the war on terror. I really don't care whether you believe it or not. Just be thankful for those of us who do see the threat for what it is. That's all you need to do.

All I need to do is leave things to the genius of folks like you who can't even follow a thread or depart from administration talking points to keep me safe? Sorry, but folks who think like you have made the world less safe. Your kind of tortured "thinking" has turned Iraq in the worlds largest training ground for urban terrorists. The geniuses behind this mess have created generations of dedicated, trained jihadists who actually fear the power of the USA LESS than they did before and are far more effective. You need to stop contributing your genius to this issue. That's all you need to do.

CIA describes Iraq as terrorist laboratory

WASHINGTON A new, classified assessment by the CIA says that Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it provides a new laboratory for militants to hone their skills in urban combat.

The intelligence assessment was completed last month and has been circulated through U.S. government agencies, and it was described by several congressional and intelligence officials. They said it expresses a view that the war in Iraq is likely to leave a dangerous legacy by enabling Iraqi and foreign combatants who are likely to disperse to other countries to become much more adept, capable and mobilized than they were before the conflict.

The CIA has issued such warnings before, most recently in testimony this year from Porter Goss, the agency's director, who told Congress that jihadists who survive will leave Iraq "experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism," and might form "a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

The congressional and intelligence officials who described the new assessment said that it was a more detailed and thorough examination of the issue. They said it included detailed discussion of the areas around the world that might be particularly prone to infiltration by combatants from Iraq.

The assessment, they said, argued that Iraq, since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the 1980s, as a magnet and a proving ground for extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

The officials said the report stressed that the urban nature of the war in Iraq meant that combatants were learning how to carry out assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other kinds of attacks that were never a staple of the fighting in Afghanistan, which was primarily rural and conventional in nature during the anti-Soviet fighting that was backed by the United States.

The officials said that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries would soon have to contend with militants who would leave Iraq after honing skills there and turn their attention to other targets.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/intel.php

And so much for the "flypaper theory"...more "genius".

We've helped Iraq expand its exports. Iraq biggest export right now is terrorism.

http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/article/...eps_Out_of_Iraq

[otterinbham 0]

Perfect book related to this subject. "March of Folly," by Barbara Tuchman. Basically, she analyzes the decision making that leads up to blunders. In all cases, the leaders of a country believed the intelligence they wanted to believe and discounted the intelligence that didn't fit their view of things.

[GalensGhost 0]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

If our enemies fear us less now than they did before it's not due to anything this administration has done, it's because of weak-kneed soft-core sissies who wail and moan about every decision, "wish" us out of war and aid the enemy with their constant mewling. Most of the democratic party should be tried for treason.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

When an intelligent person misses the point so badly as you did right here, one has

to wonder if it were intentional.

Your rhetorical skills are effective. What I wonder is whether your logic is truly that faulty, or whether you just being manipulative with language.

You rarely engage in the actual substance of such things on this board, and didn't here. Maybe that's the one thing you find "too hard."