Intel agencies REPEATEDLY warned the WH about local insurgency in 2003

[stop the bleeding]

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON -

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists - and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time.

~snip~

Robert Hutchings, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, said the October 2003 study was part of a "steady stream" of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios," Hutchings said in a telephone interview.


read full article here:



http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13984788.htm

[babylonsister]

1. Same as it ever was. They get learned advise,

and then ignore it. General Shinseki, anyone?

[mom cat]

2. More from the article:

"The mindset downtown was that people were willing to accept that things were pretty bad, but not that they were going to get worse, so our analyses tended to get dismissed as `nay-saying and hand-wringing,' to quote the president's press spokesman," he said.
The result, he said, was that top political and military officials focused on ways of dealing with foreign jihadists and disaffected Saddam loyalists, rather than with other pressing problems, such as growing Iraqi anger at the U.S.-led occupation and the deteriorating economic and security situation.
A former senior U.S. official who participated in the process said that analysts at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau all agreed that the insurgency posed a growing threat to stability in Iraq and to U.S. hopes for forming a new government and rebuilding the economy.
"This was stuff the White House and the Pentagon did not want to hear," the former official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They were constantly grumbling that the people who were writing these kind of downbeat assessments `needed to get on the team,' `were not team players' and were `sitting up there (at CIA headquarters) in Langley sucking their thumbs.'"

[sabra]

3. Bush told of Iraq civil war fears in '03

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/13985596.htm

Bush told of Iraq civil war fears in '03
Early reports warned of expanding, intensifying homegrown insurgency

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions — not foreign terrorists— and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

[mediaman007]

4. Can you say 25% approval?

I'm sure that there is a segment of Bush* support that actually believes the noble claims he makes. Sooner or later, they will regret the massive loss of life in this Roy Rogers spin off.

[stop the bleeding]

5. I like these parts as well

In August 2003, with concerns about the insurgency growing, Bush told reporters: "There are some who feel like … the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. … We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

On Nov. 1, 2003, a day after the National Intelligence Estimate was distributed, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "Some of the killers behind these attacks are loyalists of the Saddam regime who seek to regain power and who resent Iraq's new freedoms. Others are foreigners who have traveled to Iraq to spread fear and chaos. … The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will. Our will cannot be shaken."

As recently as May 2005, Cheney told a television interviewer: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

White, who worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said of the administration: "They've gone through various excuse phases."

Now, he said, "The levels of resistance are pretty much as high as they were a year ago."

[speedoo]

6. Is that right? Cheney's "last throes" comment in May, 2005?

I thought it was much more recent.

In any case, there should be an official "Cheney Last Throes" Anniversary here on DU.

[Mithras61]

7. ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?! Poppy was told about this...

in '91. The same people are making the decisions NOW that wanted to go to Baghdad THEN and Poppy over-ruled them (one of the FEW things he did of which I approve). They knew before they invaded that there would be civil war because there was going to be a huge power vacuum. Saddam ruled by tyranny. The people who opposed him behaved because they didn't want to visit Abu Graib. Now that he's gone and EVERYONE there is subject to summary arrenst & torture (by at least ONE of the four sides), they don't have anything left to loose, and it's chaos.

Gee, what a shocker! <-- :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wicket]

9. The only traitor here is you

:nopity:

[stop the bleeding]

10. We love ya! telling people to "F" off is not very morally acceptable

WWJD -

bring it monkey boy

let's see if you can spit out more vulgar vernacular

[wicket]

11. Wow, the mods sure are quick!

:D

[Mithras61]

12. Not really...

he was trolling on a couple other threads for a while. He only just discovered this one before he was tombstoned.

[wicket]

14. wow, what a loser

He has WAY too much time on his hands.

[stop the bleeding]

13. Well the "a"hole probably got about 100 alerts - dumbass MORANS

:rofl:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

15. excellent article about the smoke and mirrors utilized by *

there have never been terrorists in Iraq. It was civil war from the git go after we got there.

[Lochloosa]

16. Are the ready now?

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios,"

* & Co. have been lying to us from the start. How much more does it take for people to wake up and kick this motherfucking asshole to the side of the road. He is no better than roadkill. God, I hate these people!

:grr:

[gasperc]

17. Well he never saw it on TV,

so there was no way him to find out about it all. Had the networks not shown the Katrina victims starving and drowning to death Bush would have never known about it, see, understand?