US Intel Warned of Iran, al-Qaida Gains

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
May 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies warned senior members of the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al-Qaida new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

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. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

Asked to comment on Wednesday evening, the White House's National Security Council did not directly respond to the report's findings that intelligence analysts predicted many of the troubles ahead in Iraq before the invasion.

Spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Iran must stop providing training and weapons to fighters there. "We also continue to take the fight to al-Qaida, who are trying to destabilize Iraq and create a safe haven to plan attacks on the U.S. and our allies," he added.

The report comes as the administration is facing renewed criticism for failing to execute adequate post-invasion plans to stabilize Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled. Meanwhile, the White House has been trying to make the case that Iraq cannot be abandoned.

The committee's findings are the latest chapter in its four-year investigation into the prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. An earlier volume, completed and released in 2004, was highly critical of the intelligence community and then- CIA Director George Tenet.

That 511-page document found widespread problems throughout U.S. spy agencies and said the intelligence community engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senators also found that analysts failed to explain their uncertainties to policymakers.

Yet, in predicting the effects of the U.S. invasion, the committee now finds that U.S. analysts appear to have largely been on the mark.

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.

Since the release of his memoir several weeks ago, Tenet has been criticized anew for not doing more to warn Bush about the shaky Iraq intelligence and the consequences of invading.

Yet his book provided a glimpse of some of the prewar warnings about the consequences of invading Iraq.

For instance, he discusses a paper prepared for a Camp David meeting with the president in September 2002 entitled, "The Perfect Storm: The Negative Consequences for Invading Iraq." Tenet called the paper a list of "worst-case scenarios," which included anarchy and territorial breakup of Iraq and a surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests, fueled by deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States.

He also notes that, in an early 2003 intelligence paper, analysts warned that "a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other, unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so."

The paper, which is believed to figure in the Senate investigation, also noted that Iraq's long history of foreign occupation means that it has a deep dislike of occupying forces.

Since 2003, the Senate committee ? led by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and now Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. ? has been trudging through its investigation of what went wrong, frequently slowed by politics.

Last fall, the committee released new chapters on what was learned after the invasion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to terrorism and how information from an advocacy group, the Iraqi National Congress, crept into U.S. intelligence reporting.

While the first phase of its report was supported unanimously just before the 2004 presidential elections, the newer findings on the intelligence community's predictions about postwar Iraq have drawn dissent from Republicans. Details on the committee's vote have not yet been released.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
For instance, he discusses a paper prepared for a Camp David meeting with the president in September 2002 entitled, "The Perfect Storm: The Negative Consequences for Invading Iraq." Tenet called the paper a list of "worst-case scenarios," which included anarchy and territorial breakup of Iraq and a surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests, fueled by deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States.

He also notes that, in an early 2003 intelligence paper, analysts warned that "a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other, unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so."


Sheesh, what a bunch of moonbat theories! I mean, seriously, what parts of these assessments could possibly ever come true? Left-wing loonies, I'd say. Thankfully, Bush didn't listen to any of this nonsense.

:SIB
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
U.S. intelligence agencies warned senior members of the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al-Qaida new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting.
What a ridiculous idea. Could these guys possibly have been listening to Ron Paul?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
What a ridiculous idea. Could these guys possibly have been listening to Ron Paul?

Looks like Paul is now taking it to Rudy and i hope the hell he sticks to his guns because this one will be entertaining at the least because this prick Rudy has no answers but chest pounding.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Looks like Paul is now taking it to Rudy and i hope the hell he sticks to his guns because this one will be entertaining at the least because this prick Rudy has no answers but chest pounding.
On Thursday Paul held a news conference with the former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, who retired in 2004 and wrote a book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. The book suggests that U.S. policies in the Middle East have contributed to retaliation by the terrorists.

Paul challenged Giuliani to read the Scheuer book.

"Mr. Giuliani is not really interested in discussing foreign policy. Instead he wants to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with him," Paul said.

Giuliani spokesman Elliott Bundy said it was absurd for Paul to declare that the former New York mayor "needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand."

At the news conference, Paul dished out other controversial nuggets.

He told a reporter from Kuwait, who had suggested that part of the U.S. problem in the Middle East was its "blind support" of Israel, that he had a "good point." Paul added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia."

He went on to say that members of Congress have been "intimidated by the influence of AIPAC." He was referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the top pro-Israel lobbying groups in the capital.

An AIPAC spokesman declined to respond to the accusation.
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
Where was warhawk cheney ?

Where was warhawk cheney ?

the tampon wearing coward Dick cheney before he dicks you takes a student pussy option.


this twilight zone tina v.p. has no shame.

Coward. yella.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
On Thursday Paul held a news conference with the former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, who retired in 2004 and wrote a book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. The book suggests that U.S. policies in the Middle East have contributed to retaliation by the terrorists.

Paul challenged Giuliani to read the Scheuer book.

"Mr. Giuliani is not really interested in discussing foreign policy. Instead he wants to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with him," Paul said.

Giuliani spokesman Elliott Bundy said it was absurd for Paul to declare that the former New York mayor "needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand."

At the news conference, Paul dished out other controversial nuggets.

He told a reporter from Kuwait, who had suggested that part of the U.S. problem in the Middle East was its "blind support" of Israel, that he had a "good point." Paul added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia."

He went on to say that members of Congress have been "intimidated by the influence of AIPAC." He was referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the top pro-Israel lobbying groups in the capital.

An AIPAC spokesman declined to respond to the accusation.

Judge i heard a little about this. Paul is gonna get slimmed big time. I just hope he keeps it up for at least some debate about this subject. I would like to hear more about him and his platforms because it sounds like he cares about the country. Both sides will slim him up. I saw Bill Maher ask Cris Dodd this and Dodd started getting nervous. I just wish more than Paul had the balls to say this. I mean how obvious is this but you heard that audience. they rather hear the chest pounders side. Thanks for the article.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush,s old man tried to warn him. Cheney who didn't go and serve him self would like war with half the world. I think he is really nuts.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Judge here is my prediction on what is gonna happen. The neocons right now are digging deep on every quote this man has said in his lifetime. If they come up with something this will move to the forefront and put what he is saying now on the back burner. I have seen this game a million times with them. Right now Paul has to choose his words wisely and can't slip or say something far out. If he does this will be the main topic and again what he recently said will go to the back burner. The question now is does Paul have the backbone for this. First time i ever heard of him. If he can dance around the neocon traps i will be surprised. You will see right on this site who falls for these games they play on him. Now the Dems will probably back off but when they are asked this question on what they think of what Paul said they will all do what Dodd did and stumble and look ridiculous.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top