National Intelligence Estimate Shows Iraq War is a FAILURE

Too bad you only the NYT excerpts...


"An unclassified summary of the 90-page estimate, "Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead," stated that U.S. and allied troops "remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq."

"If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly, ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation," the report stated."

Some Quotes from the report:

" even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities inflecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be dard-presses to achieve political reconcillation."

"will be hard-pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities"

This is a Lost Casuse

The conclusion of the NIE report on Iraq is that if we choose to remain it is likely the violence will continue and the there is little chance to achieve stability. If we choose to leave the violence will most likely get worse.

In other words, the invasion of Iraq had placed our country into a lose, lose situation. Bush has managed to paint him and our military into a corner from which there is no good way out. Yet today he and Cheney still maintain that the decision to invade Iraq was the right action. This is a perfect example of leadership that fails to learn from their mistakes and makes the same errors over and over again. The people paying for this abject failure are our troops and the tax payers of our country!

I can read. The conclusion of the 16 Intelligence agencies about the disaster that Bush has created in Iraq is very clear. Bush has created a situation where no matter which course we choose it is very likely we will fail. That policy has only cost 3,100 lives, 23,000 injuries and about 3/4 of a trillion dollars so far with more to come. I can tell you my training in the military included combat Intel and my training at the Army War College provided me with a Hell of a lot more knowledge and experience about the military and intelligence and foreign policy then GWB had in 2000. He came to office with NO experience in the military or foreign policy, successful business operations, education, environment and the results of the past six years show that in SPADES. Our country has not been so poorly lead in a long time. Bush and Cheney are held in the same stead by the vast majority of Americans as Nixon and Agnue after Watergate. That takes some doing!!!

For any of you idiots that believe what we did in Iraq is working, turn on CNN and look at what took place today in Baghdad. ALL this is because of Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a Lost Casuse

I am having serious doubts that you have ever seen a NIE. They are a forcast of only 12 months at best 18 months, the one you quote from took three moneths to make and there is one that will come out in two to three months to trump this one. They are updated every quarter meaning that as things change it reflects that change. Getting the score in a ball game does not mean one team has won or lost till the game is over. You seem to be the only supposd military man that thinks that unless you are beating the snot out of the enemy all day every day with no setbacks we must be losing. You say you were in the military yet you don't seem to understand how wars are fought.

Paladin77

Open your eyes and look at the last 4 years. Nothing Bush has told us and nothing that he has done has improved the situation. It get's worse every day. We lost 4 Helicopters in two weeks. Thousands of Iraqi's have been injured over the past few months. Today over 300 were in injured and 125 dead in a single explosion. That NIE report says it is doubtful that the Iraqi Government will be able to control the violence. If you believe the American people will stand for what we see every day in Iraq for another 12-18 months you are clearly NUTS! The NIE says that all options have very little chance to succeed. I have not heard a single official say anything but that the NIE assessment was the most negative assessment yet of the Iraq War! The New Sec Def said yesterday that the most recent promise of the Iraqi government to send added Iraqi troops to Baghdad were at only 1/2 the promised strength. Bush has said without the Iraqi’s meeting their promises that there is no chance to succeed. How the Hell is only sending 1/2 the promised troops keeping their commitments? Bush and his invasion of Iraq have placed us into a position where ALL the options will most likely fail.
The AP reported on 2 Feb that the Taliban overran a town in southern Afghanistan. We have asked NATO members for more troops and most of the NATO members refuse to send troops into that country. Our commanders say they need more troops and we have most of are available ground forces in Iraq that are not either recovering from an earlier deployment or assigned to other parts of the world. Bush after 6 years of inaction now has asked for another 92,000 ground forces that he said will take FIVE years to produce. What good will that do NOW?

ALL this is because of Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually it's because of terrorists.

Island Dog

NO the terrorists have very little to do with the violence in Iraq. This is a conflict between the major factions in Iraq for control of the country. When Bush deposed Saddam and did not provide the troops to prevent the rise of the sectarian forces that existed in Iraq, he set the stage for what is taking place today. Bush is responsible for allowing the unrest that is spiraling out of control and moving the country to all out Civil War! No matter when we leave, we will see Iraq descend into all out fighting. There is no chance to end the discord among the factions in Iraq that has existed for 1.300 years.

col, what military were you in that taught you to that war does not have any deahts?

The low numbers of deaths are amazing yet you complain.

I have answerd your lies and proved you wrong too many times for me to go round and round again. You choose to be ignorant or you love to print lies. Either way I will not get into your pack of lies again. You sir are a political hack. I will try to debunk your new lies but I have noticed that each of your articles that I have debunked you abandon and then start a new one with the same old lies.

Paladin77

Yes military action does create causalities. That is not the issue. Please do not lecture me on military strategy. It was the military doctrine that Bush totally ignored that has allowed the sectarian violence to spiral out of control. The Op Plan for the invasion of Iraq clearly showed that the phase to depose Saddam required far less troop levels then the occupation phase.

The increased manpower after Saddam was deposed was to perform missions such as preventing the elements of Saddam's Army from organizing and creating turmoil. It was to deny the access of those elements from the Ammo that was scattered thought Iraq. It was to prevent foreign elements from entering Iraq and adding to the violence. It was to provide a level of security that would allow the civil operations to be restored so the average Iraqi could live their lives-- Go to work, school, shop, have water, electric and gasoline. The lack of manpower made ALL of these missions impossible.

The New NIE clearly states that the vast majority of the violence is from Sunni/Shea violence both against each other and against U.S. Forces. More U.S. forces will not end this violence between the factions in Iraq. Bush has created this environment that has allowed the various factions to organize and arm them selves. Surveys of members of our military in Baghdad have concluded that the U.S. Surge will be at best temporary and that the violence in Iraq will continue.

Bush has placed our military in a NO WIN situation and for that he needs to be removed from power. Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW!!!!!

Bush has placed our military in a NO WIN situation and for that he needs to be removed from power. Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW!!!!!

NEVER FEKKING HAPPEN! Not in "your" lifetime anyway.

Today on Meet the Press Tim Russert shed light on the question of what Intel Congress had BEFORE they voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq. My contention is that Congress was not provided all the intelligence about the danger Saddam presented to the U.S. in 2002. Many on this Blog sight claim Congress had ALL the intelligence that was available to Bush prior to the war vote.

Russert presented the sections from the NIE in 2002 that contained the caution that Saddam did not have the nuclear weapons program that Bush and Cheney claimed by their famous Mushroom Cloud warning in 2002. That NIE report was CLASSIFIED and the only members of Congress that were given that Intelligence was the TOP leadership and the members of the Intelligence committee. In other words, the vast majority of Congress was NOT GIVEN the Intelligence from the NIE in 2002, prior to voting for the Iraq War, that said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons that Bush and Cheney claimed! Keeping that intelligence from the members of Congress meant they voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq believing that Saddam had nuclear weapons as Bush and Cheney told us. That PROVED that Congress was not given ALL the essential intelligence about the danger Saddam presented the U.S. prior to the Iraq War Vote!

drmiler

I am stating what SHOULD HAPPEN not what is likely to happen. The most likely situation is that the NEXT president will have to deal with the Iraq War and the other mistakes made by GWB!

There is no grounds for impeachment and you know it.

Do you believe anything you hear?  We have already shown you many times Congress had all relevant information about Iraq.  Remember how democrats thought Iraq was a threat before Bush was in office?

Keep grasping at straws col.

IslandDog

Claiming we were in danger from a nuclear attack as a reason to go to war when the Intelligence did not support that danger is reason enough.

IslandDog

“We have already shown you many times Congress had all relevant information about Iraq.”

That is not correct. The majority of Congress DID not have the Intelligence from the NIE in 2002 that said Saddam was not a nuclear threat. The nuclear threat was the main reason why Bush was able to get Congress to approve attacking Saddam. Time has proven that Intel in the 2002 NIE was CORRECT Saddam had no nuclear program or nuclear weapons and that information was not presented to Congress prior to the vote! That report was declassified AFTER the vote. The NIE is the most comprehensive and important intelligence source and that source was NOT given to Most of Congress before they voted for the Iraq war. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!

Claiming we were in danger from a nuclear attack as a reason to go to war when the Intelligence did not support that danger is reason enough.[/quote] You are cherry picking again col.  [quote]The NIE is the most comprehensive and important intelligence source and that source was NOT given to Most of Congress before they voted for the Iraq war. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN

There is more than one source of intelligence and information.  The fact is almost every intelligence agency and most democrats though Saddam had WMD's and was a threat.  

That is not correct. The majority of Congress DID not have the Intelligence from the NIE in 2002 that said Saddam was not a nuclear threat.

This is a lie! All members of Congress were allowed to view the eniter report not just the summary they usually get. Only a few Democrats bothered to sit down and read the report that the president has to read every day and every quarter they are produced. Of the Congresspeople that read the report only one that did read the report disagreed with the President. So in fact they had the chance to see exactly what the President saw but chose not to read it and voted for it anyway. What does that say about your liberal Democrats? They make laws but don't read them or study them until it is already passed.

IslandDoig

The MOST complete Intel comes from the NIE. That is the Intel the majority of Congress did not see because Bush kept it classified until AFTER the vote. Only the Congressional Leadership and intelligence committees saw this Intel before the vote!

paladin77

No. The majority of Congress was not given the 2002 NIE which was classified prior to their vote. They were not given the Intel that said, Saddam was not a nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney said!

IslandDog & Paladin 77

Since Bush and Cheney had the classified 2002 NIE that said Saddam did not have a nuclear program or nuclear weapons, WHY did both Bush and Cheney tell Americans that to delay invading Saddam would risk mushroom Clouds over our Cities? They knew no such threat existed!

Since Bush and Cheney had the classified 2002 NIE that said Saddam did not have a nuclear program or nuclear weapons, WHY did both Bush and Cheney tell Americans that to delay invading Saddam would risk mushroom Clouds over our Cities? They knew no such threat existed!

That's a good question col. I would like you to explain to us all with your briliant insight why is it that the Democrats that read the same report that you mention did not bother to tell the world of this? And why is it that the one Democrat that read the report and disagreed with the President did not tell anyone of this either? Or maybe your full of crap again. No one but the members of Congress the Presidents people and the intelligence communty saw the full report Yet no one said anything to anyone about this until the war was over? You have cried how we had really bad intelligence for years and now that there is a report you like the same intelligence people are good and wise. You hack!

Paladin77

That question was asked of the members of the Intelligence Committee that did have access to the NIE. There answer was simple, it was classified and they would have had to violate the law to make the report public. That does not alter the fact that the most comprehensive Intelligence input the President receives said one thing and he and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People the very opposite. Given what the NIE of 2002 said we should not have been told by Bush and Cheney that we were in danger of nuclear attack from Saddam if we did not remove him from power. How was Saddam to produce those mushroom clouds without nuclear weapons?

paladin77 No. The majority of Congress was not given the 2002 NIE which was classified prior to their vote. They were not given the Intel that said, Saddam was not a nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney said!

PROVE IT!

PROVE IT

Exactly.  I can't find anything, even in the liberal media that is close to what he is talking about.  He's getting his "facts" from Tim Russert......I can't stop laughing at that.