Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco

[babylonsister]

Can't he be impeached for utter incompetence?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/senate-intel-report-2/

Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco

Yesterday, a White House correspondent candidly asked Bush why the American people should trust him as “a credible messenger on the war,” in light of the major mistakes he has made since first invading Iraq:

Q: The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.

Watch it at link~

Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released pre-war intelligence that warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create massive internal strife, giving extremist groups like al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence.

The U.S. intelligence community’s pre-war clairvoyance is notable. While there was originally no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, they accurately predicted how a U.S. invasion would ignite Islamic sentiment against the U.S., allowing terrorists networks like al Qaeda to resurge elsewhere and disrupt regional stability. Some highlights of the report:

“A stable democratic government in postwar Iraq would be a long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge.”

“Al Qa’ida probably would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a U.S.-Iraq war.”

“Rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or Coalition forces.”

“A US-led defeat and occupation of Arab Iraq would boost proponents of political Islam and would result in ‘calls for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West.’”

“Funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over US action.”

But like several other reports, the Bush administration dismissed these predictions. “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.”

Four years after the invasion, these predictions have become reality. Al Qaeda is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly funded by allies in Iraq. Anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East continues to rise.

Does Bush really “read the intelligence?”

Read the intelligence report HERE:
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf


Transcript:

Q: After the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it’s met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.

[indepat]

1. It has pretty much played out as expected: we'll have to stay until the oil plays out

[jmowreader]

2. Which intelligence did he read?

Now might be a good time to discuss the Cycle of Intelligence, the never-ending process of taking raw data about an entity and providing decision-makers with the solid facts they need to do their jobs.

The current cycle consists of four steps:

Direction: lets the intelligence unit know who to work against, and the results expected. Example: "How many metric tons of milk is Denmark expected to produce in 2007"? (Yes, the USDA has an intelligence arm.)

Collection: This is where we actually go out and spy on people. This one's pretty easy: Denmark likes us and milk production isn't exactly a secret, so we'd send someone to the various dairies to ask about how much milk they're processing.

Processing: Comparing their milk figures from this year to the figures at the same time for the last four or five years, we can see how much more/less milk Denmark is producing, and extrapolate it to the whole year.

Dissemination: We provide our 2007 estimates to people who use this kind of data in their work.

It's usually depicted as a circle, because once the intelligence has been disseminated you're retasked and it starts all over again. When we had communists to kick around, the cycle of intelligence was Collection > Analysis > Reporting > Dissemination with "Continuous Oversight" in a circle around it all.

Now let's get fun: "What is the state of tank gunnery readiness in the Uzbek 4th Tank Division?" The Uzbek 4th Tank, which is a notional unit, is equipped with the new T-100 Main Battle Tank. According to the manufacturer, the T-100 uses radar-guided sabot rounds that fly at fifteen miles per second (the penetrators fired out of the 120mm Rheinmetall cannon on the current-issue Abrams tank fly about one mile per second) and carry enough energy to go through both sides of the tank. If this is true, we can use this information to justify purchasing the new T-100-defeating rounds for the M1 at a cost of one million dollars per shell. If it's not true, spending a million dollars for one tank round is idiotic.

CIA says the 4th can't hit the broad side of a barn, and you'd think you'd be able to with a radar-guided shell.
NSA says the radar guidance system on the T-100 breaks after the first round is fired.
NRO says they don't drive the T-100 from the motor pool to the wash rack without dispatching a fuel truck to go with it.
Defector reports claim they don't use the T-100 in the rain because it sinks up to the drive sprockets in mud if it rains more than twenty minutes at a time.
The Mossad stole a T-100 and found out the round only flies half a mile per second--and it bounces off the sides of garbage trucks.
Uzbek Military Review says the new T-100 is the most lethal weapon ever devised by man, even worse than the H-Bomb, and its magical main gun will penetrate any tank known or contemplated.

All these are "raw intel." AKA "pieces of the puzzle." I as an analyst would blow off Uzbek Miiltary Review--obvious propaganda. I know the Mossad is reliable. I know the US agencies are usually reliable. Defectors you have to look close at--one guy says the T-100 sinks in mud and he could be a plant, but if forty or fifty defectors all claim the vehicle sinks, it probably really does sink. So let's see...three US agencies, a third-party source and defectors all claim the T-100 is a piece of shit...I will generate a report saying the T-100 is a low-quality vehicle that can't perform its mission. (I can't come right out and say the T-100 is a piece of shit because of the Tommy Gardner Rule.)

If you were cherry-picking intel to justify spending $25 billion on tank rounds, which would you choose? My report that says the T-100 isn't any good, or the UMR report that brags about how wonderful the tank is? Well...that's what the Bushies did to justify invading Iraq.

And four years in, you know all the intel being put on Shrub's desk is joy-joy crap that doesn't correlate to the ground when the ground would upset him. IIRC they don't let him watch the news.