Pre-war Intelligence

[Judy G. Russell]

From MSNBC today:

two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”

It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's predictions about the war.

In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, “Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

A second assessment weeks before the invasion warned that the war also could be “exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq.”

The same assessment added, “Iraqi patience with an extended U.S. presence after an overwhelming victory would be short,” and said “humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid.”

Both assessments were given to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees.So much for the "we couldn't have known" argument...

[Lindsey]

So much for the "we couldn't have known" argument...
They paid about as much attention to that as to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." PDB. And after September 11, we got the same "we couldn't have known" excuse.

The government is being run by third graders. "I didn't mean to do it!" "I didn't know it would break!" "It's not my fault! He told me to do it..."

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

They paid about as much attention to that as to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." PDB. And after September 11, we got the same "we couldn't have known" excuse.

The government is being run by third graders. "I didn't mean to do it!" "I didn't know it would break!" "It's not my fault! He told me to do it..."

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

A weak-minded President who surrounded himself with an obscure, previously permanently out of favor intellectual cult, dismissed by all previous Republican administrations, then went to the Nixon administration for the rest of his kitchen cabinet, couldn't run his own life, much less a nation as large and complex as ours

[Lindsey]

couldn't run his own life, much less a nation as large and complex as ours
Maybe we should have elected Laura instead of her husband. She's the one keeping George's personal life in order.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The government is being run by third graders. "I didn't mean to do it!" "I didn't know it would break!" "It's not my fault! He told me to do it..."ROFL!!! That's exactly what we keep hearing over and over!!

[Judy G. Russell]

Maybe we should have elected Laura instead of her husband. She couldn't possibly be any worse... could she (shudder!!!)???

[Lindsey]

ROFL!!! That's exactly what we keep hearing over and over!!
Isn't it? Actually, I think I was insulting third graders. Those lines are more like what you hear from 3-year-olds.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

She couldn't possibly be any worse... could she (shudder!!!)???
I think you would really have to work at it to be worse. Laura seems to have a lot more common sense than her husband.

I think maybe George Bush and Bill Clinton have both, by their example, managed to make very good cases as to why we should be giving serious consideration to putting women in the office of president. As long, of course, as those women are not people like Monica Goodling or Condoleezza Rice...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think maybe George Bush and Bill Clinton have both, by their example, managed to make very good cases as to why we should be giving serious consideration to putting women in the office of president. As long, of course, as those women are not people like Monica Goodling or Condoleezza Rice...Or, I must say, Hillary Clinton. Too polarizing -- I suspect unelectable.

[Lindsey]

Or, I must say, Hillary Clinton. Too polarizing -- I suspect unelectable.
The sad thing is, I think that left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly good president. Her time in the Senate has shown that she has a talent for making friends across the aisle and building coalitions. She's not the one who is doing the polarizing.

Not that I am really a big fan of either Clinton, but I really have to laugh when the right paints them as these radical leftists. They're not all that liberal. They only seem that way compared to the extreme rightward move the Republican party has made since about 1980.

Hillary Clinton is a highly competent politician. I can't say that for Condoleezza Rice. She did a poor job as National Security Advisor, and while she has done a better job as Secretary of State, I can't say that I think she's done all that great a job in that position, either. Of course, she's got an anvil tied around her neck in the person of the president she works for, so I guess that should be taken into account.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The sad thing is, I think that left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly good president. Her time in the Senate has shown that she has a talent for making friends across the aisle and building coalitions. She's not the one who is doing the polarizing.Agreed. And what appears to have polarized people the most is that -- gasp -- she didn't sit back and be the sweet little First Lady with a brain full of fluff. The fact that she actually got involved in real issues appears to have been the worst thing she could have done.

Not that I am really a big fan of either Clinton, but I really have to laugh when the right paints them as these radical leftists. They're not all that liberal. They only seem that way compared to the extreme rightward move the Republican party has made since about 1980.Ain't that the truth... on both counts.

Hillary Clinton is a highly competent politician. I can't say that for Condoleezza Rice. She did a poor job as National Security Advisor, and while she has done a better job as Secretary of State, I can't say that I think she's done all that great a job in that position, either. Of course, she's got an anvil tied around her neck in the person of the president she works for, so I guess that should be taken into account.Oh yeah. It's hard to be an accomplished diplomat when you work for a guy who personally despises diplomacy.

[Lindsey]

And what appears to have polarized people the most is that -- gasp -- she didn't sit back and be the sweet little First Lady with a brain full of fluff. The fact that she actually got involved in real issues appears to have been the worst thing she could have done.
Oh, I think she'd have been severely criticized no matter what she did. I always got the impression, from the very day after the 1992 election, that the Republican leadership (and a good bit of the followership as well) considered the presidency theirs by divine right, and they therefore regarded Bill Clinton as a usurper. And thus Hillary Clinton had to be, by definition, the equivalent of Lady Macbeth.

Oh yeah. It's hard to be an accomplished diplomat when you work for a guy who personally despises diplomacy.
And the extent to which he despises it was made absolutely clear when he put the affable (hah!) John Bolton in as US Ambassador to the UN by recess appointment. If that wasn't a big FU to the international community in general, and the UN in particular, I don't know what was. Even the Republican Senate wouldn't confirm the guy, but the boy king will not take "no" for an answer.

By the way, I saw somewhere that Harry Reid has plans to forestall any further use of recess appointments by Bush. Over the summer break, he has arranged for someone to be in Washington to call the Senate into a pro forma session every 10 days and force the president to send down any pending appointments.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, I think she'd have been severely criticized no matter what she did. I always got the impression, from the very day after the 1992 election, that the Republican leadership (and a good bit of the followership as well) considered the presidency theirs by divine right, and they therefore regarded Bill Clinton as a usurper. And thus Hillary Clinton had to be, by definition, the equivalent of Lady Macbeth.I agree with you that the GOP regards any elected Democrat as a temporary electoral mistake, the more temporary, the better...

And the extent to which he despises it was made absolutely clear when he put the affable (hah!) John Bolton in as US Ambassador to the UN by recess appointment.Ain't that the truth...

By the way, I saw somewhere that Harry Reid has plans to forestall any further use of recess appointments by Bush. Over the summer break, he has arranged for someone to be in Washington to call the Senate into a pro forma session every 10 days and force the president to send down any pending appointments.Good for Reid. His confirmed nominations are bad enough; the ones he sneaks by without confirmation are appalling.

[Lindsey]

Good for Reid.
Let's hope that works. There's nothing except established practice to say that Bush couldn't make a recess appointment over a long holiday weekend. And we know how much respect these guys have for established practice.

--Lindsey