Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on September 16, 2004, 08:04:28 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq. The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic." The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for President Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document, which spans roughly 50 pages, draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there. (2 Americans, Briton kidnapped in Baghdad)
The latest assessment was undertaken by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials who provide long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community but report to the director of central intelligence, now acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. He and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved it. The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month. A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night, and a National Security Council spokesman could not be reached for comment. The document was first reported by the New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night. It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency. "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent. Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing where the State Department explained its request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year mostly for public works projects. (U.S. shifts Iraq rebuilding funds to security, oil) The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and a variety of Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections slated for January. "We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. "It's important that you have some flexibility." But Hagel said the shift in funds "does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we're winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble." Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, and other committee members have long argued -- even before the war -- that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators. (Biden questions fitness of Iraqi security force)
But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the presidential election in which President Bush's handling of the war is a top issue. "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent." He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request. "This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating from anybody looking at this from any vantage point," he said.
State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs. Schlicher said the department hopes to create more than 800,000 short- and long-term jobs over two years, saying, "When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence."
Congress approved the $18.4 billion in November as part of an $87 billion package mostly for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the time, administration officials said the reconstruction money was just as important as the military funds. But only $1.14 billion had been spent as of September 8. "It's incompetence, from my perspective, looking at this," said the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware. In separate action Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to shift $150 million from the $18.4 billion to buttress U.S. efforts to help victims of violence and famine in the Darfur region of Sudan and nearby areas. The transfer was approved by voice vote with bipartisan support.
-
err um don't you have some Results to post mr. banana? ;-)
ok what else is new, it should be common knowledge that a civil war will happen but will US help arrive on time?
-
Yeah banana! Where's the Gazette or whatever it's called?! :D
Don't be givin' away no nachinal secrets or anything... but we need our fix. (no jokes, please :) )
-
banana, make sure you tell 'em how Russia is being pillaged :eek:
Ah hell, the Tzar doesn't care as long as he gets a nice padded cell after he gets pulled out of his spider hole someday
-
Ok, ok. You guys stop hijacking me, and I'll try to get the update out tomorrow.
-
Skull, how is it "common knowledge" that a civil war is imminent? Nothing in the future is inevitable.
-
you have 2 groups of people Stang. Both have different beliefs on how the country should be ran. one is already taking militant action. So the next logical Step is that one major hub for terrorist will declare independacne blah blah blah. Get the clue?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
you have 2 groups of people Stang. Both have different beliefs on how the country should be ran. one is already taking militant action. So the next logical Step is that one major hub for terrorist will declare independacne blah blah blah. Get the clue?
WAKE UP SKULL. Quit beleiving the propaganda.
There is no big group in Iraq taking military action.
There is only a small minority of forigners and ex bathists that are taking up arms. I will not say that the majority of Iraqies want US troops to be their because that is not true. Some want the US there most dont...but BOTH of those groups want a democracy to work. Those that don't arent taking up arms in droves to go fight US troops.
-
but yet you have plenty more to come Mr. Gun.
if you get enough of these terrorist behind a group they kinda of become the elite army in a force that could take over iraq. It is militia, and all it takes is a few radical people with Militia to take drastic action and you could have a civil war. then they would also get support from terrorist.
-
(http://www.planet-familyguy.com/characters/pics/quagmire_tn.jpg)
-
Gigity gigity gigity gigity gigity! ALL-right
-SW
-
Quagmire?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1204669/posts
The last post was best. In case you don't make it to the last one:
Democrats are blind with hatred. They selected somebody they don't even know.
In fairness to the Democrats, one must look at their field of players...
Edwards - Trial Lawyer
Dean - Lunatic
Lieberman - Howdy Doody
Sharpton - Flim-Flam Man
Kuchinich - Cuckoonich
Gephardt - Washed-up Union Hack
Moseley-Braun - Mostly-Fraud
Clark - Dr. Strangelove
Kerry was probably the "best" choice they had.
*snort!*
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
but yet you have plenty more to come Mr. Gun.
if you get enough of these terrorist behind a group they kinda of become the elite army in a force that could take over iraq. It is militia, and all it takes is a few radical people with Militia to take drastic action and you could have a civil war. then they would also get support from terrorist.
Ahhh but you are forgeting one very very important thing. Support of the people!
When they wage war from religious mosques....when they blow up people at muslim gatherings.....when they blow up lines of people just trying to find jobs. When they indescriminatly kill woman and children
they do not have the support of the iraqi people. They are by no means "elite"
They are foreigners and former torturers. The Iraqis do not support them.
-
they don't need support of the people if they have support of terrorist networks. that alone is the support of the people. 1k's from other places willing to help and die for Allah.
-
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/9671869.htm
This certainly doesnt help.
Hopefully they were "Released" into other prisons.
-
Originally posted by banana
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.
LOL! I was laughing so hard I didn't get any farther than this.
-
"WAKE UP SKULL. Quit beleiving the propaganda.
There is no big group in Iraq taking military action.
There is only a small minority of forigners and ex bathists that are taking up arms."
Whats your definition of a small minority? Seems they are the majority in a few areas andl able to still hold a few cities for themselves and areas which are too unsafe for US Forces to venture into. That must take more then a few thousand don't you think?
Be interesting to see if Iraq can pull off elections in January given the current levels of violence there. Understand Bush is pushing hard for the elections to take place in Afghanistan before November so he can have atleast some good news. As there isn't much coming out of Iraq these days that he can use confidently.
...-Gixer
-
(http://doctorgrooveband.com/iraqi-minister.jpg)
Lies lies lies!! Don't believe this bourgoise propoganda. All is well. We've never had it better!
I spit on the all the western media who lie and distort the truth to suit the evile purposes of thier master the American Democratic Party. They continue to focus on the rare occurance of violence and even make up news such as this of reports telling that worse times are to come.
The Iraqi people everywhere LOVE American GI's and every day they rejoice in the streets overcome with joy for thier new freedoms and newborn democracy. "Viva La Bush" they shout while dancing and whirling about the dusty streets keeping time to select songs from the musical "Oklahoma" being blared to them from sidewalk boomboxes.
-
Westy :)
Mark my words, give Bush a month or so after the election, and then we're going to start hearing a much different story about how things are going.
Once he wins re-election, he's going to start talking about the challenges that lie ahead....and not to expect too much in the near future, etc.
But right now, it's all daisies and sunshine. That's their story, and they're sticking to it(at least until Nov. 3).
-
as long as he wins... who cares? kerrie and vietnmam and phony memos and phony medals... who cares? so long as the commie liar loses.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as long as he wins... who cares?
lazs
Lazs, your true colors are showing again. As long as you get to keep your guns, you don't really care what happens to this country or it's servicemen and servicewomen, do you?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
you have 2 groups of people Stang.
3 major groups actually.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so long as the commie liar loses.
lazs
That doesn't narrow it down much.
-
ya funked ... what I was thinking
Quagmire?
(http://www.insanecars.com/FamilyGuy/quagmire.gif)