U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
I linked this story because FINALLY someone in our government (intelligence, no less) sounds like they agree with what I had believed since before the war. The National Intelligence Estimate which takes opinions from various intelligence agencies has predicted three scenarios for Iraq through the end of 2005.
One, a "tenous stability," which seems to be the best we can call Iraq today. Two, "political fragmentation" which would probably be the break-up into three regions. Three, "civil war" which would be similar to Two but with more killing.
The problem is that this is the same group that informed President Bush that Iraq probably had weapons of mass destruction. So should we believe them this time?
Prior to the Iraq War there were several opinion writers that predicted these same possible outcomes, but they were ignored, written off, even called unpatriotic. George W. Bush's own father predicted these possibilities as reasons why he didn't have the military pursue Saddam Hussein after liberating Kuwait in the Gulf War.
But those neo-conservatives were so self assured, they thought they knew better than anyone else. They predicted the Iraq War would be over quick, that our troops would be cheered as liberators by Iraqis throwing flowers. We were supposed to be down to 30,000 troops a year ago.
Those neo-cons need to apologize to the American people and to those that opined the problems we have been seeing in Iraq. They need to admit they were wrong. But even further the neo-cons should apologize to the everyday people of Iraq for the death and destruction they wrought on them because of their bad analysis and predictions.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, et. al. obviously didn't know what the heck they were talking about. After they apologize they should all resign.
Link
One, a "tenous stability," which seems to be the best we can call Iraq today. Two, "political fragmentation" which would probably be the break-up into three regions. Three, "civil war" which would be similar to Two but with more killing.
The problem is that this is the same group that informed President Bush that Iraq probably had weapons of mass destruction. So should we believe them this time?
Prior to the Iraq War there were several opinion writers that predicted these same possible outcomes, but they were ignored, written off, even called unpatriotic. George W. Bush's own father predicted these possibilities as reasons why he didn't have the military pursue Saddam Hussein after liberating Kuwait in the Gulf War.
But those neo-conservatives were so self assured, they thought they knew better than anyone else. They predicted the Iraq War would be over quick, that our troops would be cheered as liberators by Iraqis throwing flowers. We were supposed to be down to 30,000 troops a year ago.
Those neo-cons need to apologize to the American people and to those that opined the problems we have been seeing in Iraq. They need to admit they were wrong. But even further the neo-cons should apologize to the everyday people of Iraq for the death and destruction they wrought on them because of their bad analysis and predictions.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, et. al. obviously didn't know what the heck they were talking about. After they apologize they should all resign.
Link
posted by jon at 10:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home