Sidney Blumenthal on Bush's Intel Wars, Ongoing, Wilson, etc. in Guardian

[TacticalPeek]

Bush's other war

US intelligence is being scapegoated for getting it right on Iraq

Sidney Blumenthal
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian

In Baghdad, the Bush administration acts as though it is astonished by the postwar carnage. Its feigned shock is a consequence of Washington's intelligence wars. In fact, not only was it warned of the coming struggle and its nature - ignoring a $5m state department report on The Future of Iraq - but Bush himself signed another document in which that predictive information is contained.

According to the congressional resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here - declares: "We are especially concerned that the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort to undermine Coalition goals." Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military campaign to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."

Yet, on August 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed that this possibility was not foreseen: "Now was - did we - was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"

"We read their reports," a senate source told me. "Too bad they don't read their own reports."

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1075530,00.html



"the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days"
Hmmmm, heads up for creative report writing.

[Spazito]

1. Wow, excellent article!

I find this interesting: " The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here "

Why hasn't anyone heard of this report till now given that it was submitted on April 14th?

The secrecy and lies of Bush and his gang just keep adding up.

[huckleberry]

2. Rumsfeld will be on MTP tomorrow -

send an e-mail to Tim to ask Rummy about this article - I just did!

Here's the e-mail address - [e-mail]

[julka]

4. thx for that address

I sent this:

Mr. Russert

I just saw this article, containing information that, of course, I've never seen mentioned before, particularly in US media.

Here's an excerpt:

"According to the congressional resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here - declares: "We are especially concerned that the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort to undermine Coalition goals." Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military campaign to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."

Yet, on August 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed that this possibility was not foreseen: "Now was - did we - was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"

'We read their reports,' a senate source told me. 'Too bad they don't read their own reports.' "


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1075530,00.html

I know it's by someone in whom you obviously hold little regard, but the information is easily verifiable, and contains the basis for many questions that BEG to be asked of your guest tomorrow, Mr. Rumsfeld.

That said, will you EVER confront the likes of the aforementioned Rumsfeld, not to mention Powell, or Rice, when their lies are so blatant that even someone as ill-informed, as ill-connected as myself can instantly refute their poorly constructed fabrications? Why do you never call them on such clear lies? You certainly have no trouble in hounding guests whose political stances lean in directions opposite that of the current "administration."

Love to see you start earning all that money GE pays you, as a member of the fourth estate, instead of as a stenographer for the current regime.

[ithacan]

3. great piece

the thing is, all of these things were reported at the time, in the runup to the war.

The antiwar folks have been right all along!

[TacticalPeek]

5. Kick Night.

:kick: