Bush Ignored Warnings On Iraq, NY Times Says

U.S. President George W. Bush was warned in two intelligence reports before he invaded Iraq that his war could produce a chaotic guerrilla conflict involving terrorists.

Yet, critics say, Mr. Bush didn’t use the information to alter his policy or plan for escalating bloodshed that’s threatening chances for democratic elections in Iraq in January.

A senior U.S. intelligence official was also quoted this week as saying Mr. Bush disregarded high-level warnings that a war could dangerously intensify anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

ìThe President was very well aware of the challenges that we faced if the decision was made to go in and remove Saddam Hussein from power,î White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday when asked about the issue.

ìHe’s also very well aware of the consequences of not acting to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime and hold him accountable in a post-Sept. 11th world.î

The big question is whether the latest evidence that Mr. Bush ignored gloomy predictions of long-term violence will hurt his standing with voters already deeply divided over the necessity of invading Iraq and the $200-billion (U.S.) cost.

The latest opinion surveys suggest it may not.

Despite weeks of bad news from Iraq, where more than 1,000 Americans have died, polls suggest Mr. Bush is still beating Democratic challenger John Kerry by a comfortable margin on the question of who voters trust to handle that conflict and the anti-terror war.

Overall, Mr. Bush appears to have a small but significant lead over Mr. Kerry. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday suggested Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Kerry 51 to 45 per cent.

The reason, many observers say, lies with Mr. Bush’s effective portrayal of Mr. Kerry as a serial flip-flopper on the top issues while retaining a tough stand of his own that relies on simple, consistent messages.

So far, it seems, Mr. Kerry has been unable to convince Americans that he’s strong enough to fix Iraq, even though many voters clearly don’t buy Mr. Bush’s rosy predictions of freedom and democracy in the Mideast country.

Even some supporters admit Mr. Kerry’s had trouble presenting a coherent picture of what he’d do differently, despite sharper attacks on Mr. Bush of late, with promises to regain allied support for Iraq and start withdrawing U.S. troops early in his presidency.

Mr. Kerry’s best chance to change fuzzy perceptions and lingering doubts about his ability to keep Americans safe from terrorists comes Thursday during the first presidential debate, which focuses on foreign policy.

And he has some new fodder for his arguments.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Mr. Bush received two reports from the National Intelligence Council in January 2003 warning an Iraq war would unleash terrorism and increase sympathy in the Islamic world for terrorist objectives.

The independent group of long-time intelligence professionals and outside academics also produced a classified report in July painting a dubious picture of chances for success in Iraq.

At best, it predicted chaos through 2005 and, at worst, civil war.

Another report from the Justice Department this week said the FBI is seriously behind in translating recordings of potentially valuable information about al-Qaeda terrorists.

Some of the tapes have been mistakenly erased.

Despite evidence from a massive commission this summer that the Bush administration missed clues that might have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the President has consistently received high marks from Americans when it comes to his ability to protect them.

http://www.rense.com/general57/bushignoredwarnings.htm