Replies

Peters is a very smart man and he isn't bias one bit. He believes Rummy should get the boot big time. If you read his book he lays out quite clearly how Rummy used Iraq to further test his theory of a lighter, cheeper, faster, and less deadly war and refused to change course or even admit there was an insurgency for months and months. Rummy is a good man, but his stubborness and pride are his biggest flaws.

Not this crap again. [sigh] An insurgency was anticipated before the first boots ever hit the ground. Anybody who wants to nitpick with 20/20 hindsight, including Mr. Peters, is welcome to. But it's nothing but armchair quarterbacking. The Administration knew full well the Fedayeen freaks and foreign terrorists would be active. Sure, they hoped the insurgency would die more quickly. Who didn't?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

Excerpt from a USA Today hit piece, but it puts this nonsense to bed:

Two reports by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior analysts that pools assessments from across the nation's intelligence community, warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency, the official said.

At least until the next time someone here repeats it as Gospel.

Honestly, who in his/her right mind would NOT have anticipated an insurgency? Can anyone really say that? It's patently absurd.