Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

[TurtleDude]

Now why should we believe 16 different agencies over Mr. Bush?:mrgreen:

Look man, anybody who hasn't concluded that were are in more danger from terrorism today than we ever have been before, needs to lay off the FOXNews Kool-Aid.

actually we were in more danger on Sept 10, 2001 since we didn't have the deflector shields up :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

Well they certainly felt justified in it.

But if you believe that our entrance to WW2 was correct, then you agree with my claim that sometimes it is justifiable to do things that increase the threat of us being attacked.

LOL -- how can you "increase the threat of being attacked" when we were already attacked? If you mean that by going to war that increased the violence, sure.

I'm not suggesting that it is not true. I'm saying expressly that this doesn't prove anything about the war other than what is says expressly, in and of itself.

We are seeing more and more reports that the was in Iraq is indeed spawning new radicals and terrorists faster than we are killing them.

While continuing our military presence actually start dedicating real time, money, and effort into building a basic infrastructure. Build power plants and schools, help establish business. This goes hand in hand with security, for without security all that is built will just as quickly be destroyed, but without infrastructure there is no way to get security.

I had thought that was what they were trying to do with at least part of $300 billion or so we've spent so far. Hopefully all that money doing more than fattening the profits of Halliburton.

Define "unjustified".

Without justification. As in, the U.S. was unjustified in invading Iraq in Mar 2003.

 

[Captain America]

actually we were in more danger on Sept 10, 2001 since we didn't have the deflector shields up :mrgreen:

Now, if my boy Ronnie was still in office we'd already have the Kilngon Cloaking Device and all this would be a non-issue.:mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

Now, if my boy Ronnie was still in office we'd already have the Kilngon Cloaking Device and all this would be a non-issue.:mrgreen:

LOL-I think it was the Romulans who had that (they just had that episode on the other night when a baseball game was rained out) what was that general order Kirk gave to Scottie when some society had "computer wars" and ordered that the Enterprise surrender for destruction? General Order 24 or something like that?

 

[Captain America]

yes, I do believe you were right. It was the Romulens. But the Klingons bought one from North Korea and that was the one I was referring to. Yeah....that's the ticket. :3oops:

 

[TurtleDude]

yes, I do believe you were right. It was the Romulens. But the Klingons bought one from North Korea and that was the one I was referring to. Yeah....that's the ticket. :3oops:

ah so its klingons violating the UN embargos. I wonder where they were able to get all that rice and ship it passed Khofi's spies?:mrgreen:

 

[oldreliable67]

Plus had we never invaded Iraq there would be less of a terror threat and less hatred towards the USA. That is THE fundamental fu ckup of the Bush administration.

A demonstrably unprovable assumption. You speak of the report as if it were incontrovertible proof. It is not. It is opinion. Informed, professional opinion. But still opinion nonetheless. It is also largely a forecast, and subject to all the hazards attendant thereto. (The forecaster's credo: if you must forecast, you must forecast frequently What will the next forecast say?). Give the professionals the respect due them for their analysis, yes, but it is simply incorrect to characterize this report as unequivocal, carved-in-stone unchanging gospel.

Furthermore, if you read it a bit more carefully, you'll find, as the WP did in their article in yesterday's paper, that the report confirms many of Bush's statements on Iraq, along with others that it rebuts. Yes, it does provide the left with lots of fresh ammo for the election season.

For example, the WP quoted Bush as follows:

"we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront...

The WP then writes,

"But the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare.

Although intelligence officials agree that the United States has seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to plan and direct major operations, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized."

Hence, the report does not dispute Bush's major assertions. The report agrees that we have "seriously damaged" AQ leadership, however, the report then goes where Bush has not gone: how do we address a now-decentralized AQ.

A less partisan reading of this report suggests that the situation in Iraq and indeed, the entrie GWOT is and has been changing in character and the Bush administration is simply not changing tactics commensurately. The report, IMO, is not so much an indictment of the Bush administration's motives for going into Iraq originally, but rather the lack of progress and the inability to make the strategic and tactical adjustments that became (inevitably) necessary once we got there.

But partisanship being what it is, Bush opponents will most certainly grab hold and try to make this report into something its not. And make no mistake, were the shoe on the other foot, Bush supporters would act no differently.

Why should we believe the Spy Agency reports when President Bush keeps telling us the opposite of this report? Bush is always right so no matter what anyone else thinks or proves it does not change the fact that Bush can never make a mistake...he's as close to perfection as one man can be....He's smart, charming, intelligent, well-read and most of all totally fair and ethical.....NOT!

Whew! Don't look now, but your case of BDS is extreme and raging out of control!

As noted above, it is not accurate, IMO, to characterize this report as "telling us the opposite."

Last thoughts: Loyalty to subordinates is a wonderful attribute, but Bush should have accepted Rumsfeld's resignation the first time it was offered -- and should accept it if offered again. There have been other sources of mistakes in judgement in Iraq, but the original sin, if you will, was Rumsfeld's lack of planning for post-invasion reconstruction and pacification. Too little planning, wrong mix and too few troops, too late.

 

[Captain America]

ah so its klingons violating the UN embargos. I wonder where they were able to get all that rice and ship it passed Khofi's spies?:mrgreen:

Have you ever noticed that Klingons have a clitoris on their foreheads?

 

[TurtleDude]

Have you ever noticed that Klingons have a clitoris on their foreheads?

Interesting-can they apply to the CIS for asylum on the grounds that they may be subjected to female genital mutilation in some part of Africa?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

White House: Account of Iraq report incomplete

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newspaper report that a U.S. intelligence analysis found that the Iraq war gave rise to a new generation of Islamic radicals and made the overall terrorism problem worse was "not representative of the complete document," the White House said on Sunday.

"The New York Times' characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins.

U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte said news reports on the NIE characterize "only a small handful" of the conclusions from a broad strategic assessment of global terrorism.

"The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create," Negroponte said in a statement.

Negroponte said the analysis found that if the U.S. effort to establish a stable government in Iraq succeeded, jihadists would be weakened and "fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060924/2006-09-24T230854Z_01_N23197513_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-TERRORISM-DC.html

Wow so even the head of the CIA says that the NYT's reporting is bullshit. Well that's what you get when you base your reporting on leaked sources of classified information instead of actually waiting for the report to come out to the public. I'm so ****ing sick of the NYT's reporting classified information someone ought to inform them that it's illegal:

Title 18, United States Code
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term "foreign government" includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States. (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Wow so even the head of the CIA says that the NYT's reporting is bullshit.

That's not what he said. How do you get bullshit out of that? Your ridiculous.

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Well that's what you get when you base your reporting on leaked sources of classified information instead of actually waiting for the report to come out to the public. I'm so ****ing sick of the NYT's reporting classified information someone ought to inform them that it's illegal:

If the report has not been released pubically, how the hell do you know? You don't know anymore than the NYT. You probably know less. You refuse to know even more.

Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Were losing Afganistan. Our countryman are dying. The world hates us. And all you want to do is be John Wayne.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's not what he said. How do you get bullshit out of that? Your ridiculous.

Oh really:

U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte said news reports on the NIE characterize "only a small handful" of the conclusions from a broad strategic assessment of global terrorism.

"The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create," Negroponte said in a statement.

Negroponte said the analysis found that if the U.S. effort to establish a stable government in Iraq succeeded, jihadists would be weakened and "fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."

If the report has not been released pubically, how the hell do you know? You don't know anymore than the NYT. You probably know less. You refuse to know even more.

I know that it's illegal to print classified material and that Negroponte basically said that the NYT's report was full of ****.

Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

According to you.

Were losing Afganistan.

Again according to you.

Our countryman are dying.

Our countrymen have been dying at the hands of Islamic-fascist scum since Beiruit I for one thank god we have a President that understands that it's time to start killing them back.

The world hates us.

I'll try to console myself.:roll:

And all you want to do is be John Wayne.

Better John Wayne than Neville Chamberlin.

 

[Billo_Really]

I couldn't help but notice this one little thing in Negropontes statement,

Negroponte said the analysis found that if the U.S. effort to establish a stable government in Iraq succeeded, jihadists would be weakened and "fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere."

That's a big "if".

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I couldn't help but notice this one little thing in Negropontes statement,

That's a big "if".

And yet again says you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
And yet again says you.

That's all the GOP has these days. Just a bunch of if's.

IF:

• Bush hadn't started an illegal war...
• Bush would have viewed the Al Qaeda threat more seriously when he took office...
• the GOP would have given Clinton more support to go after terrorists instead of being preoccupied with his sexploits...
• the Administration hadn't gone on a spending spree after the Clinton Administration left with a surplus budget...
• the GOP hadn't had so many of its members in trouble with the law...
• Bush hadn't lied to the nation...
• Bush hadn't gave that empty speech at the UN
• we had a better President...

...then there might have been something to hope for in the Republican party going into this falls mid-terms. As it stands now, that "elephant" is sittin' on the Titannic gettin' ready to take a little dip.

How's this for an "if"...

...if the Republicans would learn how to tell the truth...

 

[TurtleDude]

That's all the GOP has these days. Just a bunch of if's.

IF:

• Bush hadn't started an illegal war...
• Bush would have viewed the Al Qaeda threat more seriously when he took office...
• the GOP would have given Clinton more support to go after terrorists instead of being preoccupied with his sexploits...
• the Administration hadn't gone on a spending spree after the Clinton Administration left with a surplus budget...
• the GOP hadn't had so many of its members in trouble with the law...
• Bush hadn't lied to the nation...
• Bush hadn't gave that empty speech at the UN
• we had a better President...

...then there might have been something to hope for in the Republican party going into this falls mid-terms. As it stands now, that "elephant" is sittin' on the Titannic gettin' ready to take a little dip.

How's this for an "if"...

...if the Republicans would learn how to tell the truth...

Lots of assumptions and misrepresentations there

Who says the war is illegal
What lies-do you understand the term
How many GOP members are in trouble with the law?

Maybe if you dems had run guys who were actually more competent than Bush

IF you did maybe you wouldn't be whining but the fact is-you all didn't

IF you had wheels you could be a trolley car

BALLS said the queen IF I had them I'd be King

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's all the GOP has these days. Just a bunch of if's.

IF:
Bush hadn't started an illegal war...

It wasn't an illegal war that would be the one that Saddam initiated against Kuwait that made this war perfectly legal.

Bush would have viewed the Al Qaeda threat more seriously when he took office...

He took the threat much more seriously than Bill Clinton ever did.

the GOP would have given Clinton more support to go after terrorists instead of being preoccupied with his sexploits...

This is a total lie the GOP gave Bill Clinton total support in going after Bin-Laden as I demonstrated clearly on the other thread Bill Clinton was lying through his teeth.

the Administration hadn't gone on a spending spree after the Clinton Administration left with a surplus budget...

The GOP held Congress created that surplus, they carried Clinton along kicking and screaming to achieve that surplus, the only thing the Clinton administration managed to leave this Presidency was a recession and a huge threat to the security of this nation, and BTW deficit spending during war time is more than understandable.

the GOP hadn't had so many of its members in trouble with the law...

Like who? The GOP has got one person in trouble with the law, and so does the DNC but unlike Tom Delay, William Jefferson actually broke the law.

Bush hadn't lied to the nation...

Bush didn't lie to the nation and you're lying when you say he did. All 16 members of the intelligence community concluded with high confidence that Saddam had WMD's and the recent "phase 2" report on pre-war intelligence that claimed there was no AQ/Saddam connection was completely bogas and according to the dissenting opinions therein was nothing more than a partisan witchhunt.

Bush hadn't gave that empty speech at the UN

Which one the one where he said he had no problem with the Iranian people but only with their batshit crazy leader Ahmadinejad?

we had a better President...

Who like the lying traitor John Kerry who calls our troops terrorists while he himself is a self confessed war criminal?

 

[RightinNYC]

I couldn't help but notice this one little thing in Negropontes statement,

That's a big "if".

Then that right there should be a huge motivation for every american to support efforts to create a stable Iraqi government, don't you think?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Which one the one where he said he had no problem with the Iranian people but only with their batshit crazy leader Ahmadinejad?

No. The one where he quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Something his track record shows he could care less about. That's like Charles Manson speaking out against LSD and violent crime.

Bush framed his Sept. 19 speech in the context of the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written,” Bush declared.

But it’s hard to believe that Bush had the faintest idea what principles he was embracing – or perhaps he has grown so self-confident in never being challenged on his hypocrisies that he believes he can say anything he wants, no matter how false or deceptive.

Among the 30 rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are these:

--“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

--“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

--“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

--“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

--“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

-- “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.”

--“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

--“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

--“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/091906.html

Where has he followed any of those?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
Then that right there should be a huge motivation for every american to support efforts to create a stable Iraqi government, don't you think?

I'm all for that. I just don't think we know how. Outside the "Green Zone" that is.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Captain America:
Have you ever noticed that Klingons have a clitoris on their foreheads?

What's the difference between a clitoris and a remote control?

Guy won't stop until he finds the remote control.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Turtledude:
Lots of assumptions and misrepresentations there

Who says the war is illegal [Every international lawyer you could name. We attacked in violation of Aricle 51 of the UN Charter.]

What lies-do you understand the term [he said Iraq was a threat. They weren't. He said he was exhausting all diplomatic options while at the same time telling UN inspectors he would guarantee their safety. That's not exhausting all diplomatic options.]

How many GOP members are in trouble with the law? [Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Richard Cunningham, Jack Abramhoff, etc]

Maybe if you dems had run guys who were actually more competent than Bush [sorry, they don't]

IF you did maybe you wouldn't be whining but the fact is-you all didn't [I just said that. And I'm not whining]

IF you had wheels you could be a trolley car [if I had wheels, I'd be a trollin' car]

BALLS said the queen IF I had them I'd be King

The queen doesn't have balls?

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Now why should we believe 16 different agencies over Mr. Bush?:mrgreen:

Look man, anybody who hasn't concluded that were are in more danger from terrorism today than we ever have been before, needs to lay off the FOXNews Kool-Aid.

I think the war brought terrorism to a head no doubt about it, but now they seem easier to catch. They are all chattering and letting themselves slip up more than before, you know the more the merrier, and the more chances of someone getting caught and spilling the beans.

The war is also keeping us on our toes more. We are right there, so it's a huge learning experience.

Did we need this learning experience? I think we did cause we weren't doing so hot before 9/11. We let a lot of stuff go by, now we are all watching more closely and reporting funny behavior. Before it was, "who cares", now we seem a tad more alert, less complacent.

Will Democracy work in Iraq? Who knows, but it would be absolutely fabulous if it did. If Democracy works it would seem terrorism would become even stronger. There's no end to it. This is the reason the terrorists seem so adamant right now, they are desperate for this war not to work. They sooooo don't want this to be successful. That's always their goal for us. No success, and death and destruction no matter what we do.

Are there more recruits in the terrorism world? Maybe so, but they had quite a few before the war, so apparently we just stirred the pot a bit going into Iraq.

 

[oldreliable67]

Whew! This thread contains more spin than a Maytag, from both sides of the aisle. Red and blue partisans can spin this stuff ad nauseum if they wish, but it might be useful to back away from the sophomoric trash talk for a moment and get back to basics. The WSJ put it very well today:

As media scoops go, those based on "classified" information seem to have a special cachet. But judging from the latest, selective intelligence leak about terrorism, we wonder if anyone would bother to read this stuff if it didn't have the word "secret" slapped on it.

That's our reaction to Sunday's New York Times report claiming that a 2006 national intelligence estimate, or NIE, concludes that "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," according to one of the unidentified "intelligence officials" cited in the article. This is supposedly because the war has provoked radical Islamists to hate America even more than they already did before they hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. If this is the kind of insight we pay our spooks to generate, we're in more trouble than we thought.

It's impossible to know how true this report is, of course, since the NIE itself hasn't been leaked. The reports are based on what sources claim the NIE says, but we don't know who those sources are and what motivations they might have. Since their spin coincides rather conveniently with the argument made by Democratic critics of the war, and since this leak has also conveniently sprung in high campaign season, wise readers will be skeptical.
[...]
As for the substance of the 2006 NIE's alleged claims, does anyone doubt that many jihadis are rallying against the American presence in Iraq? The newspapers tell us that much every day. Whether the war in Iraq has produced more terrorist hatred than would otherwise exist, however, is a matter of opinion and strategic judgment.

We recall, for example, that one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for declaring war against the U.S. was American enforcement of sanctions and a no-fly zone against Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Bin Laden didn't need the war to hate us. More broadly, the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has deprived the jihadis of two safe havens and sources of funds. So while there are still many al Qaeda-type terror cells out there, there's no reason to believe they are any more dangerous now than before April 2003. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the terrorists who was harbored in Iraq before the war, certainly isn't any more dangerous; he's dead.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Whew! This thread contains more spin than a Maytag, from both sides of the aisle. Red and blue partisans can spin this stuff ad nauseum if they wish, but it might be useful to back away from the sophomoric trash talk for a moment and get back to basics.

Yes, good idea. Let's look at the UNCLASSIFIED portions of the report revealed today by the White House...it's pretty clear:

Declassified excerpts from the report, released late this afternoon, show that intelligence agencies found that the Iraq war was a “cause célèbre” for Islamic militants, and that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups present a serious and continuing threat to the United States.

“The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere,” the excerpts said.

“The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

The excerpts, which were described as declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate, were released by the office of the director of national security.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/w...&en=5656b1b311db33ab&ei=5094&partner=homepage

My spin? The war is germinating lots and lots of new terrorists who hate America. Had there not been a war this would not be happening at the extreme rate that is reality today. Bush created a hotbed of anti-Americanism and hleped organize our enemies towards a common cause...the destruction of the USA.

Nice going Bush! In my opinion Bush is the worst President in our history and his legacy will be one filled with blood on hands...God only knows what horrors await us in the future that will be the direct result of Bush's policies.