CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

The only other thing we could do to win this is to start in on the genocide and up the torture. Is that what you are advocating?

[quote]vroom wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes vroom,

The National Intelligence Estimate, which as far as I know is always classified, was specifically classified in this case to hide the bad news. Luckily, some intrepid CIA bureaucrat has bravely leaked his/her summary version of it to the press…

Actually, Bush has just announced, live during his meeting with the president of Afghanistan, that the report will be declassified as soon as possible.

Now, we’ll see if that is soon enough… and if it contains the full contents, or just other piecemeal counterpoints.

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?[/quote]

You value blind ass guessing over his gathering together of information?

[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey orion,

I liked your comment about panties in the other thread. It was creative.

Back on track.

If Bush attacked in the manner you suggest, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE PISS fest you and the other sideliners would engage in.

It would make your current european, Anti-Bush, sweat-ins look like a day at the park.

So quit with this line of thought. You wouldn’t support a harder line and you know it.

JeffR

Jerffy, why am I not surprised that your tactics mirror other republican tactics.

Why don’t you EVER address the issues raised, but instead prefer to hurl insults and make somewhat tenously related accusations at a tangent to the issue being discussed.

Would it be because you actually have nothing to say and you are mad about it? It’s happening an awful lot lately… let’s hope people start to recognize it for what it is.

A bunch of meaningless smoke and mirrors that make people forget about the difficult issues and feel good for a couple moments.

It really is about instant gratification isn’t it?[/quote]

JeffR = KO

JeffR=KO

JeffRKO

Jeff RKO

Je ff RKO

Je ff <-> RKO

Je RKO ff

JeRKOff

QED.

[quote]doogie wrote:
You value blind ass guessing over his gathering together of information?
[/quote]

Better blind-ass guessing than blind ass-kissing…

[quote]doogie wrote:

orion wrote:
That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?

The only other thing we could do to win this is to start in on the genocide and up the torture. Is that what you are advocating?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch, recruit another 60,000 men instead of wasting money on submarines and fighter planes to combat a “peer competitor” that doesn’t and won’t exist, we could rescind the prescription drug bill, an enormous entitlement plan for largely well off seniors, we could decide that keeping Afghanistan from falling apart is far more important than fighting the drug trade, we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

There are hundreds of things we could be doing to better win the war on terror, but some would require hard choices, and some would hurt Bush’s ability to wield the war on terror as an electoral club. So they won’t be done. A small man for a big moment.

[quote]doogie wrote:
You value blind ass guessing over his gathering together of information?
[/quote]

When people learn the difference between opinion and information the world will be a better place.

I value a persons ability to think for him or herself, a lot.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…[/quote]

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

I also agree with the individuals on this thread who’ve stated that the war on terror needs to be ramped up with lots more boots on the ground. I was having this same conversation with my grandpa the other day and se summed it up quite nice with: “Bush needs to shit or get off the damn pot!” I mean, there are good things happening in Iraq right now, it’s just that the pace of progress is unacceptble IMO.

So, as I see it, the way out of Iraq is through victory, and the way to victory is to shit or get off the pot.

-Bigflamer

[quote]JeffR wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The CIA is just saying what people in the country already know…November draws near…

Well, little irish. If things are going so badly, the Republicans should be blamed.

Therefore, the dems automatically win.

Finally, you sound very confident. Confident enough to bet?

THE CHALLENGE II awaits!!!

JeffR
[/quote]

I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.

However, Bush and his people came up with the ideas that led to the start of it, did a terrible job managing it, not to mention he ignored every projection of how bad the insurgency could be.

Like it or not, Bush has become synoymous with the Republican party, and they will suffer for what his brand of Republican has done. Supporting the war in this election will cost congressmen their seats. If this somehow leads to a more moderate brand of Republican, one without the Rove/Bush/Cheney system of ideas, than this country might move forward regardless of who controls Congress (if not in the social issues, at least in foreign affairs).

Obviously I would much rather see it controlled by Democrats though, and I think the regular voter thinks that way at this point, more as a response to the Bush cabal than a love for Democrats.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Hey orion,

I liked your comment about panties in the other thread. It was creative.

Back on track.

If Bush attacked in the manner you suggest, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE PISS fest you and the other sideliners would engage in.

It would make your current european, Anti-Bush, sweat-ins look like a day at the park.

So quit with this line of thought. You wouldn’t support a harder line and you know it.

JeffR
[/quote]

If the first thing that he announced after 9/11 had been that the war on drugs was over and that we had more pressing concerns now than gays in the military of course he would have had the support of allmost everyone.

If he has the support to put more men into Iraq, who cares? When did this administration ever care?

I thought you could handle this shit, please, show us how it is done without this degenerate, “liberal” diplomacy…

[quote]vroom wrote:

Actually, Bush has just announced, live during his meeting with the president of Afghanistan, that the report will be declassified as soon as possible.

Now, we’ll see if that is soon enough… and if it contains the full contents, or just other piecemeal counterpoints.

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?[/quote]

My guess is that the report is a mixed bag.

Regarding the Iraq situation I’ll bet it says that more terrorists incidents are occuring because we invaded Iraq but if the Islamists lose in Iraq it will hurt their movement dramatically.

I’ll bet it also says the muslims murdering muslims in Iraq ultimately weakens the cause of the radical Islamists.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Even though Clinton was “obessesed” with bin Laden Bush has done far more than any other president in fighting radical Islamic terror.

Is it enough? No.

Should America and the rest of the world be making more sacrifices for the fight against this evil? Yes.

Unfortunately there are those that are using this report to say we should do less against this evil.[/quote]

I agree that Bush has done more than any other president, however he does not do enough.

Or to little, whichever you prefer.

Everyone understood Afghanistan, but Iraq should have been dealt with in earnest or left alone.

To do juuust enough to create a new terrorist hotbed and alQuaeda cells all around the world is the worst case scenario and bingo!, that`s what seems to happen.

[quote]doogie wrote:

orion wrote:
That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?

The only other thing we could do to win this is to start in on the genocide and up the torture. Is that what you are advocating?[/quote]

That is bullshit and you know it.

Even if you nuked every larger city in Iraq and tortured everyone with an Arabic name you would only REALLY start a djihad…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes vroom,

The National Intelligence Estimate, which as far as I know is always classified, was specifically classified in this case to hide the bad news. Luckily, some intrepid CIA bureaucrat has bravely leaked his/her summary version of it to the press…

vroom wrote:
Actually, Bush has just announced, live during his meeting with the president of Afghanistan, that the report will be declassified as soon as possible.

Now, we’ll see if that is soon enough… and if it contains the full contents, or just other piecemeal counterpoints.

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?[/quote]

Thinking like a politician, I’m thinking that if he wants to declassify it, there is some information in there that at the very least calls the stories printed in the news media over the weekend into serious doubt.

I would doubt that the whole thing will be declassified though – there’s got to be some info in there that’s sensitive for it to have been classified in the first instance.

The WSJ this morning was calling to declassify the whole thing – we’ll see.

At any rate, given that Bush and his advisers have not only reviewed it, but probably very carefully re-reviewed after this weekend, I can’t imagine that Bush would give an assessment now that was obviously wrong.

Here’s what he said at that presser:

[i]QUESTION: Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.

I’m not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their ? to their murderous ways.

Some people have guessed what’s in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it’s naive. I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.

The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they’re trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren’t in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren’t in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.

We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren’t in Iraq, they’d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They’ve used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We’re not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We’re not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what’s interesting about the NIE ? it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions ? the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February ? at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it’s on the front page of your newspapers. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it’s a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there’s a leak, because it means that it’s going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I’m talking about. But once again, there’s a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, ? to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

And so we’re going to ? I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We’ll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He’ll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he’ll do so in such a way that we’ll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.
[/i]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The CIA is just saying what people in the country already know…November draws near…

Well, little irish. If things are going so badly, the Republicans should be blamed.

Therefore, the dems automatically win.

Finally, you sound very confident. Confident enough to bet?

THE CHALLENGE II awaits!!!

JeffR

I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.

However, Bush and his people came up with the ideas that led to the start of it, did a terrible job managing it, not to mention he ignored every projection of how bad the insurgency could be.

Like it or not, Bush has become synoymous with the Republican party, and they will suffer for what his brand of Republican has done. Supporting the war in this election will cost congressmen their seats. If this somehow leads to a more moderate brand of Republican, one without the Rove/Bush/Cheney system of ideas, than this country might move forward regardless of who controls Congress (if not in the social issues, at least in foreign affairs).

Obviously I would much rather see it controlled by Democrats though, and I think the regular voter thinks that way at this point, more as a response to the Bush cabal than a love for Democrats.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.[/quote]

That Kool-Aid must sure taste great!

Who are you kidding?

The GOP will keep control of the house and the Senate and it will be business as usual after the elections.

The Republicans deserve to lose but the Democrats don’t deserve to win.

BB,

Are you saying that the WH leaked the info from the NIE so they could correct this information by declassifying the NIE?

That may turn out to be a master stroke of genius.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

That Kool-Aid must sure taste great!

Who are you kidding?

The GOP will keep control of the house and the Senate and it will be business as usual after the elections.

The Republicans deserve to lose but the Democrats don’t deserve to win.[/quote]

This country is very unhappy with the way the leadership has performed. the GOP is the leadership.

So it’s out of touch to think there will be a backlash? Are you kidding?

Read it for yourself here:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Key conclusions – lots of weasel words (e.g. could, may, etc.) but that’s what you get from bureaucrats.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Even though Clinton was “obessesed” with bin Laden Bush has done far more than any other president in fighting radical Islamic terror.

Is it enough? No.

Should America and the rest of the world be making more sacrifices for the fight against this evil? Yes.

Unfortunately there are those that are using this report to say we should do less against this evil.[/quote]
Not fighting. He’s creating. It was predicted in a NIE before the war, and it’s been proven since the war.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

-Bigflamer

[/quote]

Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.

It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.

Not suprising.