the hits just keep coming: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

[boutons_]

September 24, 2006

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/john_d_negroponte/index.html?inline=nyt-per), director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said that its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said that the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says that “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/michael_v_hayden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said that the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism.

The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

=======================

All the terrorist experts agree:

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya!

[ChumpDumper]

Who the hell leaked that classified information? Kill the leakers![/neocon subject change attempt]

[xrayzebra]

Oh, the New York Times. Now there is a real American Newspaper you can trust.
Especially if your a good little liberal.

[clambake]

If you believe Bush, then you shouldn't have a problem with the NY times.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao any comment on the actual subject of the article?

[johnsmith]

Who the hell leaked that classified information? Kill the leakers![/neocon subject change attempt]


I know you are joking with this one, but seriously, I wonder who did leak the information.

Again, I'm neither left or right, I think both sides are equally as moronic. Having said that, who's to say that someone on the "left" didn't just make up all this shit and give it to a NY Times reporter? Not that we didn't pretty much know this information already and didn't really need to be an "expert" to figure it out but come on. I mean, I know that if it's in a newspaper it must be true............also, I just killed the biggest mosquito ever known to man.

[clambake]

It's laughable, their endless attempt to convince the sane that unjust killing is acceptable.

Don't be fooled! If they were truly committed they woulldn't be here simply talking the talk. If they could stomach the courage they wouldn't allow any obstacle to imped their journey to Iraq.

Thats what a true believer would do.

[ChumpDumper]

I know you are joking with this one, but seriously, I wonder who did leak the information.

Again, I'm neither left or right, I think both sides are equally as moronic. Having said that, who's to say that someone on the "left" didn't just make up all this shit and give it to a NY Times reporter? Not that we didn't pretty much know this information already and didn't really need to be an "expert" to figure it out but come on. I mean, I know that if it's in a newspaper it must be true.
More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.The administration is free to dispute the findings and the article. One would hope the Times wouldn't let anything be made up after the Blair fiasco, but this stuff looks much more difficult for someone to fabricate like Blair did his stories.

[johnsmith]

It's good to know that we have so many trustworthy government officials that just go around leaking things all the time.

[ChumpDumper]

We pretty much know all the main points of previous intel estimates as well, so it seems there are guidelines for discussing these things with the press.

[Oscar DeLa]

i dont know what it is but CHUMPDUMPED

[RandomGuy]

Information proving the administration is LYING to us?

Nah. MUST be wrong.
I have been racking my brains trying to figure out why exactly this administration was so hell-bent on Iraq. I don't think for a minute that Cheney really thought Iraq was much of a threat, and neither did most of the intelligence community, from what I have heard or seen.

The oil thing, although a small part of it, doesn't really fly with me. Iraq has oil, but I don't buy into large conspiracies. Oil security probably played a part (given Cheney's remarks) but still, I was puzzled.

Then it hit me. Election strategy. I try not to be cynical, but it is the only thing that really makes sense, given the people really running the show like Rove.

From remarks that every part of the administration made, it was convinced that this would be an easy mark. Easy in, easy out. We would be welcomed as liberators, the bad guy would go to jail or be killed, and we could just turn the whole country back to the Iraqis with few casualties.

This would make a perfect election strategy for 2004. "Look, we spread democracy, and got a bad guy who happens to be in the middle east. Remember 9-11?"

A low-cost op, like Clinton lobbing cruise missles, or the first Iraq war and the GOP would have gotten a solid plank for its platform.

THAT is an explanation that I can believe. I think the people really running the show figured on a way to advance the administration, and by extension the GOP, cherry-picked what the president saw, got him on board, then pushed it through with half-truths and innuendo.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's amazing. The same intelligence community that was a bunch of liars with respect to WMD in Iraq is suddenly preaching the gospel truth about terrorism.

Which is it?

And what spurred all the terrorism in the 80s and 90s when we hadn't invaded anything? First WTC bombing, 9/11, the Cole, AFrican embassy bombings, Saudi barrack bombings, I guess those were all spurned because radical Islamists knew this invasion of Iraq was coming.

[boutons_]

"a bunch of liars with respect to WMD in Iraq"

A signficant portion of intelligence professionals has serious doubts about Iraq's WMD. Cherry-picking the intelligence, ie, fucking lying by omission, the Repugs/WHIQ suppressed all the doubts in building their bulshit case for the "slam dunk" WMD war, slam dunk being the phrase of a WHIG-hand-picked political operative first, an intelligence professional second.

We're still waiting to hear what the Repugs did on NatSec, terrorism, and al-Quaida between Jan 01 and 9/11/01. Clinton claims the Repugs didn't even try. The silence from the Repugs has been deafening.

Please list the NatSec activiies of the Repugs between Jan and Sep 01:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

We're still waiting to hear what the Repugs did on NatSec, terrorism, and al-Quaida between Jan 01 and 9/11/01. Clinton claims the Repugs didn't even try. The silence from the Repugs has been deafening.

What the fuck did Clinton do in EIGHT YEARS? Damn boutons, you sure do smoke the democratic crack these days.

Let's see, Clinton gave nuclear technology to China, fired a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan, and withdrew from Somalia. What a bad ass....

[ChumpDumper]

It's amazing. The same intelligence community that was a bunch of liars with respect to WMD in Iraq is suddenly preaching the gospel truth about terrorism.

Which is it? We actually have good intel in Iraq now.

[boutons_]

"What the fuck did Clinton do in EIGHT YEARS?"

The record is well-known. Clinton admits he tried and failed. Now let's get back to those 8 months you and the Repugs asbolutely refuse to address:

Please list the NatSec activities of the Repugs between Jan and Sep 01:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

....

[01Snake]

"What the fuck did Clinton do in EIGHT YEARS?"

The record is well-known. Clinton admits he tried and failed. Now let's get back to those 8 months you and the Repugs asbolutely refuse to address:

Please list the NatSec activities of the Repugs between Jan and Sep 01:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

....


Unlike you Croutons, many feel that BOTH Clinton AND Bush share the blame for 9/11. Clinton didn't do dick for 8 years and Bush had his thumb up his ass once he got into the drivers seat up to 9/11.

So stop trying to peg Bush as the only one responsible.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Again, killing OBL in those eight months wouldn't have stopped 9/11.

As to what they were doing in those eight months, I don't know and don't really care. I know it's all contained (at least what is public) in the 9/11 Commission Report, why don't you go read a fucking book for once instead of your continual copy and paste bullshit from democrapticunderground?

[boutons_]

so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a fuck what dubya didn't do in the 8 months before 9/11.

Can an honest right-winger please step forward with what dubya Admin did from Jan - Sep 01. I note that the 9/11 Commission refused to place any blame, and of course the WH stone-walled and claimed executive privilege every chance they could.

sec 6, page 203

"6.5 THE NEW ADMINISTRATION’S APPROACH

The Bush administration in its first months faced many problems other than
terrorism.They included the collapse of the Middle East peace process and, in
April, a crisis over a U.S.“spy plane” brought down in Chinese territory. The
new administration also focused heavily on Russia, a new nuclear strategy that
allowed missile defenses, Europe, Mexico, and the Persian Gulf."

.....

In May, President Bush announced thatVice President Cheney would himself
lead an effort looking at preparations for managing a possible attack by
weapons of mass destruction and at more general problems of national pre=
paredness.The next few months were mainly spent organizing the effort and
bringing an admiral from the Sixth Fleet back toWashington to manage it.The
Vice President’s task force was just getting under way when the 9/11 attack
occurred.

( aka lackadaisical. The Repugs sought election to cut taxes, and that was done, now everything else is secondary. )

sec 8, p. 265

"In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat.

They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.

The borders were not hardened.

Transportation systems were not fortified.

Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.

54 State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts.

The public was not warned."

===================

IOW, we can believe the Repugs when they say "Trust us with NatSec" http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Let us not forget that the WH didn't want a 9/11 Commission. And when forced to accept the commission as unavoidable, the WH was slow to hand over documents, reluctant to co-operate. We can be very sure that the WH restricted any co-operation and documents that would have placed any blame on the Repug WH and the agencies that worked for it. Which satisfies Aggie et al just fine. Case closed. The Repug WH was free of any blame for 9/11, but Clinton is 100% responsible.


You did, and are doing, a heckuva job, dubya.

====================

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6D81E3FF93AA1575BC0A9629C8B 63&sec=&pagewanted=1

"It thus is not surprising, perhaps not even a fair criticism, that the new administration treaded water until the 9/11 attacks. But that's what it did. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, ''demoted'' Richard Clarke, the government's leading bin Laden hawk and foremost expert on Al Qaeda. It wasn't technically a demotion, but merely a decision to exclude him from meetings of the cabinet-level ''principals committee'' of the National Security Council; he took it hard, however, and requested a transfer from the bin Laden beat to cyberterrorism. The committee did not discuss Al Qaeda until a week before the 9/11 attacks. The new administration showed little interest in exploring military options for dealing with Al Qaeda, and Donald Rumsfeld had not even gotten around to appointing a successor to the Defense Department's chief counterterrorism official (who had left the government in January) when the 9/11 attacks occurred."

[Ya Vez]

Yes, that’s right—it is stating the obvious. When you fight a war against a highly motivated (read: fanatical) foe, it’s obvious that the enemy will fight back. It’s obvious that they’ll try to recruit more warriors, it’s obvious they’ll use every tool and propaganda opportunity. They may even get stronger, for a time.

It’s also become obvious recently that Western media will willingly aid the enemy spread propaganda.

Did the National Intelligence Council expect the jihadis to just surrender? Did they expect us to surrender?

Why is this even news?

[Ozzman]

"so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a fuck what dubya didn't do in the 8 months before 9/11."




so you're telling me that you're not obsessed over what bush did not do in eight months? like posting all these articles over how much bush didn't do means you're not obsessed with that? hell, that's what this whole thread is about. Hell, I blame Bush and Clinton for not doing shit. truth: clinton had Osama in his reach! Truth: Bush had a clue that 9/11 might happen. It is highly unlikely that they actually knew it would happen ahead of time. I doubt it.
:rolleyes

[boutons_]

'Western media will willingly aid the enemy spread propaganda."

The entire run up to the war by the WHIG was nothing but propaganda lies.

"Why is this even news?"

It was very old news, al-Quaida was old news, it was unimportant old shit to the Repugs who gave the war on terror no priority before 9/11.

In the fucked up ideological, anti-security, anti-Dem, polarized, divisive attitude of the Repugs:

"if terror/al-Quaida were important to the Dems, it necessarlily, automatically will be unimporant to us Repugs since the Dems had/did/were nothing of value to us Repugs. We Repugs absolutely cannot be seen to have any shared commonality, even NatSec, with the Dems."

The Repugs absolutely refused to share in the Dems fears and pre-occupations about terror until it was too late.

The Repugs ran for office to make tax cuts and fuck up the government and game the system for the corps and super-rich. Everything else was/is secondary. Even the Iraq war has nothign to do with NatSec.

As Willie said, "THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY" in their 8 month window before 9/11.

The Western media now it admits it was too complacent before the war in attacking the Repugs' pro-war bullshit, ALL of which has been shown to be pure bullshit propaganda. So your silly bashing the media a pro-terrorist is jus more "everything is everybody else's fault except the perfect, stellar Repugs". The media was the Repugs' greatest ally pre-Iraq by not doing its job.

[Ya Vez]

if iraq would not be a rallying cry for these terrorist then afghanastan would.. it's just ridiculous to think .. that all of sudden after 911 the terrorist were going to give up and go away.... just remember were not even in iraq when 911 occured....

[Ya Vez]

8 months compared to 8 years... lol... thats laughable...

[boutons_]

"if iraq would not be a rallying cry for these terrorist then afghanastan would"

Exactly. Instead having the US military drawn into one killing ground, they are wastefully in 2.

Aghanistan was already a handful for the limited US military.
Iraq has proven to be impossible with 140K troops.

Now it looks like the West/US will lose both countries to Muslim radicals.

And guess which oil-rich country borders both and has intentions of imperial regional hegemony?

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya.

[RandomGuy]

I know you are joking with this one, but seriously, I wonder who did leak the information.

Again, I'm neither left or right, I think both sides are equally as moronic. Having said that, who's to say that someone on the "left" didn't just make up all this shit and give it to a NY Times reporter? Not that we didn't pretty much know this information already and didn't really need to be an "expert" to figure it out but come on. I mean, I know that if it's in a newspaper it must be true............also, I just killed the biggest mosquito ever known to man.

The assessment is actually based in no small part on open source information.

The actual assessment is classified.

My understanding of this may be wrong, if so, someone can correct this.

[RandomGuy]

Also, in case I have not said "I told you so":

"I told you so"

This assessment says essessentially what I have been saying for years. Abu Gharaib and Gitmo were the seeds from which this has sprung. I think that message has finally reached Bush through his battallions of "yes men", and the push by the administration for trials at Gitmo is the outgrowth of this realization.

[Ya Vez]

so tell me what was the rally cry for the terrorist when they attacked us on 911 .. did they see us as weak.. as not having the balls to really confront them and go after them... did 8 years of a few missle strikes at some empty tents or asprin factories.. really embolden them to attack us like they did... tell me if were are going to have this discussion as to what really fuels the hate... tell me what it was pre-911 and pre-iraq....

[RandomGuy]

if iraq would not be a rallying cry for these terrorist then afghanastan would.. it's just ridiculous to think .. that all of sudden after 911 the terrorist were going to give up and go away.... just remember were not even in iraq when 911 occured....


No it wouldn't. Afghanistan was MUCH more justifiable, and even other islamic radicals regarded the taliban as a bunch of asshats.

If we had concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan instead of splitting them up between the two, we could have had a much better outcome, and probably would have actually gotten Bin Laden.

[RandomGuy]

It's amazing. The same intelligence community that was a bunch of liars with respect to WMD in Iraq is suddenly preaching the gospel truth about terrorism.

Which is it?

And what spurred all the terrorism in the 80s and 90s when we hadn't invaded anything? First WTC bombing, 9/11, the Cole, AFrican embassy bombings, Saudi barrack bombings, I guess those were all spurned because radical Islamists knew this invasion of Iraq was coming.

The intelligence community said "we think he has WMD's, but can't verify that".

The intelligence community was 100% right about that. The administration cherry-picked intel to support its thesis and presented that.

You are using a straw man argument.

[RandomGuy]

so tell me what was the rally cry for the terrorist when they attacked us on 911 .. did they see us as weak.. as not having the balls to really confront them and go after them... did 8 years of a few missle strikes at some empty tents or asprin factories.. really embolden them to attack us like they did... tell me if were are going to have this discussion as to what really fuels the hate... tell me what it was pre-911 and pre-iraq....

What fueled the terrorists has changed little.

Frustrated nationalism. The US was/is seen as complicit with ineffective and corrupt Middle Eastern governments.

The US did what it could feasibly do. Invading Afghanistan and getting rid of the training camps was not politically or logistically feasible until after 9-11. Sad but true.

[boutons_]

"What fueled the terrorists has changed little. Frustrated nationalism"

hmm, hardly.

US/UK "colonization" of Iran (for oil)
Israel vs Palestinians,
US support of Israel,
US military boots on sacred Saudi Arabia sand (OBL's favorite),
and then,
US/UK invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims.

Frustrated nationalism is not what drives terrorists. Their countries and societies have been corrupt and mostly despotic nations for a long time, 100s+ years. Terrorism arose only in the last few decades.

Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations.

[RandomGuy]

"What fueled the terrorists has changed little. Frustrated nationalism"

hmm, hardly.

US/UK "colonization" of Iran (for oil)
Israel vs Palestinians,
US support of Israel,
US military boots on sacred Saudi Arabia sand (OBL's favorite),
and then,
US/UK invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims.

Frustrated nationalism is not what drives terrorists. Their countries and societies have been corrupt and mostly despotic nations for a long time, 100s+ years. Terrorism arose only in the last few decades.

Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations.

I beg to differ. The "colonization" of Iran was done in the cold war as we did world wide. We propped up lots of corrupt governments world wide that didn't have oil.

"Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations" is by far too simplistic.

Did "oil" fuel the cold war?

[boutons_]

The "colonization" of Iran was done in the cold war.

that doesn't mean Iran was part of the cold war.

US/UK primary interest in IRan was oil, not as a counter to neighboring Russia.

We would not be in Iraq if it weren't for US oil dependency on M/E sources. Oil is why we aren't in Darfur or Zimbabwe.

One totally fucked up dream of the neo-cons was that the dubya/dickhead invasion would be "free", paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, some of you are trying to get out from underneath this and act as though what the administration has done hasn't made things worse? I'm flat out amazed.

[Yonivore]

Seriously, some of you are trying to get out from underneath this and act as though what the administration has done hasn't made things worse? I'm flat out amazed.
Are you trying to say that the terrorists would have stopped their attempts to kill infidels if only we hadn't invaded Iraq?

[Yonivore]

This whole argument makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province". It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region. When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

[xrayzebra]

Also, in case I have not said "I told you so":

"I told you so"

This assessment says essessentially what I have been saying for years. Abu Gharaib and Gitmo were the seeds from which this has sprung. I think that message has finally reached Bush through his battallions of "yes men", and the push by the administration for trials at Gitmo is the outgrowth of this realization.


Really, you told us so? What, there were no
terrorist before we went into Iraq. Question.
How come if they are getting so may recruits
are they having to kidnap people, hide bombs
in their car, turn them loose and then sit them
off to kill the innocents. Oh, I forgot, only
Bush kills the innocent, not the terrorist. You
are a simple minded idiot.

You have no common sense whatsoever.

[xrayzebra]

This whole argument makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province". It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region. When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

Yoni, why do you even bother to argue with these
village fools. They wouldn't accept anything you
or I say even if we told them what was going
happen and they were at the event when it occurred. Call them what they are, leave it at
that and forget it. They know they are wrong
as two left feet, ooops, maybe wrong term for
the PC crowd. Always have been and always will
be wrong. But listening to them, they are open
minded. Yeah and I am a teenager.

[PixelPusher]

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

This isn't about how the Iraq war is making the terrorists "even madder than before!", it's about how the Iraq war is radicallizing the Muslim world against us. It's not just active recruitment to various terrorist organizations, it's about the average muslim who goes to his or her mosque, and finds themselves nodding in agreement that the west really is engaged in a war against Islam. President Bush, you, me and everyone else can jump up and down as say "Not true! Not true! That's Jihadist propaganda!", but our outside-looking-in analysis doesn't match up with their everyday reality.

Palestinians voted Hamas in primarily because the more pro-western (to a degree) secular Fatah government was corrupt. The Afgani people have let Taliban militia stage a comeback without much protest because at least the Taliban don't shake down the local population for money like the newly formed Afgani military under Karzai. Educated middle class Iraqi's continue to flee their own country, and those left behind take the time and effort to learn how not to appear or sound like a Sunni/Shia when a Sunni or Shia death squad comes knocking on their door.

When Islamic leaders (religious or otherwise) preach against the evils of secular Westernism, it's hard for many of them to disagree.

We do need to offer them a better alternative to Islamic totalitarianism, and we're doing a piss poor job of doing it.

[Yonivore]

This isn't about how the Iraq war is making the terrorists "even madder than before!", it's about how the Iraq war is radicallizing the Muslim world against us. It's not just active recruitment to various terrorist organizations, it's about the average muslim who goes to his or her mosque, and finds themselves nodding in agreement that the west really is engaged in a war against Islam. President Bush, you, me and everyone else can jump up and down as say "Not true! Not true! That's Jihadist propaganda!", but our outside-looking-in analysis doesn't match up with their everyday reality.
I disagree. I think you'll find the majority of Iraqi citizens are not "radicalized by our presence there.

The terrorists hated us before March 2003 and nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred, it was already at its pinnacle.


Palestinians voted Hamas in primarily because the more pro-western (to a degree) secular Fatah government was corrupt. The Afgani people have let Taliban militia stage a comeback without much protest because at least the Taliban don't shake down the local population for money like the newly formed Afgani military under Karzai.
The places where the Taliban are making a "comeback" are places where they've propped up the poppy farmers by protecting them in exchange for extorting their profits from opium sales. They're making a resurgence by acting like the Godfather, running a protection racket in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.


Educated middle class Iraqi's continue to flee their own country, and those left behind take the time and effort to learn how not to appear or sound like a Sunni/Shia when a Sunni or Shia death squad comes knocking on their door.

When Islamic leaders (religious or otherwise) preach against the evils of secular Westernism, it's hard for many of them to disagree.

We do need to offer them a better alternative to Islamic totalitarianism, and we're doing a piss poor job of doing it.
Again, I disagree with the characterization. Your position is based on anectdote. No one claims the transition in Iraq is going swimmingly. But, progress is being made and will continue to be made so long as we provide the necessary security until that government is able to deal with these issues on its own.

[clambake]

We have to put all our resources in trying to protect Baghdad and the green zone. If it's true what our people on the ground are saying about the Anbar province, then what's the point to this useless effort?

[boutons_]

"nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred"

just fucking amazing, and enertaining. The US invading a Muslim country won't inflame Muslim hatred, among more Muslims than before?

"it was already at its pinnacle".

perfectly unprovable, and silly. Is there some kind of Muslim glass that can't be filled past overflowing with hatred? An idiotic concept.

Any reasonable observer will admit, as the NIE leaks does, that Muslim moderates or fence-sitters have very probably been radicalized by the US invading Muslim Iraq for WMD that were never found, meaning WMD were simply a pretext for US crusade against Muslims.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

This thread is hilarious, but not funny at all. You neocons are so blinded by your ideological loyalty that you won't even accept the findings of your own people. If the Democrats predicted the sun would rise tomorrow, you'd try to deny that too. OPEN YOUR FREAKIN EYES! You are so stuck inside your own frame you can't see what's right in front of you.


so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a fuck what dubya didn't do in the 8 months before 9/11."

so you're telling me that you're not obsessed over what bush did not do in eight months? like posting all these articles over how much bush didn't do means you're not obsessed with that? hell, that's what this whole thread is about. Hell, I blame Bush and Clinton for not doing shit. truth: clinton had Osama in his reach! Truth: Bush had a clue that 9/11 might happen. It is highly unlikely that they actually knew it would happen ahead of time. I doubt it.

Richard Clarke knew it was going to happen. On Bush's first day in office he urgently requested a meeting with the President about Al Qaida. When did he get that meeting? September 12. That sounds a little negligent to me.

[Ozzman]

"nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred"

just fucking amazing, and enertaining. The US invading a Muslim country won't inflame Muslim hatred, among more Muslims than before?

"it was already at its pinnacle".

perfectly unprovable, and silly. Is there some kind of Muslim glass that can't be filled past overflowing with hatred? An idiotic concept.

Any reasonable observer will admit, as the NIE leaks does, that Muslim moderates or fence-sitters have very probably been radicalized by the US invading Muslim Iraq for WMD that were never found, meaning WMD were simply a pretext for US crusade against Muslims.

I have to say that you happen to be right on this matter.

[boutons_]

ozzman, even a blind squirrel like you finds a nut once in a while.

[MannyIsGod]

This thread is hilarious, but not funny at all. You neocons are so blinded by your ideological loyalty that you won't even accept the findings of your own people. If the Democrats predicted the sun would rise tomorrow, you'd try to deny that too. OPEN YOUR FREAKIN EYES! You are so stuck inside your own frame you can't see what's right in front of you.

Richard Clarke knew it was going to happen. On Bush's first day in office he urgently requested a meeting with the President about Al Qaida. When did he get that meeting? September 12. That sounds a little negligent to me.

[velik_m]

I disagree. I think you'll find the majority of Iraqi citizens are not "radicalized by our presence there.

The terrorists hated us before March 2003 and nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred, it was already at its pinnacle.


The places where the Taliban are making a "comeback" are places where they've propped up the poppy farmers by protecting them in exchange for extorting their profits from opium sales. They're making a resurgence by acting like the Godfather, running a protection racket in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.


Again, I disagree with the characterization. Your position is based on anectdote. No one claims the transition in Iraq is going swimmingly. But, progress is being made and will continue to be made so long as we provide the necessary security until that government is able to deal with these issues on its own.


from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stm:


The US Department of Defense has now provided another measure of the problem it faces. Its latest opinion poll carried out in Iraq indicates that, among the five million Sunni Muslims there, about 75% now support the armed insurgency against the coalition.

This compares with 14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department carried out back in 2003. It is a catastrophic loss of support, and there is no sign whatever that it can be effectively reversed.
i guess The US Department of Defense is unpatriotic/pro-terrorist too.

[PixelPusher]

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stm:

The US Department of Defense has now provided another measure of the problem it faces. Its latest opinion poll carried out in Iraq indicates that, among the five million Sunni Muslims there, about 75% now support the armed insurgency against the coalition.

This compares with 14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department carried out back in 2003. It is a catastrophic loss of support, and there is no sign whatever that it can be effectively reversed.

i guess The US Department of Defense is unpatriotic/pro-terrorist too.

hm...must be one of those "anecdotal" pieces of evidence Yoni is talking about. :angel

[RandomGuy]

The "colonization" of Iran was done in the cold war.

that doesn't mean Iran was part of the cold war.

US/UK primary interest in IRan was oil, not as a counter to neighboring Russia.

We would not be in Iraq if it weren't for US oil dependency on M/E sources. Oil is why we aren't in Darfur or Zimbabwe.

One totally fucked up dream of the neo-cons was that the dubya/dickhead invasion would be "free", paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

The US was everywhere in the cold war, not just Iran. I don't know how old you are, but I am just old enough to remember the "gotta fight them commies" mental attitude of much of the US. If we were there for the oil, why did we "let" the Shah fall without reinstalling him?

Our reasons for going into Iraq are a *bit* more complicated than just oil.

[boutons_]

"why did we "let" the Shah fall without reinstalling him?"

The US couldn't even defend their Teheran US embassy, but you ask why the US couldn't overturn a revolution in a country of 60+ million people?

[RandomGuy]

"why did we "let" the Shah fall without reinstalling him?"

The US couldn't even defend their Teheran US embassy, but you ask why the US couldn't overturn a revolution in a country of 60+ million people?

So the oil they had wasn't important?

[boutons_]

Oil was the over-riding primary reason the US was interested in Iraq, but even that reason can be offset by a revolution.

As we see in the US inability to stabilize Iraq AND keep the oil flowing, the US decision not to try overturn the Iranina revolutoin was the right one.

[RandomGuy]

Oil was the over-riding primary reason the US was interested in Iraq, but even that reason can be offset by a revolution.

As we see in the US inability to stabilize Iraq AND keep the oil flowing, the US decision not to try overturn the Iranina revolutoin was the right one.

That's not what I asked.

If Iran has oil, and oil is the most important thing to the US government, why did the US government allow Iran to seize the oilfeilds from the US?

[boutons_]

Because the cost of maintaining the oil fields under US/UK/foreign control, overturning the Iranian revolution, was too fucking high.

[RandomGuy]

Because the cost of maintaining the oil fields under US/UK/foreign control, overturning the Iranian revolution, was too fucking high.

If oil is so important, why was it not done despite any cost?

If oil is the overriding priority, as you claim, why not go in guns blazing anyways?

[Yonivore]

One of the sinister aspects of leaks of classified information is that they are by nature selective. The leaker has access to lots of material, but he doesn't leak it all: he only leaks what he thinks will best serve his political agenda.

The recent leaks of alleged conclusions from the National Intelligence Estimate that was completed last spring -- that's right, about 6 months ago -- is a perfect case in point.

But what does the report really say? In From the Cold (http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-of-what-you-wont-read-in-nyt.html), a web site operated by a former intelligence officer with 20 years' experience, has obtained access to portions, at least, of the intelligence agencies' report. If you are interested in this story, you should read it all. Here are a few excerpts:


Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror.
In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community.

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On balance, it appears that the NIE supports the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror. Why, then, did the Washington Post and the New York Times report so selectively and misleadingly? In From the Cold wants to know, and so do I:


Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.
Sadly, I don't think the answers to these questions are much in doubt. The bureaucrat leakers are Democrats who wanted to advance their party's interests, and the reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post were also Democrats, and were happy to oblige. The bottom line is that you just can't get adequate information from these news sources. Their grotesque biases outweigh the resources that, in theory, they are able to devote to covering the news. They can't even provide a balanced account of a single bureaucratic report, let alone of a war.

[Yonivore]

Bush to Release Part of Intel Assessment (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCL1PG0.html)


Bush said he had directed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don't compromise national security. The National Intelligence Estimate was written in April.

"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.
Oooops! I smell a backfire.

[Yonivore]

Dems Lose Vote for Closed House Session (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCML182.html)


Pelosi surprised even most of her fellow Democrats in offering the motion. She said she was not trying to use the closed session for political purposes, but rather to discuss a serious assessment that is relevant to Iraq and U.S. national security. She wants to see the administration declassify the document _ without using a selective lens.

"Quite frankly, my view is that any responsible declassification will change the course of this debate on Iraq," she said.
She's got her wish.

[clambake]

How can you say it's people with a political agenda. Maybe it's whistleblowers that have tired of watching their country circle the drain. These intelligence reports are coming from the same agencies (perhaps assuming a different title) that existed when Bush threw us into Iraq. I don't care what it suggests on any level. It hasn't earned the right to be respected.

But, then again, if it weren't for Bush we probably wouldn't be here to read it, right YONI.

[Yonivore]

How can you say it's people with a political agenda.
Because of what they chose to leak.

Obviously, there's more to the report -- and reportedly more positive than negative -- than what the New York Times and Washington Post got from their leakers.

And, as for being whistleblowers, even the CIA and NSA have procedures and inspectors general to handle internal complaints. Also, there's always the Congress. It should be just as easy for them to leak classified material to their elected officials as it is to the media.

Nah, these aren't whistleblowers...their traitors.

[boutons_]

So dubya and his team did pretty much the same stuff the Clinton and his team did, but why does Clinton get all the blame for 9/11, but Repugs say they actually did EFFECTIVELY the same as Clinton and get no blame?

So let's narrow it down, from June to 9/11, when chatter was extremely high about attacks, and hijackings, and "planes into buildings", what did the Repugs do ? As the 9/11 Commission report stated, in watered down terms, the Repugs did NOTHING in response.

Even if the Repugs can be shown to have done approximately the same old shit about terrorism and al-Quaida that Clinton did, the Repugs had 8 months of opportunity, and the "chatter", to do something distinctively and effectively different from and better than Clinton, and the Repugs blew their opporunity.

The WTC attack occurred 8 months into the period when the Repugs were responsible exclusively for NatSec, and the Repugs INACTION permitted the WTC attack to occur.

The Repugs are responsible for not defending America against the 9/11 attack.

[clambake]

Going to internal affairs is like going to the company's attorney.

You'll never be heard from again.

[clambake]

It was on their watch, but also a stroke of bad luck.

[Yonivore]

Going to internal affairs is like going to the company's attorney.

You'll never be heard from again.
If you haven't tried that route, you have no defense for leaking.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Because of what they chose to leak.

Obviously, there's more to the report -- and reportedly more positive than negative -- than what the New York Times and Washington Post got from their leakers.

And, as for being whistleblowers, even the CIA and NSA have procedures and inspectors general to handle internal complaints. Also, there's always the Congress. It should be just as easy for them to leak classified material to their elected officials as it is to the media.

Nah, these aren't whistleblowers...their traitors.


Or Patriots who see their country being deceived and destroyed

[Yonivore]

Or Patriots who see their country being deceived and destroyed
Releasing cherry-picked and bias information from the NIE was deceptive and destructive.

[clambake]

For the time being you can call them traitors and I'll call them hero's. If you think attacking a country without provacation doesn't unite people to fight back, then your in fantasy land. Of course it will endanger our country even more. You can't get rid of wasp by creating more of them.

[Yonivore]

For the time being you can call them traitors and I'll call them hero's. If you think attacking a country without provacation doesn't unite people to fight back, then your in fantasy land. Of course it will endanger our country even more. You can't get rid of wasp by creating more of them.
It's not the majority of Iraqis that are fighting back. It is a minority Sunni insurgency with the help of ex-patriate al Qaeda terrorists.

The majority of Iraqis are in favor of the liberation. How do you explain the cooperation and advance of the entire Iraqi military?

No one has claimed that pissing off the terrorists wouldn't make them more violent. I think the violence in Iraq is a direct indication of just how desperate the terrorists are to win there. So, why there?

[101A]

I am singularly impressed with your arguments in this thread, Yoni.

You have defended what many with opposing views, and some with similar views to yours, thought impossible to defend.

Well done.

Oh, and RG, you tripped up the Boutons algorithim pretty well, also.

[Yonivore]

I am singularly impressed with your arguments in this thread, Yoni.

You have defended what many with opposing views, and some with similar views to yours, thought impossible to defend.

Well done.

Oh, and RG, you tripped up the Boutons algorithim pretty well, also.
As anyone will tell you, they're not entirely my arguments but I entirely agree with what I post.

[ChumpDumper]

Bush to Release Part of Intel Assessment (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCL1PG0.html)


Oooops! I smell a backfire.
One of the sinister aspects of leaks of classified information is that they are by nature selective. The leaker has access to lots of material, but he doesn't leak it all: he only leaks what he thinks will best serve his political agenda.Replace "leaker" with "President."

[xrayzebra]

Oil was the over-riding primary reason the US was interested in Iraq, but even that reason can be offset by a revolution.

As we see in the US inability to stabilize Iraq AND keep the oil flowing, the US decision not to try overturn the Iranina revolutoin was the right one.

So much for boutons knowledge of history. Ask
Jimmy Carter why Iran had a revolution. Ask
him why he wouldn't protect our embassy personnel, why he gutted our military so it
couldn't even mount a rescue operation.

And then ask why the Iran's released our
Embassy personnel when Reagan was elected.

Well boutons, can you answer even one of those
questions. Intelligently, without the use of the
"F" word and it is all Bush's fault.

Oh, one other thing, might want to ask him
why interest rates went to 20 percent while we
had a recession.

[xrayzebra]

Oh is anyone aware that President Bush has declassified
the whole report so everyone can read the complete
report. Dimm-o-craps must really love that.

Guess Bush is really, really, really afraid what the
report really says. Huh?

[Yonivore]

Oh is anyone aware that President Bush has declassified
the whole report so everyone can read the complete
report. Dimm-o-craps must really love that.

Guess Bush is really, really, really afraid what the
report really says. Huh?
Yeah, because the President has the authority to declassify the report...unlike the leakers.

[Yonivore]

I believe there is good reason to think that the Times and Post stories do not fairly represent the report in its entirety. I haven't read the report. But Senator John Cornyn of Texas has, and he would like to see the report declassified, to the greatest extent possible, and made public:


We should all recognize the delicate balance, particularly in wartime, between national security and the public's right to know. But I am a strong advocate for open government and believe that on an issue this important, the report should be declassified to the greatest extent possible so that the American people can reach their own conclusions based on a full and accurate reading of the report, rather than having to rely on cherry-picked information by the New York Times and others. This selective leaking, and selective reporting, is unfortunate. But after having reviewed this report myself, I am confident in the ability of the American people to form their own conclusions and recognize for themselves, the importance of aggressively prosecuting the war on terror.
That's a pretty good indication, I think, that the selective leaks were as misleading as many thought they might be.

Nancy Pelosi either just farted or I heard a backfire coming from the left side of the aisle.

[ChumpDumper]

Ask Jimmy Carter why Iran had a revolution.Because we overthrew their democratically elected government two decades before to install a dictator who would give Britain and us his oil rights.
And then ask why the Iran's released our Embassy personnel when Reagan was elected.Well, that administration ended up selling the Iranians 1000 TOW missles in order to circumvent Congress, so cooperation in other areas doesn't seem impossible.

[xrayzebra]

^^About what I expected. Nice try but a complete
miss on both counts.

[ChumpDumper]

How is the truth a complete miss?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So much for boutons knowledge of history. Ask
Jimmy Carter why Iran had a revolution. Ask
him why he wouldn't protect our embassy personnel, why he gutted our military so it
couldn't even mount a rescue operation.

And then ask why the Iran's released our
Embassy personnel when Reagan was elected.

Well boutons, can you answer even one of those
questions. Intelligently, without the use of the
"F" word and it is all Bush's fault.

Oh, one other thing, might want to ask him
why interest rates went to 20 percent while we
had a recession.


gutted our military? the guy was in office for 4 yrs? If I were to follow your logic Bush has decimated the military because our troops were sent over without enough body armor or vehicles with armored plates? Bush has been in 5+ years? Of course he supports the troops!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh is anyone aware that President Bush has declassified
the whole report so everyone can read the complete
report. Dimm-o-craps must really love that.

Guess Bush is really, really, really afraid what the
report really says. Huh?


He's only releasing a portion.. :lol maybe he does have something to hide!! :lol

[RandomGuy]

So much for boutons knowledge of history. Ask
Jimmy Carter why Iran had a revolution. Ask
him why he wouldn't protect our embassy personnel, why he gutted our military so it
couldn't even mount a rescue operation.

And then ask why the Iran's released our
Embassy personnel when Reagan was elected.

Well boutons, can you answer even one of those
questions. Intelligently, without the use of the
"F" word and it is all Bush's fault.

Oh, one other thing, might want to ask him
why interest rates went to 20 percent while we
had a recession.

The fed chairman at the time didn't want to be seen as influencing the election and sat on the federal rate until afterwards.

Ask me another one. :angel

[Yonivore]

He's only releasing a portion.. :lol maybe he does have something to hide!! :lol

Bush to release part of Intel Assessment (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCL1PG0.html)


Bush said he had directed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don't compromise national security. The National Intelligence Estimate was written in April.

"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.
And, GGA, you can be sure it'll include the portions already leaked plus information that counters that. Which, by the way, is more than the traitorous leakers did.

Obviously, it is the leakers that had something to hide. It's called the truth.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao It took a long time to break out the T word, didn't it?

[boutons_]

"leakers that had something to hide."

People who have read report but can't discuss it say the 36 pages not released by the WH are just as bad, if not worse, for the WH as the 4 pages that were released.

Perhaps Fox and other Murdoch mouthpieces will have people that say the other 36 pages totally justify the Repug Iraq fiasco as actually advancing US interests against terrorists. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

The WH claims "protecting methods" for not releasing all 40 pages while in fact the WH is simply protecting its ass by hiding the other 36 pages.

The WHIG hid serious doubts in the intelligence community about WMD in Iraq. half-truth, distortions, and outright lies are the coin of the dubya's Exec branch. Nothing new here, same old impeachable shit.

[ChumpDumper]

I just read the released document.

It pretty much reinforces what was said in the traitorous leak articles.

[boutons_]

Yes, the release stops all the "speculation" about the leak.

We now know, thank you dubya, that the actual document confirmed the leak as accurate.

Of course, Yoni will claim the other 36 pages, unseen, totally offset and refute the release 4 pages. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

He's furiously Googling the blogosphere to help him spin this.

[Yonivore]

He's furiously Googling the blogosphere to help him spin this.
Actually, I'm looking for the document. Care to provide a link? If not, you'll just have to wait until I've found it and read it.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You posted in the thread that has the full text and two links in it!

[Yonivore]

:lol You posted in the thread that has the full text and two links in it!
Well, I have boutons on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[Yonivore]

Okay, I've read it and come away with this:

The war in Afghanistan is as much responsible for dispersing and diffusing the terrorists into smaller, decentralized groups as is the war in Iraq so. In fact, page one, where this is mentioned, does not say it is Iraq that has done so but "American-led antiterrorist activities."

Would you have had us not attack terrorists?

Page 2 and 3 talk about our activities in Iraq from the perspective that if the terrorist feel they have won there, they are emboldened but, if they feel they have lost there, fewer jihadists will likely feel called to join the cause.

So, in the words of the NIE, Iraq is the make or break "cause celebe" of the terrorists. I say we break 'em.

Kind of what Bush is saying if you ask me.

Oh, and one more thing, this NIE is dated April. At least one favorable factor they mention has occurred, Zarqawi is dead. But, back to the April date, why do you think it was "leaked" now? And why do you think the portions that tend to support our action weren't leaked as well?

[ChumpDumper]

The war in Afghanistan is as much responsible for dispersing and diffusing the terrorists into smaller, decentralized groups as is the war in Iraq so.Yeah, Afghanistan is the cause celebre. The quote is right there. Oh wait, it isn't. Iraq is listed as one of the four underlying factors for the spread of the jihadist movement. Not Afghanistan.
Page 2 and 3 talk about our activities in Iraq from the perspective that if the terrorist feel they have won there, they are emboldened but, if they feel they have lost there, fewer jihadists will likely feel called to join the cause.

So, in the words of the NIE, Iraq is the make or break "cause celebe" of the terrorists. I say we break 'em.

Kind of what Bush is saying if you ask me.Actually he said we're just waiting for the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down.
At least one favorable factor they mention has occurred, Zarqawi is dead.Yeah, and his death really weakened the movement, didn't it?
But, back to the April date, why do you think it was "leaked" now? And why do you think the portions that tend to support our action weren't leaked as well?If that's the strongest supporting portion of the document, there's not much to it is there?

[boutons_]

"why do you think the portions that tend to support our action weren't leaked as well?"

uh, you mean in the other 36 pages the WH doesn't want us to see?

I was surprised the WH didn't release more of the report, since these 4 pages overwhelmingly support the idea that the Iraq war is NOT advancing the US war on terror.

Al-Quaida is well established in Iraq now, even acting as de facto government in some towns and regions. THAT's really "progress" for dubya and dickhead. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

"why do you think the portions that tend to support our action weren't leaked as well?"

uh, you mean in the other 36 pages the WH doesn't want us to see?

I was surprised the WH didn't release more the report, since these 4 pages overwhelmingly support the idea that the Iraq war is NOT advancing the US war on terror.True. Yoni really thought the traitors were in for it when the "real" story came out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni,

Don't you think the public has a right to know if the Iraq war has caused terrorism to grow rather than slow? I know alot of folks will play politics with issues like this but we have a right to know. It seems like the WH releases items that benefit them politically and fight like hell to stop anything that counters what they have been publicly saying. All along Bush and 5 deferremnt Dick knew of this asessment yet went along their way critcizing dems and mocking them with "we have not had an attack since 9/11" as a way of showing success. Well they obviously knew what this NIE stated yet they chose not pass that along and carry on politicizing the war..

Now Yoni before you start calling people traitors I did not remember reading anything that has been released so far in this assessment that refers to military tactics or strategies that could cause harm to our soldiers. My definition of a traitor is not someone who leaks information that won't be released by the WH especially when it contradicts their rationale for war. We have a right to know.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao It took a long time to break out the T word, didn't it?

The thing about that is the Bush almost always tells at least part of the truth. So much so that he crossed the border of cynical lying a long time ago. It is one thing to make your case. It is another to completely ignore reality.

Before I read the excerpt I will bet a good chunk of money that it only deals with homeland security.

I think it will simply back up what an administration spokesman said the other day:

(half-truth)
We have strengthened internal security, decreasing our exposure to the risk of attack.

What will not be declassified is the part that puts this half-truth in the proper context:
(whole truth)
We have reduced our exposure to risk by strengthening internal security, but our failed foreign policy has increased our overall level of risk faster than we have reduced our exposure. Bush's actions have directly increased the overall risk of attack.

When seen in the context of the whole truth, the half-truth is easily exposed for what it is: lying by omission.

I will now read what has been declassified and see if my prediction based on past administration lying behavior is correct.

(begin edit)

Ooops. Have to wait until it is published somewhere on the 'net. I thought that the link that Yoni gave actually had the text of the declassified document.

[Yonivore]

I believe the released "Key Judgements" document, taken as a whole, shows that the leaks given to the New York Times and Washington Post were so incomplete and unrepresentative as to be wildly misleading, as were the stories those papers wrote based on the leaks. I also believe that as much of the remaining report as can be will be released as soon as they are through redacting source and methods information.

You may recall the exchange that prompted the news of the declassification. The AP's Jennifer Loven, one of the most partisan reporters in that highly partisan stable, asked a tendentious question about the NIE, in response to which President Bush announced that he had ordered the report's conclusions declassified so that the American people can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Ms. Loven lost no time, once the report was made available, in continuing her attack on the administration in the guise of news reporting. Here is how she and a colleague characterized the report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence) and, not surprisingly, it differs little from the leftist commentary being posted in this forum:


The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's portrayal of a world growing safer.
In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

Bush and his top advisers have said the formerly classified assessment of global terrorism supported their arguments that the world is safer because of the war. But more than three pages of stark judgments warning about the spread of terrorism contrasted with the administration's glass-half-full declarations.
Okay, please keep the next statement in mind.


Virtually all assessments of the current situation were bad news. The report's few positive notes were couched in conditional terms, depending on successful completion of difficult tasks ahead for the U.S. and its allies.
The Associated Press is apparently relying on the assumption that hardly anyone will read the report's conclusions. Here are a few significant items that, with just one exception, Loven and her colleague didn't see fit to mention:


United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.

We assess that 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.
An argument against the "cut-and-run" strategy of Murtha, et. al.


Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Again, why it is so critical to win in Iraq.


Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social and political reform in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit.
The administration's strategy of bringing reform to the Muslim world is intended to address factors 1, 3, and 4.


Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audience they seek to persuade.

Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism.
Again, a chief goal of the administration's Iraq policy.


This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa'ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
This means that veteran, non-Iraqi jihadists are now focusing their attentions on that country, rather than on places like Europe and the United States.

the NIE is very much a mixed bag, with a lot of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. But, given the assessments noted above, which are not only positive but also reinforce the importance of the goals the Bush administration is pursuing--victory in Iraq and reform, eventually, in the Arab world--the AP's characterization of the report as "bleak" is ridiculous, and its claim that "[v]irtually all assessments of the current situation were bad news" is simply false. In fact, the majority of the report speaks to how the Bush strategy is the most promising way in which to defeat and contain the Islamic extremists.

Beyond the misreporting of the NIE, what strikes me most about it is what a useless document it is. It is couched in such generalities that I don't see what use the President, or anyone else, could make of it for policy-making purposes. I would hope that if we saw the whole report, there would be substance that is not reflected in the "key judgments." If not, if I were President, I would send it back to the agencies it came from with a request to tell me something I didn't already know.

Another thing that strikes me is how, in light of these assumptions, our best defense is the fact we've long had a culture that largely assimilates immigrants and that, with few exceptions, there is little incentive for Muslims already in the United States to radicalize and become jihadists...except for the fact there are so many non-Muslim Americans being radicalized themselves by the perceptions they have of our global war against terrorism and their view of the Operation Iraqi Freedom in particular.

Combine this with our constantly-under-attack but functioning NSA initiatives and I think that, more than anything else, our inclusiveness of Muslims in society can be attributed with there not being any terrorist attacks on this country since September 11.

Not so for Europe whose policies have tended to marginalize the Muslim community and sequester them in substandard communities where they fester and become suspceptible to the propagandist efforts against a backdrop not tempered by inclusion or assimilation.

At least in America, Muslims see the other side of the coin. They see those of us who understand America's Iraqi policy and its long-term implications for a better, more stable, Middle East.

It is worth mentioning here that Iraq was a cause celebre before it was a cause celebre. What motivated Osama Bin Laden to order the destruction of America in 1996 was the U.N. sanctions and the No-fly zone put in place and maintained by George H. W. Bush and William J. Clinton. Osama's fatwa specifically condemns William Perry! not Donald Rumsfeld in what was effectively the death warrant of the World Trade Center and the USS Cole. Among the grievances cited in his Fatwa was the defilement of Saudi soil by the American force gathered to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. In short, the provocation that brought down the World Trade Center was not Operation Iraqi Freedom but Operation Desert Storm.


Those youths will not ask you (William Perry) for explanations, they will tell you singing there is nothing between us need to be explained, there is only killing and neck smiting. ... O William, tomorrow you will know which young man is confronting your misguided brethren! A youth fighting in smile, returning with the spear coloured red. ...

The crusader army became dust when we detonated al-Khobar With courageous youth of Islam fearing no danger If (they are) threatened: The tyrants will kill you, they reply my death is a victory I did not betrayed that king, he did betray our Qiblah And he permitted in the holy country the most filthy sort of humans. I have made an oath by Allah, the Great, to fight who ever rejected the faith ...

The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms and finance. More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children.
It may be that no adequate substitute can be found for Iraq, either as a propaganda cause or a training ground for Jihadis; and that therefore it would be in American national interest to withdraw from it, on the argument that no alternative cause celebre can be found.

Against that proposition, however, should be set the NIE judgement that success in Iraq would weaken the radical Islamist cause and that therefore an American failure would boost the Jihad. This reveals the deep interplay between perception and battlefield kinetics that runs through the NIE excerpts. As a kinetic battlefield Iraq is neither the first nor the last over which America and its enemies will struggle. There is nothing inherently unique about it. What is singular is the mechanism that generates favorable perceptions for the Jihad from any battlefield. The system that energizes the Jihad from any battlefield that is input into it; that turns every battle against radical Islamism into a cause celebre is a much more general threat.

Unless some means is found for delinking the process of fighting terrorism from the process of radicalizing Western Muslims, there is no particular gain from abandoning Iraq, unless one were prepared to abandon every other active battlefield. What is the sense of removing one load of grist if the mill keeps on running? Consequently the one thing the Press left out of discussing the NIE, which heavily emphasizes the role of perception, is the role of the Press itself. Iraq the battlefield -- with its success and failures -- is largely what the combatants have made it. Iraq the symbol is largely the manufacture of observers. Both are factors in the War on Terror.

In judging the effects of perception versus reality the key issue is which is controlling, perception or reality? Because if perceptions can be formed independent of reality, then it really doesn't matter what you do: the only thing that matters is what people present. In this specific case, Osama bin Laden explicitly accuses American-enforced UN sanctions in the nostalgic era of containment of killing 600,000 Iraqi children. Whatever one may think of Kofi Annan, the Oil for Food Program or the sagacity of President Bill Clinton, it is doubtful whether those sanctions caused the death of 600,000 children.

If anything, the corruption of that system by Saddam Hussein and our erstwhile allies, Germany, France, Russia, and the U.N. itself were the cause of any hardships endured by the Iraqi population through the diversion of OFF funds to regime projects -- military and for the purposes of the elite.

Besides and maybe tangential to this, if what Osama was claiming were true, then obviously Operation Iraqi Freedom, if it achieved nothing else, stopped a genocide of historic proportions. But despite the fact that nothing of those sort of deaths happened, reality didn't matter. That Osama bin Laden perceived 600,000 children to have died in Iraq was enough reason to condemn America to death. Osama's fatwa is a clear example of perception making reality unnecessary. No adjustment in policy, no alteration of reality could have changed the picture for Osama because he was receiving his transmissions from an alternate universe. And for so long as he believed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were being starved by America -- certainly fed by bleeding-heart liberals wanting to lift the sanctions under the same misconception-- that perception was enough to cause September 11 no matter what anyone did. Hence, any solution to the problem of the chronic and seething anger of the Islamic world has to address the question of how perception can depart so completely from actuality. If reality by itself doesn't matter, then the root of today's world crisis must partially lie in the way we generate our perceptions.

Finally, if you're going to claim that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists and, as such, we should withdraw then you have to consider all the other "cause celebres" invoked by the terrorists and, similarly, cease those actions. In other words, capitulate, surrender, and just give up then see where Islamic Extremism takes us in the absence of any opposition.

[RandomGuy]

The full text of the released document is here:

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

I will get into why Yoni's post is 80% BS later. This will be gooood.

[boutons_]

"why it is so critical to win in Iraq."

If it's so critical to win in Iraq (I fully agree that it is), why aren't Repugs putting in enough troops to win?

It's obvious, and has been even before the invasion to everybody honest and serious, that 140K troops isn't enough.

If it's so critical to win in Iraq, why aren't the red-state dubya-electors having the courage of their voting convictions and enlisting in the 100s of 1000s to go assure this critical win?

"if you're going to claim that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists and, as such, we should withdraw"

Trying to frame the logic and phrasing is always profoundly dishonest from the right wingers. Yoni is a fucking joker.

Here's another, completely sensible logic which is more honest:

"if you're going to claim that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, then, after you've made the strategic mistake of starting the war/inciting terrorists unnecessarily, then you absolutely must win that war, and keep it won."

... which means putting in 400K troops to stop the violence, then paying 10s or 100s of $Bs for reconstruction, then stationing several 100K US troops in Iraq for a decade or more to make sure the country stays stable and peaceful. All the while, the real state-terrorism countries of Syria and Iran will be doing their damndest to make hell for the US troops, to say nothing of al-Qaida.

The Repugs aren't doing what it takes to win the Iraq war, and they won't do it, either.

The Repugs are losing Iraq, not the Dems, not the war dissenters.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya.

[RandomGuy]

CLICHÉ ALERT--------------CLICHÉ ALERT--------------------------- CLICHÉ ALERT
“Liberal media distorts all the good things Bush administration does.”

Yoni would have you believe that somehow the AP report is absolutely baseless and inaccurate. I have given the link to the declassified document, read it and then read the AP article. I really don’t see that the AP article is anything less than forthcoming. It is actually pretty fair and balanced, and provides some meaningful context.

Yoni would not be satisfied with anything less than cheerleading for the administration.

Emblematic of Yoni’s partisanship and general level of BS is in the following:


“The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US 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.”

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.


The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's portrayal of a world growing safer.
In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

Everything in the AP report is backed up almost word for word by the assessment.

The only thing not in the assessment is the “at odds with President Bush’s portrayal of a world growing safer”.

One does not have to look far to find statements from the president saying that the “world is safer”. We can safely conclude that this too is accurate.

What Yoni takes very great pains and many paragraphs to gloss over is that the balance of the document really does contradict the administration’s spin on how things are going.

He then goes on to diminish its importance. At the risk of bringing up the “h” word, does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Does anyone truly doubt that if the assessment had gone the other way, Yoni would be saying exactly the opposite?

[RandomGuy]

I think the time has come for the real "cut and run" decision.

Is the damage caused by staying worse than the damage caused by leaving?

Before I weigh in, anybody want to give a brief "gut" answer?

[boutons_]

"time has come for the real "cut and run" decision."

I fully disagree. The Repugs and red-staters absolutely have to win in Iraq, and they better get 400K troops over there ASAP and get on with it. Losing Iraq is NOT an option.

Leaving Iraq now or soon would see the sectarian civil war explode so much as to make the current civil war looks like target practice. Iran, Syria would pour in support, and al Qaida would pour in foreign terrorist to sets up camp. THEN we'd have a real threat from Iraq to US interests, since that kind of Shiite Iraq would be a real threat to all the Sunni Gulf states, to say nothing of the threat to Israel.

[RandomGuy]

"time has come for the real "cut and run" decision."

I fully disagree. The Repugs and red-staters absolutely have to win in Iraq, and they better get 400K troops over there ASAP and get on with it. Losing Iraq is NOT an option.

Leaving Iraq now or soon would see the sectarian civil war explode so much as to make the current civil war looks like target practice. Iran, Syria would pour in support, and al Qaida would pour in foreign terrorist to sets up camp. THEN we'd have a real threat from Iraq to US interests, since that kind of Shiite Iraq would be a real threat to all the Sunni Gulf states, to say nothing of the threat to Israel.

Hypothetical:

How bad would it have to get in Iraq for you to make the call to go?

[clambake]

My "gut" feeling is we have to stay if only for the innocent who have lost family members and now live in fear on a minute by minute basis. We owe them for having a president that lied to his people to justify a war that should never have been fought. We owe the families that have and will continue to bury their sons and daughters for the goals of this asshole that claims to be a "War President". We can't let all these wasted lives be an asterisk to what will amount to the biggest blunder in Americas history.

[Yonivore]

My "gut" feeling is we have to stay if only for the innocent who have lost family members and now live in fear on a minute by minute basis. We owe them for having a president that lied to his people to justify a war that should never have been fought. We owe the families that have and will continue to bury their sons and daughters for the goals of this asshole that claims to be a "War President". We can't let all these wasted lives be an asterisk to what will amount to the biggest blunder in Americas history.
I know that you and ChumpDumper and many others will go to your graves believing this is the biggest atrocity ever committed by a U. S. President.

I happen to believe history will show this as the turning point in world history when the last of the great disputes between civilizations was at least begun to be resolved...after decades of it festering under the surface and centuries of it being fought on the battlefields.

I think it'd be cool to have this all done before I die, but I doubt it will be. I do think we'll see a peaceful and democratic Iraq. I also think we'll see a decline in terrorism and a general rejection of Islamic extremism by the average Muslim on the street.

I also believe there are generations of Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites, as well as those who just plain opposed Saddam Hussein, and whose families were tortured and murdered by the hundreds of thousands who disagree with your assessment of the situation.

[ChumpDumper]

I know that you and ChumpDumper and many others will go to your graves believing this is the biggest atrocity ever committed by a U. S. President.Nah, it was a horrible lapse in judgment and a missed opportunity.
I happen to believe history will show this as the turning point in world history when the last of the great disputes between civilizations was at least begun to be resolved.And Bush helped to set back that process by years if not decades.
I do think we'll see a peaceful and democratic Iraq.I think we'll see a peaceful and democratic Kurdistan and genocide and strife elsewhere in Iraq until the opposing ethnic groups are seperated or killed off.

[boutons_]

"for you to make the call to go"

For me to go personally? Technically, I'm too old.

But I wouldn't serve dubya and the Repugs anway. No fucking way. If there is a draft, I'm going to advise my kids to disappear.

Ideologically, the red-state voters voted in dubya, they can send their kids to the slaughter.

In fact, I think the Dems should push their own "Repug voter registration drive" such that voting Repug means your kids get drafted first for phony Repug wars, since obviously red-state kids don't want to volunteer to fight in Iraq in sufficient numbers to win Iraq. I'd like to see dubya's two girls in full Iraq camo, driving humvees and risking their comfortable lives and/or pretty limbs and faces for dubya's bullshit war.

[Yonivore]

Nah, it was a horrible lapse in judgment and a missed opportunity.
Well, color me shocked. That's certainly a more conciliatory characterization than I can ever recall you posting before.


And Bush helped to set back that process by years if not decades.
There had been no progress in the process in decades. The last positive development was when Egypt made peace with Israel. It's all been downhill -- and swept under the rug -- since then.


I think we'll see a peaceful and democratic Kurdistan and genocide and strife elsewhere in Iraq until the opposing ethnic groups are seperated or killed off.
Okay, I can respect that opinion. However, I think you're wrong. I think we'll stay in Iraq until that probability has passed.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree it's all been downhill since then.
I think we'll stay in Iraq until that probability has passed.But that's not our stated goal.

[Yonivore]

I agree it's all been downhill since then.But that's not our stated goal.
It's certainly one of them.

That we will remain in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to provide for their own security. I think, at that point, genocide, civil war, or ethnic strife will be a more remote possibility.

I think you have too little faith in the ability of the Iraqis to find common ground and compromise on differences that only serve to perpetuate their misery.

[ChumpDumper]

It's certainly one of them.Nope. it's leaving when we think the Iraqis are ready to take over.
That we will remain in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to provide for their own security. I think, at that point, genocide, civil war, or ethnic strife will be a more remote possibility.I think the Iraqi security forces will be a major perpetrator of the ethnic cleansing.
I think you have too little faith in the ability of the Iraqis to find common ground and compromise on differences that only serve to perpetuate their misery.I think you have no perspective on how deeply seeded ethnic disputes manifest themselves on a large scale. One would think the Sudanese and Rwandans would find common ground too.

[Yonivore]

Nope. it's leaving when we think the Iraqis are ready to take over.
And, when would that be?


I think the Iraqi security forces will be a major perpetrator of the ethnic cleansing.
Well, that's why you're a nobody poster on an insignificant forum and not in control of our foreign policy. And, thank God for that.

I think the Iraqi forces will remember (and be reminded often) of just how quickly we toppled the previous regime and be sufficiently admonished against trying to pull their own genocide before we decide to leave.


I think you have no perspective on how deeply seeded ethnic disputes manifest themselves on a large scale. One would think the Sudanese and Rwandans would find common ground too.
Maybe they haven't been properly motivated to find common ground.

[ChumpDumper]

And, when would that be?You tell me. I never hear about total pacification plans. I hear about standing down when they stand up.
Well, that's why you're a nobody poster on an insignificant forum and not in control of our foreign policy. And, thank God for that.There have been many reports that support this position, my fellow nobody poster not in control of our foreign policy.
I think the Iraqi forces will remember (and be reminded often) of just how quickly we toppled the previous regime and be sufficiently admonished against trying to pull their own genocide before we decide to leave.I said it will happen after we leave, genius. And is it our spotless record of doggedly stopping genocides wherever they occur scare them into refraining from it?
Maybe they haven't been properly motivated to find common ground.Well, we certainly didn't give a shit about them, did we? So much for the white hat.

[xrayzebra]

Okay, all you fine folks that thinks President Bush has screwed up on his
policy. What is the dimm-o-craps policy that is going to cut us some slack?

Come on, the only thing I have heard is "cut and run" now, what did the
report say about that. I read: that if we win there it is going to demoralize
the AQ group.

I also read: If we cut and run it is going to energize them.

And I am still waiting on your "BIG" plan to take care of all the terrorist
that was created.

You folks are so full of yourself. You act like what you are: a group
circle jerk, the village idiots who run thru the streets hollering: the sky
is falling and it is all Bush's fault. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

The thing is, there really weren't any alternatives once we invaded. We can't send in any more troops without a draft and we can't cut and run. We're going to get out as soon face-savingly possible; that's the only real option.

[Yonivore]

The thing is, there really weren't any alternatives once we invaded. We can't send in any more troops without a draft and we can't cut and run. We're going to get out as soon face-savingly possible; that's the only real option.
Okay, then answer this ChumpDumper.

We now know that al Qaeda was escaping to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.

If we had not invaded Iraq, what would have become of those who had gone there?

[ChumpDumper]

We also know they escaped to Pakistan.

When did we invade them?
We now know that al Qaeda was escaping to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.
And why couldn't we make preventing the escape a priority?

[Yonivore]

We also know they escaped to Pakistan.

When did we invade them?
Let's focus. What about Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

Let's focus.I am focused.

On the terrorists.

On Osama.

The fact you aren't says it all.

[xrayzebra]

The thing is, there really weren't any alternatives once we invaded. We can't send in any more troops without a draft and we can't cut and run. We're going to get out as soon face-savingly possible; that's the only real option.

Then what is the problem with supporting YOU COUNTRY? Is it wrong to win
something that is going to keep you and your loved ones alive. Or is
telling everyone your government is wrong and you don't support them. It
is your question to answer. You know what my answer is.

[Yonivore]

I am focused.

On the terrorists.

On Osama.

The fact you aren't says it all.
What should we have done with the al Qaeda terrorists streaming into Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan? Should we have just ignored it?

Don't worry, I'll get to Pakistan.

[ChumpDumper]

Then what is the problem with supporting YOU COUNTRY?Go us. There it's supported. Feel better?
Is it wrong to win something that is going to keep you and your loved ones alive.Win what?
Or is telling everyone your government is wrong and you don't support them.Now supporting "YOU COUNTRY" and the decisions and policies of my government are two different things. Were you a traitor when you didn't agree with Clinton? Fuck you, hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

What should we have done with the al Qaeda terrorists streaming into Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan? Should we have just ignored it?Now just how many "streamed" into Iraq?

How did we know?

Why did we not have boots on the ground at suspected escape routes?

If we knew where they were or where they were crossing into Iraq, AND we enjoyed complete air superiority in both countries, why could we just not even try to bomb them?

[Ozzman]

Then what is the problem with supporting YOU COUNTRY? Is it wrong to win
something that is going to keep you and your loved ones alive.


well, that's how the Terrorists see it as well, like the sectarian shit that's going down in Baghdad, etc. they both think they are right in thier cause, so this swings both ways. the only thing is, which side is the lesser of evils??

[clambake]

In all honesty, Yoni, every time you start a sentence now with " I believe ", it gives me the shivers. You went out on the ledge just to put Bush on a pedestal.

You are a real champion for your party's cause, and I admire that, in a way. But what you said about Bush coupled with what you believe, gives me the willies. You suggested that we have, in some way, been saved by some kind of apocolyptic demise because of the man you most admire. I have a real fear that this belief is somehow connected to religion and that might explain the origins of your statement.

Feel free to correct me.

[Yonivore]

In all honesty, Yoni, every time you start a sentence now with " I believe ", it gives me the shivers. You went out on the ledge just to put Bush on a pedestal.

You are a real champion for your party's cause, and I admire that, in a way. But what you said about Bush coupled with what you believe, gives me the willies. You suggested that we have, in some way, been saved by some kind of apocolyptic demise because of the man you most admire. I have a real fear that this belief is somehow connected to religion and that might explain the origins of your statement.

Feel free to correct me.
Consider yourself corrected. I see nothing messianic about the President. I do, however, believe his foreign policy decisions are dead on right.

[smeagol]

The Repugs are responsible for not defending America against the 9/11 attack.
9/11 was planned years before W took office, you moron!

[RandomGuy]

"for you to make the call to go"

For me to go personally? Technically, I'm too old.

But I wouldn't serve dubya and the Repugs anway. No fucking way. If there is a draft, I'm going to advise my kids to disappear.

Ideologically, the red-state voters voted in dubya, they can send their kids to the slaughter.

In fact, I think the Dems should push their own "Repug voter registration drive" such that voting Repug means your kids get drafted first for phony Repug wars, since obviously red-state kids don't want to volunteer to fight in Iraq in sufficient numbers to win Iraq. I'd like to see dubya's two girls in full Iraq camo, driving humvees and risking their comfortable lives and/or pretty limbs and faces for dubya's bullshit war.

I mean go as is "GTFO"

[smeagol]

Why is Yoni talking to Chump Dumper again?

Yoni, I thought you were a man of your word.

You are pulling a TPark.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, then answer this ChumpDumper.

We now know that al Qaeda was escaping to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.

If we had not invaded Iraq, what would have become of those who had gone there?

They would not have gone there. Saddam didn't trust them any further than any other threat to his power, and they hated him right back as a secular totalitarian.

[boutons_]

"9/11 was planned years before W took office, you moron!"

In the months before he was elected, yes. but it was NOT unstoppable, nor was it unimaginable as the Repugs' smokescreen repeats incessantly.

Condi is covering her NSA-director's ass, but she's been proven to be flat wrong by the 9/11 commission report that she and Repugs did as much as, treated terrrorism/al-Qaida as seriously as Clinton. She a fucking lying, ass-covering bitch just like all her Repug accomplices.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, all you fine folks that thinks President Bush has screwed up on his
policy. What is the dimm-o-craps policy that is going to cut us some slack?

Come on, the only thing I have heard is "cut and run" now, what did the
report say about that. I read: that if we win there it is going to demoralize
the AQ group.

I also read: If we cut and run it is going to energize them.

And I am still waiting on your "BIG" plan to take care of all the terrorist
that was created.

You folks are so full of yourself. You act like what you are: a group
circle jerk, the village idiots who run thru the streets hollering: the sky
is falling and it is all Bush's fault. :lol


That's not quite what the report said, but it is close. My question still stands:
Staying there does us harm. Not just losing troops, but losing in a lop-sided PR war.
How long before the lost PR war does more harm than cutting our losses and handing them a perceived victory?
Rock and a hard place scenario.

I think that the presence of our troops there makes things worse in Iraq. We need to gradually pull out over the next few years.
After a while it will simply expose the extremists for what they really are: simple murderers. The less US troop on muslim violence the better. It matters less and less that Iraq would slide into a war.

I think our responsibility to them wanes with each new sectarian killing. If they want to kill each other, we won't and can't stop them.

[boutons_]

"GTFO"

The US is like the little Dutch boy with him finger in the dike. Saddam had his finger in the dike for us, and was effective enough about it. He was the enemy of our enemy Iran.

Now that the Repugs have unnecessarily, recklessly pulled Saddam's finger out, the Repugs have put the US's finger in. As soon as the US leaves, the dike breaks and Iraq will be lost to Muslim radicals. Iran's hegemony will expand.

Same is true for Afghanistan.

The strategic blunder that the Repugs have made in Iraq will haunt, and cost, the USA for decades.

The Repugs in Iraq have fucked the USA so thoroughly that people haven't even begun to imagine the consequences.

[RandomGuy]

"GTFO"

The US is like the little Dutch boy with him finger in the dike. Saddam had his finger in the dike for us, and was effective enough about it. He was the enemy of our enemy Iran.

Now that the Repugs have unnecessarily, recklessly pulled Saddam's finger out, the Repugs have put the US's finger in. As soon as the US leaves, the dike breaks and Iraq will be lost to Muslim radicals. Iran's hegemony will expand.

Same is true for Afghanistan.

The strategic blunder that the Repugs have made in Iraq will haunt, and cost, the USA for decades.

The Repugs in Iraq have fucked the USA so thoroughly that people haven't even begun to imagine the consequences.

No offense, but that may quite possibly be the most spon-on thing I have seen you say in a while.

The shia in Iraq aren't quite all so quick to embrace Iran tho'. Many, but not all.

[boutons_]

Sure, the VN accepted ChiCom aid but once the US was kickedout, the VN didn't want ChiCom running VN.

Same with the Iraqi Shia. They will accept aid from Iran, esp to kick the Repugs out. They will ally themselves with Iran, but they don't want Iran to run Iraq.

However, the post-US Iraq will clearly be under the influence and hegemony of Iran, rather than opposed to Iran as Saddam mortally was.

[Yonivore]

Why is Yoni talking to Chump Dumper again?

Yoni, I thought you were a man of your word.

You are pulling a TPark.
Ouch! If you cut me, do I not bleed?

By the way, did the mods notify the Secret Service of the threat that was made earlier on this board?

[PixelPusher]

The end result of the Iraq occupation is usually framed in terms of how Iraq, and by extension, the Middle East will turn out. I'm equally concerned about the errosive effect Iraq has on our military. National Guard duty is no longer "weekend warrior, show up for riots and natural disasters" duty, it's now "always deployed along side the regular Army, but with crappier equipment (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-02-Wed-2006/news/8830616.html) " duty. The Army has to lower standards (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl) and raise the age limit to 42 in order to meet recruitment quotas. They also have to extend the tours of duty of those currently serving (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14999341/) to maintain troop levels.

Do all of these problems magically dissapear once we're out of Iraq? I don't think so, especially now that the chickenhawks are growing bored with their old toy (Iraq) and are now looking at Iran. I heard Philip Gold on the radio today, plugging his new book "The Coming Draft" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/books/14masl.html?ex=1159502400&en=6b32e499fcad39dc&ei=5070), mention that even if a draft were held today, it would take a year and a half before the draftees could join in the fun, since we no longer have the military bases we once had to train and equip a dramatic influx of new troops.

[boutons_]

"a year and a half before the draftees could join in the fun"

I read an article yesterday where even now the Repugs haven't paid for enough equipment to train the CURRENT enlistees and Guardsmen. To ramp up the 200 - 400K additional troops needed for Iraq and Afghanistan AND equip and train them would be a couple $100B. But the $300B cut in estate taxes is much more important to the Repugs than fielding an equipped army of the size to fight correctly in their phony wars.

The Repugs know this and absolutely don't want it discussed before the election.

[ChumpDumper]

Ouch! If you cut me, do I not bleed?

By the way, did the mods notify the Secret Service of the threat that was made earlier on this board?Nah, I decided to see how well the government's data mining works. The IP is logged if they really feel like busting a 14 year old white kid in Sacramento. Maybe they'll torture him....

[RandomGuy]

"a year and a half before the draftees could join in the fun"

I read an article yesterday where even now the Repugs haven't paid for enough equipment to train the CURRENT enlistees and Guardsmen. To ramp up the 200 - 400K additional troops needed for Iraq and Afghanistan AND equip and train them would be a couple $100B. But the $300B cut in estate taxes is much more important to the Repugs than fielding an equipped army of the size to fight correctly in their phony wars.

The Repugs know this and absolutely don't want it discussed before the election.

The reals costs of that many troops would be MUCH more than $200 billion. I think in terms of money spent it would likely be much higher, not to mention the shock to the labor force of that many people taken out of it. Losing 400k worth of people, would presumedly have been at least 95% employed, would do a number on the tax base.

Sad thing is that we don't need military action to "win" the war on terror, as the current intel estimate points out. Rather, we need to simply be a bit more PR savvy and, as it turns out, more ethical.

[Yonivore]

Nah, I decided to see how well the government's data mining works. The IP is logged if they really feel like busting a 14 year old white kid in Sacramento. Maybe they'll torture him....
You know that much about him just by his IP Address?

I'm sure no one on the the internets would ever create a faux character in order to cover their intentions. Nah, never happen.

Oh wait! Criminal investigators pose as 12 year-old girls all the time in order to nab pervs.

[ChumpDumper]

You know that much about him just by his IP Address?That and his other posts.
I'm sure no one on the the internets would ever create a faux character in order to cover their intentions. Nah, never happen.Sure, he's posing as a black man. He has also posed as a professional football player, an asian man, a member of nSync and a large female moderator who banned him a Sacramento Kings message board.
Oh wait! Criminal investigators pose as 12 year-old girls all the time in order to nab pervs.So you're saying he's Shaquille O'Neal now? You've just given him another screen name idea. Congratulations.

[Yonivore]

That and his other posts.Sure, he's posing as a black man. He has also posed as a black woman, an asian man, a member of nSync and a large female moderator who banned him a Sacramento Kings message board.So you're saying he's Shaquille O'Neal now? You've just given him another screen name idea. Congratulations.
No, I'm saying you have no way to to know with certainty, unless you've met him, who he is.

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/88/254809748_0500a69af9.jpg
Fairy Tales could come true, it could happen to you...if you vote Democrat in November...

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm saying you have no way to to know with certainty, unless you've met him, who he is.Even if I met him I wouldn't know with certainty. What's your point?

[Yonivore]

Even if I met him I wouldn't know with certainty. What's your point?
That you're an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Have you narced him out yet, Yoni? Is that not what you are getting at?

[Yonivore]

Have you narced him out yet, Yoni? Is that not what you are getting at?
I've actually asked Kori to do so.

Narced him out? Wow, that's a throw-back.

[ChumpDumper]

Why ask Kori to?

Why can't you do it?

[clambake]

Chumps an idiot? Did your God tell you that yoni, or were you channeling the idol you worship even more. Be sure and thank your idol for saving us from apocolyptic extinction and preserving the possiblity of having a successor to his throne.

(insert twilight zone theme song here)

[ChumpDumper]

He couldn't know I'm an idiot unless he met me. :elephant

[Yonivore]

He couldn't know I'm an idiot unless he met me. :elephant
No, I couldn't know your physical description unless I met you. Your posts, this one included, prove you're an idiot...or, possibly, pretending to be an idiot. But, then, only and idiot would do that, right?

[Yonivore]

Why ask Kori to?

Why can't you do it?
I guess I will. I just though a responsible board moderator would have the necessary information, available to administrators only, that would help in identifying Fillmoe and putting the authorities on the right path.

I'll call them now.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I couldn't know your physical description unless I met you. Your posts, this one included, prove you're an idiot...or, possibly, pretending to be an idiot. But, then, only and idiot would do that, right?No, I could only be posing as an idiot to get white kids from Sacramento to incriminate themselves.

Even if you met me, how would you know it's me?

[Yonivore]

No, I could only be posing as an idiot to get white kids from Sacramento to incriminate themselves.
Well, that's pretty idiotic as well.


Even if you met me, how would you know it's me?
First, you've got to ask, why would I care?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, that's pretty idiotic as well.Depends on the white kid.
First, you've got to ask, why would I care?I know why you would avoid answering the question.

[Yonivore]

Depends on the white kid.
Now, that's sacrifice. So, who is this white kid you're so obsessed with that you'd be willing to make yourself look like an idiot only to lure him into making a threat against the President?


I know why you would avoid answering the question.
I'm sorry, I wasn't avoiding -- I just thought the answer was self-evident. I guess not for idiots.

How would I know it's you if I ever met you? Well, it would take you opening your mouth -- that'd be a clincher. Other than that, I probably wouldn't. Who knows, we may have already met.

[ChumpDumper]

Now, that's sacrifice. So, who is this white kid you're so obsessed with that you'd be willing to make yourself look like an idiot only to lure him into making a threat against the President?If true, that information would be classified.
I'm sorry, I wasn't avoiding -- I just thought the answer was self-evident. I guess not for idiots.

How would I know it's you if I ever met you? Well, it would take you opening your mouth -- that'd be a clincher. Other than that, I probably wouldn't. Who knows, we may have already met.How do you know I can even speak?

[Yonivore]

If true, that information would be classified.
Well, I'll wait for the New York Times story then.


How do you know I can even speak?
Now that you mention it, I don't. And, further, that wouldn't surprise me. Not that you have a physical handicap preventing such as much as having a mental deficiency that precluded coherent speech.

[clambake]

Yoni, why do you care about some kids threat to the Pres? You claim to already have some devine knowledge that would make harm to Bush impossible.

[ChumpDumper]

It's understandable that Yoni is completely ignorant here, there aren't any conservative blogs that deal with message board trolls.

[RandomGuy]

...or reality for that matter.

Conservative blogs would rather just paint a false reality of failed policies that actually worked than address things realistically.

[boutons_]

It's clear to any serious observer, even from the NIE and dubya's cheerleading, that Iraq is lost, and dubya/rummy won't put in the troops to save it.

Here's a take, on Afghanistan, remember Afghanistan? the Repugs have abandoned it.

=================

October 1, 2006

What's Next

The Afghanistan Triangle

By DAVID ROHDE

SOMEWHERE along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban leadership and their Qaeda allies must be pleased.

When the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan visited the United States last week, they got into an ugly public spat over who was to blame for a Taliban resurgence that has killed hundreds of Afghans this year and shaken confidence in Afghanistan’s new government.

There was Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, accusing Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan of failing to crack down on the Taliban. Mr. Musharraf struck back, saying Mr. Karzai was behaving like “an ostrich” and ignoring problems in his own land. Finally, President Bush played host at an unusual White House dinner for the two, trying to soothe tensions and promote a united front against the Taliban.

“We’ve got a lot of challenges facing us,” President Bush said as the two leaders stood silently at his side. “All of us must protect our countries, but at the same time, we all must work to make the world a more hopeful place.”

( another example of dubya's astonishing eloquence. nothing but motherhood, bromides, slogans, without an ouce of understaning. "Hope" isn't a fucking strategy, asshole. )

The two leaders’ public feud increases already growing pressure on the Bush administration to deal with criticism of the American-led effort to stabilize Afghanistan, which until recent months was seen in bright contrast to the problems in Iraq. Members of Congress, former administration officials and experts argue that missteps by the United States and its allies squandered an early opportunity to bring order to Afghanistan so it could be more completely rebuilt. Stabilizing the country remains possible, they say, but it will now be far more difficult.

“I think the mission continues to be doable,” said James Dobbins, a former Bush administration special envoy to Afghanistan. “But it’s going to be a longer, harder, more expensive mission by virtue of the fact that we did not seize opportunities.”

But what can be done?

The issue is not just a matter of American troop levels, Afghan officials and American experts say. Or of Afghan warlords, once so powerful.

There are three critical problems today:

the weakness of Afghan security forces,

a rampant opium trade and

allegations that Pakistani officials turn a blind eye to Taliban activity in their territory.

Those three problems are wrapped up with a fourth:

a creeping skepticism among Afghans and Pakistanis about the seriousness of the American and NATO commitments to stay in Afghanistan.

The more it looks as if the Americans will leave, the harder it is to gain villagers’ cooperation against the Taliban. Farmers become less willing to give up their profitable opium crop. And — perhaps most important — Pakistanis anticipate the day when their old allies, the Taliban, can again be their proxies to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan.

American officials discount such dire scenarios. They say the American effort in Afghanistan has been and continues to be a success. The current violence, they contend, is the result of a move by NATO troops and an increasingly strong Afghan central government to extend their authority into remote areas that Taliban fighters and drug traffickers have used as havens. Taliban attacks are largely centered in the country’s south, they say, and will be defeated.

“In recent months, the Taliban and other extremists have tried to regain control, mostly in the south of Afghanistan,” Mr. Bush said Tuesday in a joint White House press conference with Mr. Karzai. “We’ve adjusted tactics and we’re on the offense to meet the threat and to defeat the threat.”

But several members of Congress and American experts on Afghanistan said the United States needs to make a grand gesture soon, like doubling American reconstruction assistance. Over the last year, they point out, the United States cut aid to Afghanistan by 30 percent and handed over security in southern Afghanistan to NATO troops.

“Something dramatic” is needed, said Barnett Rubin, a New York University professor and Afghanistan expert. “To convince people that we really mean it. That we’re really committed.” The country’s police present one such opportunity, cited by Mr. Karzai himself. In a meeting with reporters and editors at The New York Times on Sept. 21, he said the failure to create a professional Afghan police force was a central mistake in the early post-Taliban period. He said police training still must expand.

“We would like to get much more support for the training of the police from the United States and our allies,” he said. “Where we failed was to focus in time on having a police force.”

In 2001, Afghanistan’s 80,000 police officers were a poorly equipped hodgepodge of Soviet-trained officers, veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad and gunmen loyal to local warlords. Seventy percent were illiterate.

In 2002, the United States promised to train a new Afghan army and Germany promised to retrain the country’s police. But German officials dispatched only 40 police trainers and focused on developing a core of 3,500 skilled commanders at a reopened police academy. Some foreign military units conducted short training courses outside Kabul. But the tens of thousands of officers outside Kabul received no systematic training until 2004, when the United States opened seven regional training centers.

Opium cultivation, now exploding, is another sore subject. Last month, the United Nations announced a record 6,100 metric ton crop, 50 percent higher than the 2005 yield. Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium poppies, or raw heroin. And in some parts of southern Afghanistan, American officials say, drug traffickers have formed an alliance with the Taliban.

One advocate of a steeply increased anti-opium effort is Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who offered an amendment this summer calling for $700 million in additional Defense Department funding for narcotics eradication in Afghanistan. The Republican-controlled Senate passed the measure. But when the bill reached a conference committee, the amount was cut to $116 million for all of Central Asia, according to Mr. Schumer.“You cannot win one of these wars by just paying attention to the military side,” the senator said Friday. “They don’t seem to understand that.” He also has called for an increase in reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.

Beyond those more familiar problems, though, there are lingering questions about Pakistan and the Taliban, made more pointed by a sense that the United States may eventually abandon Afghanistan, as it did after the Soviets were driven out in the 1980’s.

Seth Jones, an Afghanistan analyst with the RAND Corporation, said the United States must revamp its approach to Pakistan even as it works to counter an increasingly successful Taliban propaganda campaign that portrays the United States as trying to eradicate Islam from Afghanistan.

Mr. Jones and other analysts said Pakistan allows the Taliban to continue to operate on its territory because it sees the group as a useful tool to counter the growing influence of its archrival, India, in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported the Taliban in the 1990’s in its civil war against an Indian- , Russian- and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance. After the Taliban was driven out, it was that same Northern Alliance that took power in Kabul. Now, with the American commitment to Afghanistan being questioned, a version of that same proxy war is beginning to take shape again.

Analysts argue that stabilizing Afghanistan is still possible, but it would require a long-term American commitment to rebuilding the country. It would also require intensified American diplomacy in the region, they say.

( diplomacy from the Repugs? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Don't hold your breath. Condi is a hawk and way out of her depth. )

Christine Fair, an analyst at the United States Institute of Peace, a government-funded Washington-based research institute, suggests that an American diplomatic drive to ease tensions between India and Pakistan could be a key to stabilizing Afghanistan as well. “What we need,” she said “is a grand bargain. You have to take a regional picture.”

But time is short.

There are indications that public support for a long-term American and NATO role in Afghanistan may be dropping in both the United States and Europe. Recent requests by NATO commanders that Germany and other countries eliminate restrictions on sending their troops to the country’s volatile south have fallen on deaf ears. Countries have also been slow to respond to appeals for additional NATO troops in Afghanistan.

A CNN poll released last week showed increased skepticism among the American public as well. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?” 50 percent were in favor, and 48 percent were opposed.

That indicated a slide from the heady days in 2001 and 2002, just after the Northern Alliance had toppled the Taliban with the aid of a few American troops. Back then, 80 or 90 percent of Americans were supportive.

The Taliban strategy appears to be working.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see why everyone thought Afghanistan was such a slam dunk.

Remember the Soviet Union? How long were they there? How did that turn out?

[RandomGuy]

It's clear to any serious observer, even from the NIE and dubya's cheerleading, that Iraq is lost, and dubya/rummy won't put in the troops to save it.

Here's a take, on Afghanistan, remember Afghanistan? the Repugs have abandoned it.

[article truncated for brevity]
=================

A CNN poll released last week showed increased skepticism among the American public as well. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?” 50 percent were in favor, and 48 percent were opposed.

That indicated a slide from the heady days in 2001 and 2002, just after the Northern Alliance had toppled the Taliban with the aid of a few American troops. Back then, 80 or 90 percent of Americans were supportive.

The Taliban strategy appears to be working.

Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, had to be done. What we really should have done was stabilize and develop Afghanistan first. All the wasted lives and effort in Iraq just means that we are dividing our efforts and resources and are unable to do either.

Foolish in the extreme.

[ChumpDumper]

Unfortunately, Iraq spoiled the effort in Afghanistan in more ways than one.

[Yonivore]

Unfortunately, Iraq spoiled the effort in Afghanistan in more ways than one.
How so?

[ChumpDumper]

A CNN poll released last week showed increased skepticism among the American public as well. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?” 50 percent were in favor, and 48 percent were opposed.

That indicated a slide from the heady days in 2001 and 2002, just after the Northern Alliance had toppled the Taliban with the aid of a few American troops. Back then, 80 or 90 percent of Americans were supportive.That's one.

[boutons_]

Aghanistan was a slam dunk to be executed, I supported 100%, but it was done badly.

Not enough troops because of that cheap bastard of a desk jockey Rummy, so OBL got away as our people depended on locals to do it.

The most probable reason that US support for Afghanistan has fallen from 90% to 50% is the poor results Rummy has obtained in Afghanistan, as he was forced by WHIG to switch priority to Iraq.

The Repugs are well on track for losing both countries, due to their own fucking criminal, impeachable faults.

[Yonivore]

That's one.
Ah, a poll. Got any facts you want to share today?

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, a poll. Got any facts you want to share today?The drop in public opinion is a fact.

The resurgence of the Taliban is another.

The continued insurgency and body count in Iraq is a third.

[Yonivore]

The drop in public opinion is a fact.
No, it's not a fact. It's a characterization of poll responses.


The resurgence of the Taliban is another.
And, they've taken over Afghanistan again? They've experienced a resurgence in an area, largely never taken by the coalition. And, when they raise their heads, they're being killed by the hundreds.

So much so, they've started resorting to terrorism and assassinations. Not a sign of a strong military presence.


The continued insurgency and body count in Iraq is a third.
Not relevant to your assertion that Iraq has spoiled Afghanistan.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it's not a fact. It's a characterization of poll responses.Oh, the US public is rabid in its support of Afghanistan now.
And, they've taken over Afghanistan again? They've experienced a resurgence in an area, largely never taken by the coalition.Why didn't we largely take it?
So much so, they've started resorting to terrorism and assassinations. Not a sign of a strong military presence.Not a strong sign that Afghanistan is better off.
Not relevant to your assertion that Iraq has spoiled Afghanistan.Uh, it IS my assertion, goofball. Of course you'll never believe any poll for either Iraq or Afghanistan that doesn't support your opinion. That doesn't make them cease to exist.

[Yonivore]

Oh, the US public is rabid in its support of Afghanistan now.
rabid? I would never characterize anyone but the Left as being rabid.


Why didn't we largely take it?
Well, some parts couldn't be taken without suffering a Russian style quagmire. Containment seems the better course.


Not a strong sign that Afghanistan is better off.
Sure it is. It says the Taliban can't amass troops to confront the coalition militarily because every time they tried, they were annihilated. Is it a good condition? No. But, is it a sign Afghanistan is being lost. Nope.


Uh, it IS my assertion, goofball. Of course you'll never believe any poll for either Iraq or Afghanistan that doesn't support your opinion. That doesn't make them cease to exist.
Okay, how is the "continued insurgency and body count in Iraq" the third fact supporting your assertion that "unfortunately, Iraq spoiled the effort in Afghanistan in more ways than one?"

[ChumpDumper]

Well, some parts couldn't be taken without suffering a Russian style quagmire. Containment seems the better course.Hmm, where would a terraist go to make a new base?
Is it a good condition? No.Thanks for agreeing with me again.
Okay, how is the "continued insurgency and body count in Iraq" the third fact supporting your assertion that "unfortunately, Iraq spoiled the effort in Afghanistan in more ways than one?"The continued insurgency and body count in Iraq has kept public opinion of that conflict low, now folks are seeing the same thing happen in Afghanistan, lowering public opinioin of that occupation as well. We can get into troop levels if you like, but if all we wanted to do in Afghanistan was avoid a quagmire, we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

[Yonivore]

Thanks for agreeing with me again.
Funny how you see that as agreement.


The continued insurgency and body count in Iraq has kept public opinion of that conflict low, now folks are seeing the same thing happen in Afghanistan, lowering public opinioin of that occupation as well. We can get into troop levels if you like, but if all we wanted to do in Afghanistan was avoid a quagmire, we shouldn't have gone in the first place.
I can't make people educate themselves on the two different fronts in this war. If their opinion of the Iraq conflict drives their opinion of the Afghanistan conflict (or, vice versa), that would explain the idiots responding to your poll.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how you see that as agreement.
It's not good.
I can't make people educate themselves on the two different fronts in this war. If their opinion of the Iraq conflict drives their opinion of the Afghanistan conflict (or, vice versa), that would explain the idiots responding to your poll.So you agree with me again....

[xrayzebra]

Damn, give a dimm-o-crap one sentence out of a whole report and
look how they can expand on things. Kinda reminds me of what they
can do on spending money and increaing taxes. Oh, I forgot they
lowered the deficit, except they didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, give a dimm-o-crap one sentence out of a whole report and
look how they can expand on things.They gave us four pages. Why only four?
Kinda reminds me of what they
can do on spending money and increaing taxes. Oh, I forgot they
lowered the deficit, except they didn't.A Democratic President and a Republican Congress got rid of the deficit. Those were the good ol days.

[xrayzebra]

They gave us four pages. Why only four?A Democratic President and a Republican Congress got rid of the deficit. Those were the good ol days.

Four pages is a whole lot more than one sentence. Isn't it?


:lol :lol :lol :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Four pages is a whole lot more than one sentence. Isn't it?Yes. That's why I questioned your "one sentence" sentence.

[RandomGuy]

Why, yet another thread where the Bushies have given up.

Smells like... VICTORY!!!
http://moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/napalm.wav
http://www.geocities.com/aaronbcaldwell/Apocalypse16.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Yay.