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

[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 ed up dream of the neo-cons was that the dubya/ head 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 at ude 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 ing high.

[RandomGuy]

Because the cost of maintaining the oil fields under US/UK/foreign control, overturning the Iranian revolution, was too ing 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, 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 do ent, 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 do ent 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 do ent, 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

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

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 do ent _ 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 le) 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 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


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?