Reply With Quote
Who the leaked that classified information? Kill the leakers![/neocon subject change attempt]
September 24, 2006
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq 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 do ents 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 do ent.
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. led “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 do ent. 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 do ent or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the do ent’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 do ents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, 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 do ent, 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 do ent 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.
Do ents 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.
“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report led “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 do ent 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 do ents, 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 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, 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.
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!
Who the leaked that classified information? Kill the leakers![/neocon subject change attempt]
Oh, the New York Times. Now there is a real American Newspaper you can trust.
Especially if your a good little liberal.
If you believe Bush, then you shouldn't have a problem with the NY times.
any comment on the actual subject of the article?
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 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.
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.
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.
It's good to know that we have so many trustworthy government officials that just go around leaking things all the time.
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.
i dont know what it is but CHUMPDUMPED
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 -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.
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.
"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, ing lying by omission, the Repugs/WHIQ suppressed all the doubts in building their bul 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.
What the did Clinton do in EIGHT YEARS? Damn boutons, you sure do smoke the democratic crack these days.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.
Let's see, Clinton gave nuclear technology to China, fired a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan, and withdrew from Somalia. What a bad ass....
We actually have good intel in Iraq now.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?
"What the 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 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.
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 ing book for once instead of your continual copy and paste bull from democrapticunderground?
so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a 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 ins ute.
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"
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 do ents, reluctant to co-operate. We can be very sure that the WH restricted any co-operation and do ents 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/fullpag...=&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."
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?
"so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a 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? , that's what this whole thread is about. , I blame Bush and Clinton for not doing . 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.
'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 to the Repugs who gave the war on terror no priority before 9/11.
In the ed up ideological, anti-security, anti-Dem, polarized, divisive at ude 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 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 bull , ALL of which has been shown to be pure bull 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.
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....
8 months compared to 8 years... lol... thats laughable...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
