[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.
[/quote]
Actuall NONE did.
The AUMF gave the president the authority to carry a “big stick”. While they should have known Bush was lying when he said war was a last resort—they certainly did not vote “for war”.
Still it’s enraging to think some were dumb enough to believe the president.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Key conclusions – lots of weasel words (e.g. could, may, etc.) but that’s what you get from bureaucrats.[/quote]
If these are the points they’re WILLING to release…Goodness the president’s GWOT is not looking good nor are its tactics.
It does not say “We are safer”.
I’m not suprised.
Wow, that’s quite a standard. It doesn’t say “We are not safer” either. Amazing, that.
It’s got a lot of key points with a lot of qualifiers, and many of which can be argued either way in terms of probabilities or how they should be handled, and the sum of which can also be argued.
Kind of makes you wonder how those articles of yours came to such strong conclusions, huh?
This is going to be the least intelligent thing I’ve ever posted.
I used to have faith in the Iraqi’s but all they’re intrested in is killing others of a different sect. The U.S. military should be fighting T-80s and Su-37s instead we are wasting our military budget on helping these fucks when they don’t even want our help. If we pull out then all those soldiers and civillians will have died in vain. If we don’t then we lose a ton of money every fucking day when we could be spending it kicking Iran’s or North Korea’s ass. What a fucking predicament.
And unfortunately in less than a year I’m going to be watching these kids my age killing each other and occasionally attacking us and we’d defend ourselves onl get fucked by the press for doing our job.
It’s not that I don’t want to serve, I really do. I just hoped I’d be doing something more than serve as a peacekeeping force.
Whether or not this war has escalated terrorism is beside the issue.
The war is an illegal one based on faulty information and/or lies. It is unjustified.
Did terrorists ‘hate’ America before? Sure.
Do they hate them less now? No.
Is this US administration dealing with the issues that have led to this hositility? Not at all. Foreign policy is currently us vs them.
[quote]esloco wrote:
Is this US administration dealing with the issues that have led to this hositility? Not at all. Foreign policy is currently us vs them.[/quote]
Yes, but it allows the administration to eliminate those pesky things known as rights… and bonus, it allows them to scare the populace into voting them into office perpetually.
It’s perfect!
CNN just reported that about 4 out of 30 pages were released. That leaves 26 pages of speculation, by the way…
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
This is going to be the least intelligent thing I’ve ever posted.
I used to have faith in the Iraqi’s but all they’re intrested in is killing others of a different sect. The U.S. military should be fighting T-80s and Su-37s instead we are wasting our military budget on helping these fucks when they don’t even want our help. If we pull out then all those soldiers and civillians will have died in vain. If we don’t then we lose a ton of money every fucking day when we could be spending it kicking Iran’s or North Korea’s ass. What a fucking predicament.
And unfortunately in less than a year I’m going to be watching these kids my age killing each other and occasionally attacking us and we’d defend ourselves onl get fucked by the press for doing our job.
It’s not that I don’t want to serve, I really do. I just hoped I’d be doing something more than serve as a peacekeeping force.[/quote]
How was this the “least” intelligent thing you’ve written?
[quote]vroom wrote:
CNN just reported that about 4 out of 30 pages were released. That leaves 26 pages of speculation, by the way…[/quote]
I believe they declassified the summary conclusions and left the more detailed sections classified.
Also, here’s the text of the declassified stuff, which the government says has not been unredacted (i.e. the stuff they did actually release is exactly as it appears in the classified version):
Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” dated April 2006 (Released Sept. 26, 2006)
Key Judgments
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. We also assess that the global jihadist movement?which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells?is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
? Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
? If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
? 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. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
? We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
? The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.
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.
? 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.
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 reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims – all of which jihadists exploit.
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 audiences 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. 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.
? Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
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. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.
We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.
? Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
? 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.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
? We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.
We judge that most jihadist groups – both well-known and newly formed – will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
? CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
? We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.
Souce: Director of National Intelligence
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Key conclusions – lots of weasel words (e.g. could, may, etc.) but that’s what you get from bureaucrats.
100meters wrote:
If these are the points they’re WILLING to release…Goodness the president’s GWOT is not looking good nor are its tactics.
It does not say “We are safer”.
I’m not suprised.
Wow, that’s quite a standard. It doesn’t say “We are not safer” either. Amazing, that.
It’s got a lot of key points with a lot of qualifiers, and many of which can be argued either way in terms of probabilities or how they should be handled, and the sum of which can also be argued.
Kind of makes you wonder how those articles of yours came to such strong conclusions, huh?[/quote]
Uh, no–the report does not confirm Bush’s contention that the war is making us safer. And since reporters who’ve had access to those who’ve read the entire report say it’s incredibly bleak, it really doesn’t make you wonder.
The NYT today:
But there is a difference in tone between Mr. Bush?s public statements and the classified assessment that is unmistakable.
The report says that over the next five years ?the confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.??
It also suggests that while democratization and ?exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists? propaganda?? might dim the appeal of the terrorist groups, those factors are now outweighed by the dangerous brew of fear of Western domination, the battle for Iraq?s future and the slow pace of real economic or political progress.
Yet the intelligence report bears none of Mr. Bush?s long-range optimism. Rather it dwells on Mr. Rumsfeld?s darker question, which he put cheekily as, ?Is our current situation such that ?the harder we work, the behinder we get?? ?
And again this obvious result of the war was entirely predicted. Painful.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Key conclusions – lots of weasel words (e.g. could, may, etc.) but that’s what you get from bureaucrats.
100meters wrote:
If these are the points they’re WILLING to release…Goodness the president’s GWOT is not looking good nor are its tactics.
It does not say “We are safer”.
I’m not suprised.
Wow, that’s quite a standard. It doesn’t say “We are not safer” either. Amazing, that.
It’s got a lot of key points with a lot of qualifiers, and many of which can be argued either way in terms of probabilities or how they should be handled, and the sum of which can also be argued.
Kind of makes you wonder how those articles of yours came to such strong conclusions, huh?
Uh, no–the report does not confirm Bush’s contention that the war is making us safer. And since reporters who’ve had access to those who’ve read the entire report say it’s incredibly bleak, it really doesn’t make you wonder.
The NYT today:
But there is a difference in tone between Mr. Bush?s public statements and the classified assessment that is unmistakable.
The report says that over the next five years ?the confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.??
It also suggests that while democratization and ?exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists? propaganda?? might dim the appeal of the terrorist groups, those factors are now outweighed by the dangerous brew of fear of Western domination, the battle for Iraq?s future and the slow pace of real economic or political progress.
Yet the intelligence report bears none of Mr. Bush?s long-range optimism. Rather it dwells on Mr. Rumsfeld?s darker question, which he put cheekily as, ?Is our current situation such that ?the harder we work, the behinder we get?? ?
And again this obvious result of the war was entirely predicted. Painful.[/quote]
But maybe if we keep trying to put our heads in the sand, eventually they’ll get stuck there. One can only hope.
[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch
[…]
we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…
I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.
Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.
-Bigflamer
Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.
It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.
Not suprising.[/quote]
Utterly false. The pro “torture” guys do not want their face on TV.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Even though Clinton was “obessesed” with bin Laden Bush has done far more than any other president in fighting radical Islamic terror.
Is it enough? No.
Should America and the rest of the world be making more sacrifices for the fight against this evil? Yes.
Unfortunately there are those that are using this report to say we should do less against this evil.
Not fighting. He’s creating. It was predicted in a NIE before the war, and it’s been proven since the war.
[/quote]
Anytime you choose to fight you cause the enemy to rally around their cause.
[quote]100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.
Actuall NONE did.
The AUMF gave the president the authority to carry a “big stick”. While they should have known Bush was lying when he said war was a last resort—they certainly did not vote “for war”.
Still it’s enraging to think some were dumb enough to believe the president.
[/quote]
Bullshit. The US has not declared war since WW2.
Both sides knew exactly what they were voting for. Bush made it very clear it was going to be a war if Saddam did not cave in.
I read the released excerp from the report.
No surprises. This whole debate is much ado about nothing. Everyone will draw conclusions to fit their agenda.
I think that if we never invaded Iraq our invasion of Afghanistan would be the rallying cry of the terrorists.
I think AQ succeeded with their aims in stirrng up the sectarian violence in Iraq and we need to reevaluate our goals in Iraq at this point but that is another discussion.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think that if we never invaded Iraq our invasion of Afghanistan would be the rallying cry of the terrorists.
[/quote]
Zap,
I believe that even the Islamic populations understood Afghanistan to be a different sort of animal. It was logical to go after a government that was directly harboring and sponsoring terror.
The problem is that not many people, here or there, really believe that Iraq was similar in that regard. Honestly. The claims of WMD and so on were really out of proportion and for some reason Bush just had to invade Iraq… maybe to finish the job his dad did not.
–
Pop quiz: who said “you break it, you bought it”?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uh, no–the report does not confirm Bush’s contention that the war is making us safer. And since reporters who’ve had access to those who’ve read the entire report say it’s incredibly bleak, it really doesn’t make you wonder. [/quote]
Let’s see – reporters who have had access to people who leaked classified information but have not seen the classified information are reporting that such leakers of classified information are telling the reporters that the report paints a bleak picture… it does make me wonder a bit on whether “reporting” consists of passing along, without bothering to verify, the opinions of sources with dubious motivations.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…it does make me wonder a bit on whether “reporting” consists of passing along, without bothering to verify, the opinions of sources with dubious motivations.
[/quote]
Well, unless it is occurring on Fox!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uh, no–the report does not confirm Bush’s contention that the war is making us safer. And since reporters who’ve had access to those who’ve read the entire report say it’s incredibly bleak, it really doesn’t make you wonder.
Let’s see – reporters who have had access to people who leaked classified information but have not seen the classified information are reporting that such leakers of classified information are telling the reporters that the report paints a bleak picture… it does make me wonder a bit on whether “reporting” consists of passing along, without bothering to verify, the opinions of sources with dubious motivations.
[/quote]
BB,
Apparently, the report says that Iraq has become the focal point of the effort. In the NIE report, it apparently says that if the War in Iraq is successful, the jihadists will be in serious trouble. They specifically charge that recruiting will falter.
They also mention that the current recruits are lacking centralized command after being hurt by the Good Guys.
Interesting, to note how these things didn’t make it into the liberal “leaks.”
JeffR
BB,
Another point that must be considered. If the dems swallow the increased recruiting of terrorists since the war began, they must also swallow that Iraq is the central front on the war.
They can’t scream that it’s Bush’s fault without accepting that we have no choice but to truly win in Iraq.
If they advocate pulling out of Iraq, the NIE states that they will have given the jihadists a victory that they will exploit.
Therefore, for all of you snivelers who demand an Iraq pullout, remember you are also advocating the defeat of the United States.
JeffR