http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=intelligence+estimate+Iraq&btnG=Search+News

Quote :

"A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. Rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, it concludes that the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document."

This sucks pretty bad, but a lot of people can say "I told you so."

The next question is what do we do to stop it? Bush's approach seems to have failed, so what's the next course of action? Diplomacy?

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 11:37 PM. Reason : quoted text source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.]

9/23/2006 11:34:42 PM

nukem and put everyone out of their misery

9/23/2006 11:40:00 PM

huh, what an interesting piece of news to come out on a saturday.

9/24/2006 12:44:15 AM

seriously. nuke the place. no more turrists.

9/24/2006 1:03:57 AM

^terrorist

9/24/2006 1:32:06 AM

oh

just one word on this one

WHOOPI!

9/24/2006 6:35:20 PM

What pleasant timing

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=433818

9/24/2006 6:50:54 PM

of course there are more terrorists, just look at how many liberals this mobilized

9/24/2006 7:05:30 PM

My first thought was "What the fuck does Bill Nye the Science Guy know about terrorism?"

9/24/2006 7:54:34 PM

This thread has been out a whole day and still no word from the resident party-liners here.

9/24/2006 8:31:06 PM

where is the tree twister?

9/24/2006 8:38:31 PM

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2484665&page=1

This is the first response I've seen to it, but Bill Frist doesn't make an effort to defend it, but instead deflects the questions about it:

Quote :

"Frist said although he did not know the contents of the report firsthand, he opposes its release to the public "if it means giving the terrorists a playbook." "

To be fair, if he hasn't seen the report first hand, I can't expect him to give a complete explanation/rebuttal to the question. But the whole "playbook to the terrorists" think is a pretty idiotic comment, I think.

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/09/24/the-press-who-cried-wolf.php

Here's another conservative blogger that makes some good points, but is pretty delusional, I think...

Quote :

" As I noted above, the preachers of doom and gloom have always said that whatever action is proposed is a recipe for apocalypse. The first President Bush's confronting Iraq would lead to a wave of terrorism. President Clinton's cruise missile attacks would only create new martyrs. The invasion of Afghanistan would lead us to a quagmire just like it did to the Soviet Union. And the invasion of Iraq would spark a new wave of anti-Americanism and waste away all the goodwill we had after 9/11."

This is an accurate observation, I believe, but the cause is due squarely to partisanship. The members of congress of the opposing party to the president always do their best to paint any saber-rattling in the worst possible light. This is often the will of the people (because no one really wants war), but it's sad there can't ever be open, honest debate on things like that.

Quote :

"I've been an amateur observer of world events for some time, and I've noticed one consistent element: anti-Americanism is always "on the rise." The only time we seem to have much international support is when we're on our knees -- either knocked there by a sucker punch like 9/11, or groveling and begging for forgiveness and help. It seems that only when we're strong and resolute do we find out who our true friends are."

This part though is clearly delusional. Everything he says is completely the opposite of what is known about the report so far. The only way he can have some ground to stand on with this argument is if it turns out to be fake, like CBS's Bush military record thing. Otherwise, people like this guy are going to have to eat some crow.

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2006 9:00:07 PM

No wonder this has been hidden from the US public.

Becuase then the public would clearly see through the lies of Bush and Co. about winning the war or terror, and the world being a safer placer without Saddam in power (you only have to have your eyes open to realize that this is a blatant lie).

9/25/2006 9:35:24 AM

Quote :

"No wonder this has been hidden from the US public."

Haha. I'd be willing to bet that a good percentage of the US public didn't need a report to tell them that there is more terrorism because of Iraq. It doesn't take a report to tell you that terrorists are going to use the situation in Iraq to get new recruits.

9/25/2006 9:44:29 AM

Quote :

"I'd be willing to bet that a good percentage of the US public didn't need a report to tell them that there is more terrorism because of Iraq."

Are you kidding me? Hell, TreeTwista will be here any moment claiming this liberal propaganda. He may grace us with a quality comment such as

"that report is wrong"

and

"go watch more of The Daily Show"

if we are really lucky,

9/25/2006 9:52:36 AM

I'd like to think that a good percentage of people wouldn't be like TreeTwista, but I could be wrong.

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM. Reason : no offense TT ]

9/25/2006 10:10:11 AM

Quote :

"the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda."

How come when I claimed this I was refuted with claims like "Iran and Iraq hate each other, they would never work together"? or "Oh those two different sects of Islam hate each other, they would never work together"?

9/25/2006 12:50:21 PM

^ Maybe because all you do is fucking troll, so people can't tell what the hell is sarcasm, trolling, or what you actually think anymore.

9/25/2006 1:00:33 PM

maybe you cant tell the difference because you're a fucking dumbass

maybe if you knew anything about context you wouldnt be so retarded when it comes to understanding simple TWW postings

its not that hard

and it doesnt change the fact that I already made that point and got ridiculed...but let the Washington Post make it and its absolute fact!

9/25/2006 1:07:35 PM

hahaha

9/25/2006 1:12:55 PM

^hahahaha

9/25/2006 1:15:37 PM

Quote :

"How come when I claimed this I was refuted with claims like "Iran and Iraq hate each other, they would never work together"? or "Oh those two different sects of Islam hate each other, they would never work together"?"

Who ridiculed you?

I haven't seen any comments in my couple of weeks back that would indicate this.

Me thinks you're at your best (though a little late today) in trying to stir up trouble.

I'm serious, who said these comments. A poster with such an infamous reputation as you should be required to post links to these sorts of things or just be banned from the section.

9/25/2006 1:39:11 PM

^haha...a poster such as you should stop trolling other posters by implying that they are trolls

9/25/2006 1:41:25 PM

I can't tell if you are being serious or not.

9/25/2006 1:47:00 PM

neither can i....just get off treetwista's nuts.....i mean, dang

9/25/2006 1:48:03 PM

Where'd all the "attacking Iraq made us safer" folks go?

9/25/2006 4:59:38 PM

They all moved to Iraq because it's so safe there.

9/25/2006 5:11:50 PM

So moron, do you really think theres a chance diplomacy could work? I am skeptical

9/25/2006 5:13:53 PM

mission accomplished

9/25/2006 5:17:08 PM

^^ I don't really know.

It seems we aren't fighting one unified force, so we really wouldn't be able to negotiate with one person or group to solve the problems.

Somehow, we would have to get all the "warlords" together to agree on one solution, which wouldn't be easy.

The other alternative is to stay the current course, which just seems to involve attempting to keep the guerilla-style attacks to a minimum until they get tired, or something.

9/25/2006 5:23:13 PM

Well I think the current course is working, just working very slowly

I think the administration, perhaps out of cockiness, predicted way too early a timeline to have "success" in Iraq...and now they're being held accountable for the timeline...but even with all the insurgents, progress is being made, just not as quickly as people had hoped

I still refuse to believe the left-wing talking point that Bush/USA "created" all these terrorists, as if they were just normal happy people before Bush got elected or before 9/11 or before the Iraq war

ps: Lavim, this is an example of an honest/rational post, not trolling...read a few more of these and maybe you'll be better at telling the difference

9/25/2006 5:27:56 PM

I don't think people are saying that bush "created" the terrorists, that's not what the report says, and that would be an inaccurate interpretation.

The criticism is that people knew and were saying that the somewhat rash attack of Iraq wouldn't help things, but could make things worse, which is what the report is saying. In poltics (and most things for that matter), it doesn't make sense to criticize things in the past because you can't change them, but reports like this, and commentary from the left, are trying to show people that they shouldn't blindly follow Bush's (or anyone's) ideas. Instead, use some reason in trying to figure out the best course of action.

A lot of people knew before Iraq that this type of invasion would fail, and if these people had been listened to instead of shouted down by the right, we might not have been in this situation.

So, considering all this, I think it would be prudent to take an honest evaluation on the current course of things in Iraq, and see what could/should be done to make things better, rather than just accepting that thigns might get better with the current course.

9/25/2006 5:37:24 PM

Quote :

"Well I think the current course is working, just working very slowly"

How slowly? I don't think it is reasonable for the American people to have to commit to giving over our hard earned resources for a campaign that could last a decade or more, especially when it wasn't sold to us that way.

Quote :

"I still refuse to believe the left-wing talking point that Bush/USA "created" all these terrorists, as if they were just normal happy people before Bush got elected or before 9/11 or before the Iraq war"

The NIE report is not a left wing talking point. And I don't see what is so hard for you to comprehend new people, folks that weren't exactly fans of the US but nonetheless tried to live their lives as normally as possible, now becoming jihadist after we invaded their homeland, killed their friends and family, destroyed their infastructure, and pushed their country into civil war. Do you honestly think it is such an outlandish concept that our attack on their country pushed some of the fence sitters into the jihadist camp? Are you not going to tally those folks into the Bush/Iraq war "new terrorist" tally just because they might have been inclined to going that way anyway?

9/25/2006 6:18:16 PM

Quote :

"Do you honestly think it is such an outlandish concept that our attack on their country pushed some of the fence sitters into the jihadist camp?"

This is exactly what it is. I know of so many people who used to be fence-sitters, but after the wholesale destruction of Iraq, they have jumped off the fence into the land of militantism.

The more America kills Muslims (directly or indirectly), the more fence-sitters who jump off the fence.

9/26/2006 8:43:58 AM

THE CHIMP HAS SPOKEN.

Quote :

"I think it is naive, I think it is mistaken. It is wrong to believe that going on the offensive against those who want to harm the American people has made us less safe."

CAN'T THIS BASTARD BE IMPEACHED ALREADY FOR CONTINUING TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?

He is STILL implying that Iraq/Saddam wanted to harm America, and thus, he is continuing to associate 9-11 with Iraq. No wonder a big chunk of Americans think that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in 9-11.

After he said the above, he said:

Quote :

"The terrorists are fighting us in Iraq because they want to oppose the young democracy."

Oh, that's the reason they are fighting US forces, to oppose the young democracy? I thought their reason was to harm Americans?

9/26/2006 4:19:07 PM

It looks suspiciously like warring factions fighting over the keys to their own democracy. Kinda like we used to have in this country before we got all sissified.

Funny how much credulity we extend our intelligence organizations, sometimes.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060926/D8KCOU3G0.html

Quote :

"Bin Laden Rumors Again Come to Nothing He was blown up in the caves of Tora Bora. He was on dialysis and dying of kidney disease. He was in the hands of Pakistani intelligence and about to be turned over to the United States. Rumors of Osama bin Laden's death or capture go back years, and they have always proved greatly exaggerated. The latest came Saturday, when a leaked French intelligence document citing a "usually reliable" source said the Saudi secret service was convinced the 52-year-old al-Qaida terror chief had died of typhoid last month in Pakistan. ..."

Anyway, here's the rest of the report which came out today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/

Quote :

"Intel report: Iraq a ‘cause célèbre’ for extremists President says NIE leak was political, denies war has worsened terrorism WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become a “cause célèbre” 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 contention 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. ..."

I'm amazed the administration would charge that the leak of sensitive information might've been political. Poor lil'fellas...

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 11:24:17 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion;_ylt=Am3wMhkQ8mODSIO.wAuWSHWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Iraqis also have negative views of
Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in
Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

_Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll.

"What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely."

Iraqi officials have said Iraq's security was improving and expanding throughout the country, and most U.S. troops might be able to leave eventually.

Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the
United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

9/28/2006 2:58:18 AM

Quote :

"About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces"

oh wait, i thought there were going to welcome us with flowers and candies?

9/28/2006 10:52:50 AM

only idiots thought that

9/28/2006 10:58:20 AM

You mean republicans, and George Bush most of all?

9/28/2006 11:02:49 AM

you mean liberals who are rewriting history to say that bush claimed we would be greeted with flowers and that all republicans thought that??

9/28/2006 11:05:13 AM

Are we arguing semantics or are you just trying to blow your buddy twista today?

9/28/2006 12:50:07 PM

State409c you jealous since you're used to riding my cock from thread to thread?

or maybe you can post a link to where Bush says anything to the effect of flowers and candies and end this debate

9/28/2006 1:07:56 PM

It was Chalabi that said "flowers and candy" and it was cheney that said we would be "greeted as liberators" and that it would be a quick operation.

9/28/2006 1:21:54 PM

what does 'quick' mean?

cause i mean the last president disputed what the definition of 'is' was

9/28/2006 1:25:27 PM

The report was leaked on a fucking Saturday.

That's pretty much the factual part of the article. What made it's release political? What made it's release illegal? What made it's release unethical?

9/28/2006 1:31:27 PM

Quote :

"or maybe you can post a link to where Bush says anything to the effect of flowers and candies and end this debate"

Quote :

"Are we arguing semantics"

You're the worst person here for trying to pin an argument on an exact comment someone made, yet simultaneously going off on tangents and offering up strawmen like there are eleventy Totos around looking for a place to piss.

Quote :

"it was cheney that said we would be "greeted as liberators" and that it would be a quick operation"

Clearly, we are interchanging Bush the man and Bush the presidency freely here. Maybe it isn't so nice from a strict arguing point of view, but I have at least given you credit that you can get the essence of an argument without having to derail it into a semantics debate (though you do it time and time again, so I don't know why I am surprised).

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM. Reason : a]

9/28/2006 1:43:22 PM

i still think its foolish for anybody to think that a war and subsequent rebuilding would be a quick process

anybody with sense knows its a helluva complex process

9/28/2006 2:24:25 PM

No doubt. Do you remember how few people were discussing it in those terms back in the run-up? In the Soap Box?

9/28/2006 2:29:06 PM

no i dont recall

i thought the AIR STRIKES would be relatively quick and easy which they pretty much were

but not the ground wars and rebuilding

9/28/2006 2:31:30 PM