Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This has to be approached on a broad scale.

How?

For starters, take a look at how George H. W. Bush dealt with Iraq. Especially how he prepared for the action and how he had a workable and clearly defined plan. He had allies and a mandate from the world community. Allies + Mandate = Broad Scale. W didn't have either ingredient. The elder Bush is just so much smarter than his offspring.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This has to be approached on a broad scale.

How?

With international cooperation for one thing. Cooperation that was pissed away by going to war with someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 or islamic fundamentalist groups. Someone who's political outlook was diametrically opposed to Al Qaeda, for example.

[Heracles 417]

For starters, take a look at how George H. W. Bush dealt with Iraq. Especially how he prepared for the action and how he had a workable and clearly defined plan. He had allies and a mandate from the world community. Allies + Mandate = Broad Scale. W didn't have either ingredient. The elder Bush is just so much smarter than his offspring.

Doesn't matter if George W wet his pants in public. If you are going to accuse someone of failing at their job, how about giving detailed workable solutions..

With international cooperation for one thing. Cooperation that was pissed away by going to war with someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 or islamic fundamentalist groups. Someone who's political outlook was diametrically opposed to Al Qaeda, for example.

International cooperation from who? The guys that sat backed and watched him torture the kurds and any opposing Iraqis for years??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

International cooperation from who? The guys that sat backed and watched him torture the kurds and any opposing Iraqis for years??

Bringing that into the argument is an ideological "guilt trip". Noone will deny that Saddam was brutal and responsible for much death and misery, but he's not alone in that. The world is full of such people - even worse than him. Yet we are not in a hurry to do anything about them. Should something be done? Absolutely.

But you're not selling me on the idea that Bush et al were so sold on the plight of the Iraqi people that he "courageously decided to act".

It was supposedly about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Seeing as there were neither, ergo the war was about something else.

And the Iraqi's are "free" but their country is now on the brink of civil war, and sectarian death squads roam the streets of Baghdad.

Did I hear you say this was victory? Wounds are all I'm made of...

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

International cooperation from who? The guys that sat backed and watched him torture the kurds and any opposing Iraqis for years??

International cooperation from those that bear quite a bit of the burden in Afghanistan. Who cares that Saddam tortured Kurds? W? Ha. Turkey, for example, has a rather rocky relationship with their Kurds. If you were to believe the Turkish Kurds, they're tortured and oppressed and whatnot. Don't know if they are or not but we don't really give a first shite either way. This wasn't about Saddam torturing anyone.

If you are going to accuse someone of failing at their job, how about giving detailed workable solutions..

How about if you're wanting to have a serious debate, you quit throwing nonsense like that above into the forum? Edited September 24, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Heracles 417]

Bringing that into the argument is an ideological "guilt trip". Noone will deny that Saddam was brutal and responsible for much death and misery, but he's not alone in that. The world is full of such people - many more far worse than him. Yet we are not in a hurry to do anything about them. Should something be done? Absolutely.

Guilt trip nothing.... At least George W and co had the balls to stand up to these guys and actually get their hands dirty rather than pussyfoot around, like other nations. The fact is countries like France, Russia and China heavily opposed any actions as they had strong personal interests in Iraq..

If you are going to accuse someone of failing at their job, how about giving detailed workable solutions..

How about if you're wanting to have a serious debate, you quit throwing nonsense like that above into the forum?

Who is talking nonsense here? All some of you know how to do is be negative and criticise some else who is at least trying to do something..

Edited September 24, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bringing that into the argument is an ideological "guilt trip". Noone will deny that Saddam was brutal and responsible for much death and misery, but he's not alone in that. The world is full of such people - many more far worse than him. Yet we are not in a hurry to do anything about them. Should something be done? Absolutely.

Guilt trip nothing.... At least George W and co had the balls to stand up to these guys and actually get their hands dirty rather than pussyfoot around, like other nations. The fact is countries like France, Russia and China heavily opposed any actions as they had strong personal interests in Iraq..

Its a guilt trip because you're ignoring the fact that the war was justified on a specific basis which has turned out to be either greatly exaggerated or made up entirely.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bringing that into the argument is an ideological "guilt trip". Noone will deny that Saddam was brutal and responsible for much death and misery, but he's not alone in that. The world is full of such people - many more far worse than him. Yet we are not in a hurry to do anything about them. Should something be done? Absolutely.

Guilt trip nothing.... At least George W and co had the balls to stand up to these guys and actually get their hands dirty rather than pussyfoot around, like other nations. The fact is countries like France, Russia and China heavily opposed any actions as they had strong personal interests in Iraq..

George W is pussyfooting around most brutal dictators. He's actually pussyfooting around dictators much worse than Saddam. This ain't about balls. It's about $$. And if you can't see that, then I can't help you.

Let's suppose for a minute, though, that this was really some samaritan mission (something Bush clearly said he'd never get this nation into) to free the people of Iraq. He fcuked that mission up pretty good then, didn't he? But all that is besides the point because it wasn't and isn't about the freedom of the Iraqi people or some imagined balls of a moron.

All some of you know how to do is be negative and criticise some else who is at least trying to do something...

At least trying to do something? Are you kidding me? Tens of thousands are dead, a country is on the brink of civil war, an entire region is severely destabilized and you talk about a moron in the White House "trying to do something"? You have got get serious. Edited September 24, 2006 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, I don't think people are used to the American media doing their jobs anymore. They've been so cowardly and reluctant to report the truth since Bush took office. Could it be because most major newspapers are now owned by large corporations and are now run like businesses, purely for profit?

A bit off the original topic, Alex, but I think this is worth reading in response to what you've just said. It gives me hope anyway.

That article is hopeful, but, for example, the last Seymour Herch piece I read was in The New Yorker. I want more effort made to take back what a newspaper is really supposed to be. I think it's saddening that there is a NEED for the FIJ.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune now prints only "happy news" on the front page (actual company policy) and has replaced their reader advocate with someone who just explains to the public why the newspaper did what it did. Le sigh.

...as in Le Pew? I hear ya. It's no accident that media conglomerates have concentrated the main flow of information into the hands of a select few. They can now effectively silence what they choose by simply not airing or publishing it ...even if an independent journalist manages to publish a story in the New Yorker, it gets marginalized by the media giants. I think that the internet has circumvented that effort, however, as blogging becomes ever more popular - journalistic discourse no longer seems out of reach from those who wish to engage in the debates. My philosophy professor believed that true discourse doesn't exist in print because by default when someone writes, the reader must intellectually submit to the author's authority. Blogging then to me seems to be a step in the right direction as it has taken that authority out of the hands of the author and challenges them to engage in rebuttal. People are discussing issues to a degree that was never possible before, with others they may have never otherwise engaged in a discussion with. That gives me hope.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[homesick_american 1]

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 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.

(continues)

Source: NYTimes.com

Big fat "DUH" here! Anti-war groups have been saying it for years, and I agree with them on this. The war in Iraq has done nothing but make things worse.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Did I hear you say this was victory? Wounds are all I'm made of...

Darn you, making me dig out Fire of Unknown Origin!

That happens to be a very good song though!

Edited September 24, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That happens to be a very good song though!

It is!

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

knowingly publishing classified information isn't informing the public, it's called treason.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

knowingly publishing classified information isn't informing the public, it's called treason.

This isn't new though - and its certainly not unique to the current climate.

In any case, does the article say that the report itself was leaked? I read the words:

according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document

In any case, it would be interesting to see someone explain how this specific article is not in the greater public interest - as opposed to the government simply sitting on it and pretending that everything is going swimmingly.

How exactly will the non-specific, 2nd-hand reporting of the findings of a classified report directly (or indirectly) endanger national security? There are too many secrets these days...

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose