Has the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism

[Damuri Ajashi]

I heard on the ride in that 16 government intelligence services agree that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism. We are creating another generation of terrorists by occupying Iraq. I remember this idea being pooh-poohed when it was floated around a few years back as being a silly unsubstantiated theory (kinda like the Bush doctrine). Doesn't this mean that we at least have to discuss withdrawal from Iraq instead of taking the we'll leave when we feel like it approach (I know its not quite that simple but without any clear objectives for when we start pulling out, aren't we basically saying we'll leave when we feel like it?)?

[BJMoose]

Yeah. The local paper today had a story compiled from multiple sources (apparently the usual suspects: NY Times, Wash. Post) saying that "the concensus opinion of the enire federal intelligence network" in an April report (where has that been hiding??) is that the war in Iraq has made America less safe.

Interestingly, the paper also carried an AP story that begins:

Guards at a riverfront Army ammunition plant in Tennessee report that boaters have entered restricted areas, holes are often found in a perimeter fence and a government contractor steps up security to impress inspectors.

* * *

The Army says the plant is meeting Defense Department security standards.


:rolleyes: I certainly feel secure. . . .


While bugging out of Iraq would certainly help, the problem is deeper than that.

[elucidator]

How would we know? What information can we glean that is not encrusted with somebody's agenda? If the truth is favorable to the Bushiviks, we can be assured that they will rush to provide it. If it be otherwise, we will need to pry it from thier grasp.

If we take a rough cut on it, and make the assumption that increasing the number of our enemies increases the prospect of terror....well, that's pretty much a "slam dunk".

[Revtim]

This is what Ted Kennedy argued would happen, was it not? Ah, but he's just an ultra-liberal woman-killer, no reason to listen to him.

Why does it take intelligence agencies to figure this one out? If an invading force took over the US, and your children are blown into bloody chunks of hamburger, would you be more likely or less likely to become a terrorist against the country that invaded? Would assurances that your children were not specifically targeted, but simply had the bad luck to playing outside the restaurant the real target was eating at make a difference?

[Voyager]

How would we know? What information can we glean that is not encrusted with somebody's agenda? If the truth is favorable to the Bushiviks, we can be assured that they will rush to provide it. If it be otherwise, we will need to pry it from thier grasp.

If we take a rough cut on it, and make the assumption that increasing the number of our enemies increases the prospect of terror....well, that's pretty much a "slam dunk".
Well, you know that and I know that, but many of our Republican friends don't seem to know that. It's fine for us to guess this, but it is nice to have confirmation.

I heard the White House response on the radio: if you read the whole document, there is a different conclusion. Odd that none of the sources in the Times, who either read or participated in preparing the study, thought that.

[Marley23]

I remember this idea being pooh-poohed when it was floated around a few years back as being a silly unsubstantiated theory (kinda like the Bush doctrine).
Let's think about this: who would "pooh-pooh" this idea? Probably the same people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and that the administration's plan would work. Doesn't that tell you something right there?

The problem is that withdrawing from Iraq wouldn't immediately fix this. The report just seems to acknowledge that the war itself has increased the threat.

[Der Trihs]

The problem is that withdrawing from Iraq wouldn't immediately fix this.Remember the First Rule of Holes : When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging ! Leaving won't fix the problems we've made, but it'll eliminate one way we are making them worse.

[Marley23]

Remember the First Rule of Holes : When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging ! Leaving won't fix the problems we've made, but it'll eliminate one way we are making them worse.
But couldn't leaving also make it worse? If Iraq becomes a full-blown failed state, I can easily imagine us being blamed for that, too - and worse, a failed state would also benefit international terrorists.

[Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist]

I heard on the ride in that 16 government intelligence services agree that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism. We are creating another generation of terrorists by occupying Iraq. I remember this idea being pooh-poohed when it was floated around a few years back as being a silly unsubstantiated theory (kinda like the Bush doctrine). Doesn't this mean that we at least have to discuss withdrawal from Iraq instead of taking the we'll leave when we feel like it approach (I know its not quite that simple but without any clear objectives for when we start pulling out, aren't we basically saying we'll leave when we feel like it?)?



Not at all. A dictator or religious fanatic might not give a damn about his people, but threaten his power and things change. First off Iraq had WMD's. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Saddam Hussein used poisons gas and killed tens of thousand of Kurds, and used Chemical weapons on Iran. So we know he had WMD’s. Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it..

Getting back to my point, since the war, Libya has said they are out of the terrorist and arms business. Saudi Arabia is fighting Al Quedia from within. Pakistan is helping us round up radicals. Even Syria has toned their act down a bit. Many terrorists have been killed or detained. In addition their infrastructure, financial backings and communication liens had taken a severe blow.

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.

The true value of the Iraq war is on the back end. Millions will experience democracy. And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance.

In addition the government of Iraq will look favorably upon us for oil contracts. If we cut and run, Russia, China or another country will fill in.

[Lamar Mundane]

Not at all. A dictator or religious fanatic might not give a damn about his people, but threaten his power and things change. First off Iraq had WMD's. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Saddam Hussein used poisons gas and killed tens of thousand of Kurds, and used Chemical weapons on Iran. So we know he had WMD’s. Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it..

Getting back to my point, since the war, Libya has said they are out of the terrorist and arms business. Saudi Arabia is fighting Al Quedia from within. Pakistan is helping us round up radicals. Even Syria has toned their act down a bit. Many terrorists have been killed or detained. In addition their infrastructure, financial backings and communication liens had taken a severe blow.

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.

The true value of the Iraq war is on the back end. Millions will experience democracy. And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance.

In addition the government of Iraq will look favorably upon us for oil contracts. If we cut and run, Russia, China or another country will fill in.
You spilled some Kool-Aid on your shirt, dude.

Your post is nothing but suppositions. There are WMD's they're just hiding. The war will create democracy in it's wake. If they weren't fighting us there, they'd be blowing up schools in Omaha. Do you have any evidence to support your assertions? Any at all?

[Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist]

You spilled some Kool-Aid on your shirt, dude.

Your post is nothing but suppositions. There are WMD's they're just hiding. The war will create democracy in it's wake. If they weren't fighting us there, they'd be blowing up schools in Omaha. Do you have any evidence to support your assertions? Any at all?


Drink up dude. Hussein HAD WMD's and Used them. This is fact. Finding buried items in a large area is very difficult thing do. Be logical here. Every nation in the world had the same intelligence. Iraq had WMD's.

Saddam also sponsored terrorism by giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000.00

The man also killed thousands. Do not defend Hussien and do not suggest that he did not have WMD’s because we know he used them.

[Lamar Mundane]

Drink up dude. Hussein HAD WMD's and Used them. This is fact. Finding buried items in a large area is very difficult thing do. Be logical here. Every nation in the world had the same intelligence. Iraq had WMD's.

Saddam also sponsored terrorism by giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000.00

The man also killed thousands. Do not defend Hussien and do not suggest that he did not have WMD’s because we know he used them.
Yes, he had them. 15 years before we invaded. There is zero evidence that he had any WMD's at the time of the invasion. The administration has acknowledged this repeatedly.

Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)

Your assertion that they exist and are buried has no more validity than if you were claiming unicorns exist in Atlantis. None whatsoever.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Let's think about this: who would "pooh-pooh" this idea? Probably the same people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and that the administration's plan would work. Doesn't that tell you something right there?

The problem is that withdrawing from Iraq wouldn't immediately fix this. The report just seems to acknowledge that the war itself has increased the threat.

So now that we are where we are and if we come to the conclusion that being in Iraq is about as beneficial to the war on terror as private accounts are to the solvency of social security (the parallels there are to big to be ignored), then what do we do.

Is anyone REALLY supporting just cutting and running, just picking up stakes and getting out of there starting tomorrow as the only alternative to staying there indefinitely?

But we aren't even seriously thikinng about how to get out of there, we seem to be focused on how to make our presence there look good to the rest of the world. I keep hearing that leaving Iraq is a defeatist attitude, that anyone that wants to leave Iraq is a coward who only encouraged and emboldens the terrorsits to commit more terror because we will be capitulating to their terrorist tactics (they usually manage to squeeze in a few more references to terrorism, cowardice and usually something that creates the image of little Johnny getting blown up at soccer practice in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere, despite the fact that little Johnny is more likly to get killed during the 15 minute carride to soccer practice than to terrorism during the 3 hour soccer game).

I am not at all convinced that having soldiers there is going to do anything other than delay the inevitable.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Not at all. A dictator or religious fanatic might not give a damn about his people, but threaten his power and things change. First off Iraq had WMD's. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Saddam Hussein used poisons gas and killed tens of thousand of Kurds, and used Chemical weapons on Iran. So we know he had WMD’s. Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it..

Of course he had WMDs at one point, heck, we probably sold them to him. And of course we all suspected he had WMDs even though we couldn't find any because he was playing cat and mouse with the WMD inspectors and trying to be cute about letting them into facitlities and then telling them no. The fact of the matter is that almost all of the evidence we have today proves that he didn't have WMDs.

Getting back to my point, since the war, Libya has said they are out of the terrorist and arms business. Saudi Arabia is fighting Al Quedia from within. Pakistan is helping us round up radicals. Even Syria has toned their act down a bit. Many terrorists have been killed or detained. In addition their infrastructure, financial backings and communication liens had taken a severe blow.

Check your facts on Libya, Qaddafi pledged to fight Al Queda and open his weapons programs to international inspection during the Clinton Administration. No doubt the invasion of Iraq had some effect on his decision in 2003 to dismantle his WMD development programs but he was well on the way to doing that already and do you really think that invading Afghnistan was not enough of a show of force to bring some people in line or does the show of force have to be more meaningless to really scare people?

The change in attitude from those countries came after 9/11 and perhaps as a result of invading Afghanistan. That was when Saudi Arabia condemned Al Queda, that was when Syria started sending us get well cards, that was when Pakistan helped us track down terrorists. We are talking about IRAQ (AKA the biggest fuck up of the century and we were only three years in) not 9/11, not Afghanistan, not the war against terror generally, we are talking about Iraq.

We probably got some good done in Iraq but it has cost us over 300 billion dollars, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and almost 3000 american soldiers and a country that is on the brink of the bloody civil war a la Rwanda and Kosovo. For 300 billion dollars you can vaccinate the entire unvaccinated world, provide sex and pre-natal education to the entire third world, provide up to 6th grade educations to all children who would not otherwise receive this information for the next 25 years, and provide food to the entire worlds starving population for the next 25 years but at least we got Saddam Hussein out of power.

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.

The same mad men? When you talk about fighting terrorists in Iraq I assume you mean the people who are crossing borders to fight in Iraq right? I mean, very few if any of the homegrown terrorists were terrorists until we got there and scrood up their country right? The estimates I have seen number these terrorists in Iraq at a few hundred and most of them would never have had the means to come to America.

The true value of the Iraq war is on the back end. Millions will experience democracy. And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance.

This is all conjecture and theory. Not exactly what you want to bet the national farm on.

In addition the government of Iraq will look favorably upon us for oil contracts. If we cut and run, Russia, China or another country will fill in.

Dude at this point Iraqis will hate us for at least a generation, maybe not North Korea levels of hatred but it will still be hate.

[Voyager]

Drink up dude. Hussein HAD WMD's and Used them. This is fact. Finding buried items in a large area is very difficult thing do. Be logical here. Every nation in the world had the same intelligence. Iraq had WMD's.

Besides the already made point that he did not have them at the time of the invasion, when he did have them he was not under any sanctions. Remember, we backed him in the war with Iran. Remember that his good buddy Rumsfeld came a calling.

Saddam also sponsored terrorism by giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000.00

Under that rule, anyone raising money for the children of a mass murderer killed by the cops is supporting mass murder. :rolleyes: Besides, Saddam was not the only person doing this. Any cites he was really supporting terrorism?

The man also killed thousands. Do not defend Hussien and do not suggest that he did not have WMD’s because we know he used them.
And a hundred Iraqis, mostly innocents, are dying every day thanks to this stupid invasion. Good job on our part.

You need to stop watching Fox News and tune into reality some day.

[Der Trihs]

But couldn't leaving also make it worse? If Iraq becomes a full-blown failed state, I can easily imagine us being blamed for that, too - and worse, a failed state would also benefit international terrorists.What makes you think it won't if we stay ? I see no evidence we are doing anything but making things worse. There might have been a time when we could have helped, but we've blown all our moral and political capital and more. All we can do at this point is serve as an irritant; a rallying point for the fanatics, and a justification for violence against anyone who supports peace or what little government there is.

Many terrorists have been killed or detained.More than have been created ? More than who were innocent before we grabbed them ? How many now agree with Waleed Abdul Karim (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands), "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life", after we grabbed him and abused him ?

Millions will experience democracy. And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance. We've done our best to convince people who've never had it that "democracy" = "bloody anarchy ". We couldn't have created a better propaganda victory for anti-democratic forces if we tried.

[elucidator]

Besides the actual increase of terrorism threat, their is the decrease in willingness to help us. Bombers and armored divisions won't help us, we need eyes and ears in the slums of Hamburg and the marketplace in Cairo. We offer multi-million dollar bounties on these people, and no one rats them out. That should tell us something, something we should have been listening for.

The dramatic increase, the obvious one, is the number of people who flat out hate us and ache to do us harm. Possibly worse, certainly as bad, is the indifference of ordinary people. The same people, you may recall in the dim recesses of your memory, that were briefly sympathetic to our cause. Hell, there were candlight vigils held by people who don't even like us very much! The whole fuckin' world was on our side, and The Leader pisses it all away playing tough guy.

It burns! The stupidity! It burns......

[Revtim]

Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it.If there's still a chance of Iraq having had WMDs at the time of invasion, why has Bush himself stated that there were not?

Here's the speech (or maybe just one of them) where he admits there were no WMDs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDKepme2-2k

What possible gain would Bush have making such an admission if it were not true?


I've brought this up to at least two other people who think it's still possible there were WMDs at the time of invasion. Please, be the first who doesn't ignore the question and actually tell us why Bush would say such a thing if it weren't true.

[elucidator]

When he tells the truth, his nose grows?

[Der Trihs]

Please, be the first who doesn't ignore the question and actually tell us why Bush would say such a thing if it weren't true.When he tells the truth, his nose grows?Not a chance; he'd have a concave face and an inside out nose on the back of his head.

[elucidator]

You done whooshed yerself, Der. Nose grows when he tells the truth. Its the Old Switcheroo.

(Dumbass Trotskyists. Sheeesh!)

[Ravenman]

Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it..Congratulations. An assertion of such unsupportability by facts and just general non-informedness is truly a marvel.

Let me simply say that satellite imagery is being used to find mass graves in Iraq. Cite. (http://www.aina.org/news/20060605105730.htm)

Do you expect anyone to believe that our satellites are somehow capable of discovering hidden mass graves, but incapable of discovering massive caches of WMD that were somehow secretly buried during the war while every goddamn square inch of Iraq was being photographed from space?

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.Did you read any of the articles on this news event? Like this? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/25/wiraq25.xml) They don't say that "Iraqis would be busy terrorizing other countries, but unfortunately, the war in Iraq has made them want to terrorize the US instead." It does not say that. What it does say is that the war in Iraq "has spawned a new generation of terrorists." As in, the war has inspired people to pick up arms and threaten us.

In addition the government of Iraq will look favorably upon us for oil contracts. If we cut and run, Russia, China or another country will fill in.So, if we stay and bleed, gas will someday get cheaper in the US? How many lives will it take to lower the cost of gas by 50 cents? Because as far as I can tell, we've lost nearly 2,700 Americans there and the cost of a gallon of 87 has gone up 50 percent since the time we invaded.

[Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist]

Yes, he had them. 15 years before we invaded. There is zero evidence that he had any WMD's at the time of the invasion. The administration has acknowledged this repeatedly.

Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)

Your assertion that they exist and are buried has no more validity than if you were claiming unicorns exist in Atlantis. None whatsoever.

At least we agree Hussein had them. Hussien had plenty of time to get rid of them before we arrived. The real question is, where did they go? One thing is for certian, Hussein will never have them again.

[Der Trihs]

You done whooshed yerself, Der. Nose grows when he tells the truth. Its the Old Switcheroo.

(Dumbass Trotskyists. Sheeesh!)Precisely. He tells the truth, his nose gets bigger. He lies, it gets smaller; thus my inverted nose comment. Methinks the whooshing is on your part.

[Der Trihs]

At least we agree Hussein had them. Long, long before the invasion; by the time that came around, any he had had decayed to uselessness, or been destroyed by the UN.

Hussien had plenty of time to get rid of them before we arrived. Why bother hiding junk ? For that matter, if he had them why didn't he use them ?

The real question is, where did they go? [Rod Serling]The . . . Twilight Zone.[/Rod Serling]

One thing is for certian, Hussein will never have them again.No; his successor will, Iran will . . . in fact, most of the planet will, and they'll point them at us. That's the real lesson of this war; you should be ready to threaten America with mass death at all times, because massive brute force is all we understand.

[Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist]

Remember the First Rule of Holes : When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging ! Leaving won't fix the problems we've made, but it'll eliminate one way we are making them worse.

So you’re against the people of Iraq getting a chance to experience a democracy?
Don't act like things were not accomplished in Iraq. Hussien is gone. To leave now would encourage thug like groups to take control. The newly elected Iraqi government is not ready to stand on its own yet. Let's not create another Lebanon situation where the country becomes infiltrated and run by goons.

[Squink]

What information can we glean that is not encrusted with somebody's agenda? If the truth is favorable to the Bushiviks, we can be assured that they will rush to provide it. If it be otherwise, we will need to pry it from thier grasp.
There's something odd about this National Intelligence Estimate popping up full fledged just now. We know it was completed in April 2006 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html), and that Democratic leaders called on Negroponte for an updated NIE in late July (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69809):July 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Senators Kennedy, Biden, Rockefeller, Levin, and Reed today sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, requesting that the intelligence community prepare an updated National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The last time the NIE was updated was in 2004, yet much has changed in the security, economy and political stability of Iraq....So they were clearly left in the dark about the existence of this thing. In early August, possibly in response to Dem pressure, Negroponte ordered an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/08/5intel.html) saying the NIE would be completed "shortly."
Obviously, Negroponte knew of the existence of the April NIE, so what’s with promising a new one “shortly”? Was he trying to completely cover up the existence of the April NIE and quicky-prep a new one more to his liking? It’s difficult to imagine any less damning hypothesis that still covers the facts here.

[Ravenman]

To leave now would encourage thug like groups to take control. (snip) Let's not create another Lebanon situation where the country becomes infiltrated and run by goons.Too late. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20060215-1459-iraq-torture.html) Is government-sponsored torture a part of the "freedom agenda?"

[Der Trihs]

So you’re against the people of Iraq getting a chance to experience a democracy?What democracy ? Anarchy in the streets and low-level civil war isn't democracy, nor is a puppet government.

Don't act like things were not accomplished in Iraq. Sure; lots of Iraqis are dead, crippled and injured; religious fanaticism is taking over what used to be a secular culture; the economy and infrastructure are wrecked; what passes for a government is a joke; and we have ignited hatred that will burn for generations. A hundred years from now, they will despise us.

Hussien is gone. Big deal; he'd be an improvement.

To leave now would encourage thug like groups to take control.They are in control.

The newly elected Iraqi government is not ready to stand on its own yet.And it never will be. As collaborators, they are walking dead men. When we leave, now or years from now, they die.

Let's not create another Lebanon situation where the country becomes infiltrated and run by goons.Too late; that happened the moment we crossed the border.

[Revtim]

And Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist proves to be yet another who claims there still could have been WMDs at the time of invasion, and completely ignores the question as to why Bush has stated that there were none.

[Age Quod Agis]

Check your facts on Libya, Qaddafi pledged to fight Al Queda and open his weapons programs to international inspection during the Clinton Administration. No doubt the invasion of Iraq had some effect on his decision in 2003 to dismantle his WMD development programs but he was well on the way to doing that already and do you really think that invading Afghnistan was not enough of a show of force to bring some people in line or does the show of force have to be more meaningless to really scare people?I don't mean to go off topic, but do you have a cite for this please? I ask because it goes against what I understood to have happened. For example, most of the articles I read on the subject suggested that Qaddafi's decision was a shocking reversal of his prior stance. And here's an article in the Scotsman (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/libya/2003/1222gaddafi.htm) suggesting that he agreed to allow inspections the day after he said he was dismantling his weapons program (in 2003)Libya has agreed to allow snap UN nuclear arms inspections, just a day after declaring it was giving up plans to build an atomic bomb, a Western diplomat said yesterday. Libya, widely praised for announcing on Friday that it was ditching efforts to build the bomb and other banned weapons, told the head of the UN nuclear watchdog on Saturday it was ready to sign up to inspections, the diplomat told Reuters.

The surprise moves, which could lead to the end of US sanctions and the return of US oil companies, mark an about-face for Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libyan leader for 34 years. Plus, this globalsecurity.org article (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/nuclear.htm) suggests that Libyans were professing that they weren't pursuing nukes, but were still operating a covert nuke program:The October 2003 seizure of the centrifuge parts came little more than two months before the surprise announcement 19 December that Libya, after negotiations with the United States and Britain, had agreed to dismantle its secret nuclear and other weapons-of-mass destruction programs. The interdiction may well have been a factor in Libya's ultimate decision to end its covert weapons efforts. Obviously, if I'm wrong or misunderstanding, I'd appreciate a clarification.The change in attitude from those countries came after 9/11 and perhaps as a result of invading Afghanistan. That was when Saudi Arabia condemned Al Queda, that was when Syria started sending us get well cards, that was when Pakistan helped us track down terrorists. There are certainly indications that the cooperation we received from some Middle Eastern countries was not solely the result of goodwill (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/pakistan.threat.ap/index.html).President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan says the United States threatened to bomb his country back to the Stone Age after the 9/11 attacks if he did not help America's war on terror.

Musharraf says the threat was delivered by Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, to Musharraf's intelligence director, the Pakistani leader told CBS-TV's "60 Minutes."

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,' " Musharraf said in the interview to be shown Sunday on the CBS television network. There are political reasons that he could be lying now, so I'd take this with a grain of salt. But it's worth considering.

[Frostillicus]

Just based on the username he chose, its clear that Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist has no axe to grind, and is as non-partisan as they come.

[Der Trihs]

Just based on the username he chose, its clear that Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist has no axe to grind, and is as non-partisan as they come.Or . . . maybe he is her gynecologist ! :eek:

[Age Quod Agis]

Just based on the username he chose, its clear that Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist has no axe to grind, and is as non-partisan as they come.Let's not go overboard, now. BobLibDem's name doesn't exactly speak of a neutral worldview, but he's no partisan automaton.

If you have something to add to the debate, obviously, you should do so. But attacking someone's username isn't really GD material.

[jshore]

Drink up dude. Hussein HAD WMD's and Used them. This is fact.

Indeed...And, at the time that he was making and using them, what did we do? We supplied him with the necessary materials and the intelligence reports that allowed him to use them most effectively against Iran. (http://www.cryptogon.com/2002_12_29_blogarchive.html) (See also here (http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg).)


Of course he had WMDs at one point, heck, we probably sold them to him. And of course we all suspected he had WMDs even though we couldn't find any because he was playing cat and mouse with the WMD inspectors and trying to be cute about letting them into facitlities and then telling them no.

While there is no doubt that Saddam may have been pretty cagey at times to keep people guessing, I don't believe it is in fact true that he was denying the weapons inspectors access to facilities in the lead-up to the war in 2003. The inspectors were getting quite unfettered access. I believe that the biggest complaint the inspectors had was an inability of Iraq to produce solid documentary evidence of having destroyed all of the WMDs that they had had but claimed to have destroyed. Of course, we never found the WMDs or, as far as I know, the documentary evidence, which means that this may have been the first war started over bad record-keeping. (And, by the way, while it was hard for the inspectors to show a negative...i.e., that Saddam did not have WMD, they were learning that U.S. intelligence about where Saddam had WMD was garbage (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml).)

[It is true that Saddam had been obstructing the weapons inspectors in their work back in the late 90s, which culminated in them being pulled out by the U.N. and the U.S. and Britain launching some bombing runs. At the time, Saddam's claim that some of the inspectors were acting as spies for the U.S. and Britain was generally dismissed as an excuse, but was subsequently found to be true (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1645). (Hans Blix acknowledged as much on a "Fresh Air" (http://www.whyy.org/freshairarchives/) interview with Terry Gross.)

Back on the OP's main topic, it is nice to see that the U.S. intelligence professionals are acknowledging a fact that has been obvious to a lot of us for a long time.

[David Simmons]

Not at all. A dictator or religious fanatic might not give a damn about his people, but threaten his power and things change. First off Iraq had WMD's. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Saddam Hussein used poisons gas and killed tens of thousand of Kurds, and used Chemical weapons on Iran. So we know he had WMD’s. Iraq is one giant sand box the size of Texas. The weapons could be buried in non-detectable canisters, at the bottom of the Persian gulf, or in another country. And don’t; give me any crap we can't find them. The Titanic was the size of a football field, and it took 50 years to locate it..

Getting back to my point, since the war, Libya has said they are out of the terrorist and arms business. Saudi Arabia is fighting Al Quedia from within. Pakistan is helping us round up radicals. Even Syria has toned their act down a bit. Many terrorists have been killed or detained. In addition their infrastructure, financial backings and communication liens had taken a severe blow.

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.

The true value of the Iraq war is on the back end. Millions will experience democracy. And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance.

In addition the government of Iraq will look favorably upon us for oil contracts. If we cut and run, Russia, China or another country will fill in.Actually the OP is about reports of an intelligence community consensus that the war in Iraq has mde us less safe by increasing the number of individual terrorists. It is not about the origins of the war or about Libya or any of that. It is irrelevant that Libya renounced its weapons program and state support of terrorism. Individual Libyans and those from other countries can be or are being radicalized into terrorism which is the reported gist of the intelligence report. It rather hollows out the meat behind GW's claim that we should reelect Republicans this fall because he is stronger on antiterrorism and needs a Republican congress to support his program.

[jshore]

The man also killed thousands. Do not defend Hussien and do not suggest that he did not have WMD’s because we know he used them.

The question is not one of defending Hussein. Some of us knew he was a bad guy at the time when Rummy was still shaking his hand and providing him with support as he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. However, the question is whether it was in our best interest...or even the best interests of the Iraqis...to invade Iraq rather than continue on our course of containment. I think it is pretty clear, as the intelligence assessment seems to admit, that invading Iraq was not in our best interest...even if you don't count the ~$300 billion (and counting) spent and the thousands of American soldiers killed and wounded. While technically speaking, one could argue that the jury is still out on whether it is in the best interest of the Iraqis, what we can say at this point is that they have paid quite a large price and have yet to receive very many apparent gains.


Getting back to my point, since the war, Libya has said they are out of the terrorist and arms business. Saudi Arabia is fighting Al Quedia from within. Pakistan is helping us round up radicals. Even Syria has toned their act down a bit. Many terrorists have been killed or detained. In addition their infrastructure, financial backings and communication liens had taken a severe blow.

Others have pointed out that the cause-and-effect here is questionable to say the least, particularly in the case of Libya, who was moving in this direction prior to the Iraq war. Furthermore, you are conveniently ignoring other headlines: Iranians have elected a much more hardline government that is proceeding with a nuclear program and making threatening noises at Israel, North Korea is pursuing nukes at full-speed-ahead and claims to have them already (although they may be lying) and the Isreali-Palestinian-Lebanon situation seems to be going from bad-to-worse.

Have insurgents increased? Perhaps, but I rather them fight see them fight the USA army then prey upon innocent citizens of the world. If we aren’t there, the same mad men will focus their efforts else where.


I don't seem to recall hearing a whole lot about Iraqi-born or trained terrorists hitting the U.S. or anywhere else in the world...which suggests that your notion that there are a finite number of bad guys in the world and if we just occupy them in one place they can't bother us somewhere else is simplistic in the extreme.

There will always be a few bad guys like Osama around. But, the real question becomes whether they end up being marginalized and unable to recruit many new conscripts or whether they end up being heroes and having more people willing to fight and die for them than they probably have the resources to train. My bets are on Iraq making the latter more true than the former. And, it seems from what we are hearing about the classified intelligence assessment that U.S. intelligence analysts agree to at least some degree.

[Age Quod Agis]

Does anybody have a link to these reports or a news article discussing them?

[Rufus Xavier]

And with democracy comes truth, not hate instructed ignorance.



A statement which can be refuted with evidence from right here in the USA. Hopefully, no one here needs a cite for the plentiful hate-instructed ignorance so easily found in this democratic nation?


By the way, one of the right-leaning arguments I've read about the NIE today says that terrorists were obviously on the increase anyway prior to 9/11, and if we hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be even more terrorists in the world than there are now, so this report actually proves that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea!

Link? Here's The AOL Reprint (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/spy-agencies-say-iraq-war-worsens-terror/20060924070209990001) of the NYT article about the still-classified (darn leakers!) April NIE that apparently states that the Iraq war has created more terrorists than have been captured or killed since the inital invasion.

[jshore]

Here (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66268.htm) is one brief recounting on events with Libya, from a briefing earlier this year by C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs:


In 1999, Libya began to seriously address our terrorism concerns and began the process of fully meeting the requirements to distance itself from terrorism by surrendering the suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing for trial. Some of you were probably in the room when I briefed on that process back in that period. The U.S. and UK began direct talks with Libyan representatives in 2001 and in August 2003 Libya confirmed its renunciation of terrorism in a formal letter to the UN Security Council. Then, on December 19, 2003, Libya announced its historic decision to dismantle WMD programs and long-range ballistic missiles.

The United States has responded to Libya's actions through a careful, step-by-step process designed to acknowledge progress by Libya while continuing our review at every stage of this process. I'd like to mention that the work of my predecessor, Ambassador Bill Burns, in opening this dialogue up with the Libyans.


So, while Libya may not have announced a decision to dismantle their WMD programs until after we had invaded Iraq, it was clear that they were on the road toward taking a more positive role in the world community since the late 1990s. Libya, by the way, was apparently not very close to obtaining actually developing a nuclear weapon: (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn012304.html)


The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who toured the Libyan sites, says there wasn't much to dismantle. Libya, it now appears, was nowhere near large-scale enrichment.

and here (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn040204.html):


4. MANAGING THE NEWS: HOW LIBYA’S NUCLEAR EFFORT WAS EXAGGERATED.
By any measure, Libya’s unilateral decision to drop its nuclear weapons program was very good news, but spin doctors are never satisfied. Two weeks ago 45 journalists were flown by chartered jet to DOE’s Y-12 complex in Oak Ridge to listen to DOE Secretary Abraham, who stood beside a pile of centrifuge components from Libya. Guards with weapons at the ready stood by. The implication was that Libya was close to making a bomb. A week later, the New York Times disclosed that the casings lacked the finely tooled rotors to make them useful. A DOE spokesperson shrugged, "Libya has tons of steel to make rotors." Of course, and sculpting is just a matter of removing the unnecessary part of the stone.

[Age Quod Agis]

Thanks for the links, Rufus and jshore.

[jshore]

Here (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/NewsAnalysis.asp) is a more complete history of the Libya situation, including some reference to the issue of Libya's WMD programs during the Clinton Administration:


Diplomatic forays designed to bring an end to Libya’s terrorism and weapons activities, however, started years earlier. Martin Indyk, former assistant secretary of state for the Middle East region during the Clinton administration, wrote in a March 2004 Financial Times article that the United States began secret talks with Libya in 1999 to persuade the government to resolve issues concerning its terrorist activities.

During those talks, Indyk said, Libya offered to end its chemical weapons program and open its facilities to international inspection, but the United States placed a higher priority on terrorism.

Indyk added that the Clinton administration made clear to Libya that resolution of the issues regarding the Pan Am flight would be sufficient for Washington to refrain from using its veto to block a Security Council vote to lift UN sanctions. However, he said U.S. officials informed Tripoli that Washington would not remove its own sanctions until Libya addressed its concerns about WMD.

...

Current administration officials interviewed for this article did not dismiss the role of diplomacy but placed special emphasis on two events that have, in the words of a senior administration official, “projected a message that we mean what we say” when it comes to stopping proliferation. The first was the massive U.S. troop buildup in the Persian Gulf region prior to the Iraq war. Both the senior official and a Department of State official said that it was no accident that Tripoli approached London just when a U.S.-led coalition, citing WMD concerns, was about to invade Iraq.

Also crucial, they said, was an October 2003 U.S. interdiction of a German ship containing components for gas centrifuges, intended for use in Libya’s uranium-enrichment program.


So, as you can see, it is a complex story such that even the people involved can only speculate on Libya's motivations, but while the Iraq war was likely a factor in Libya's decision to get rid of its WMD programs that action was not an abrupt about-face but rather was part of a longer process that started in the late 1990s.

[Voyager]

So, as you can see, it is a complex story such that even the people involved can only speculate on Libya's motivations, but while the Iraq war was likely a factor in Libya's decision to get rid of its WMD programs that action was not an abrupt about-face but rather was part of a longer process that started in the late 1990s.
Aha! It was all Clinton's fault. :)

I wonder if HCG thinks the Hamas victory in a fair election was an instance of democracy yielding truth?

[Marley23]

At least we agree Hussein had them. Hussien had plenty of time to get rid of them before we arrived. The real question is, where did they go? One thing is for certian, Hussein will never have them again.
Another thing that is certain is that he did not have the weapons in March, 2003. The Iraq Survey Group said so, as did former weapons inspectors. There are no weapons buried in the Iraqi desert. They just didn't exist, and hadn't existed for years. It's as plain as the partisanship in your handle.

[Marley23]

It's as plain as the partisanship in your handle.
My apologies if this counts as flaming - although I'd like to think the point stands.

[madmonk28]

Drink up dude. Hussein HAD WMD's and Used them. This is fact. Finding buried items in a large area is very difficult thing do. Be logical here. Every nation in the world had the same intelligence. Iraq had WMD's.

Saddam also sponsored terrorism by giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000.00

The man also killed thousands. Do not defend Hussien and do not suggest that he did not have WMD’s because we know he used them.

Sorry to go off topic, but I just have to respond to this sudden Republican concern for the Kurds. Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds because Reagan let him, aided him in doing so (we hoped he'd gas Iranians, which he also did) and when Saddam got caught gassing his own people we increased our military aid to him. Link (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/).

Now, the Republicans who go worship the ground that Saddam's ally and enabler, Ronald Reagan walked upon are suddenly outraged that Saddam poisoned his own people with the stuff we sold him or allowed to be sold on him.


Back on topic, I think one daming case for proving that America is now less safe is the fact that the Taliban in Afghanistan are now using more effective techniques that were learned on the fields of Iraq. That's right, we have now turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists to prepare for fighting us in Afghanistan. Did anyone imagine on 9/12/01 that things would be so unresolved?

[Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist]

Just based on the username he chose, its clear that Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist has no axe to grind, and is as non-partisan as they come.

You assume too much. I have no ax to grind, but I do have an opinion to share. And what makes you so sure I am a he?

[Ryan_Liam]

Back on topic, I think one daming case for proving that America is now less safe is the fact that the Taliban in Afghanistan are now using more effective techniques that were learned on the fields of Iraq. That's right, we have now turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists to prepare for fighting us in Afghanistan. Did anyone imagine on 9/12/01 that things would be so unresolved?

So what's the point in leaving Iraq if leaving surmounts to allowing terrorist training camps to grow unmolested?

[Revtim]

You assume too much. I have no ax to grind, but I do have an opinion to share. So share your opinion on the question I raised in post 18. If there's still a chance that Iraq had WMDs at the time of invasion, why has Bush himself stated that they did not? What possible gain would Bush have making such an admission if it were not true?

[BobLibDem]

Let's not go overboard, now. BobLibDem's name doesn't exactly speak of a neutral worldview, but he's no partisan automaton.

Gosh, thanks. I do try to be liberal but fair.

I don't think there is much doubt that the war has made us less safe from terrorism. Saddam was nobody's idea of a good leader, but he didn't have much use for al Qaeda and he was effectively neutered by the first Gulf War and posed no threat to the US. Now the terrorists have swarmed in and turned it into Camp Runamuck. The diversion of troops to Iraq is enabling the Taliban to start mounting a comeback in Afghanistan. America's reputation has been flushed down the crapper, particularly in the Moslem world. This will in my opinion go down as the biggest blunder in American history.

Of course, the $64 question is what to do now. Continuing as we are leaves little chance of success. The insurgency is far from being in its death throes and the mission is not accomplished. I think we should either bring back the draft and bring in enough troops to truly restore order or redeploy the troops just over the horizon from Iraq and see if the Iraqis can police their own country. This business of trying to do it on the cheap and not asking Americans to make any sacrifices (except our brave soldiers and National Guardsmen) isn't cutting it.

[FRDE]

It would be a pretty daft terrorist that swapped fighting in Iraq for fighting in Afghanistan.

Totally different 'warfare'. Also not Mazlo friendly.

My take is that any invading army will whistle up 'insurgents', more commonly called freedom fighters, and they will get pretty good at fighting on their own terrain.

Their skills are not particularly exportable, and they are not that welcome elsewhere (notice how the Taliban melted away - and is it really Taliban now in Afghanistan ?)

Personally I reckon that the USA, UK, Europe risk of terrorism is now slightly lower, primarily because we are on the look out for it

At risk of making an infantile comparism, West oriented terrorism is done by cats and insurgency (or resistence) is done by dogs.

The invasion of Iraq has turned the place into a toilet, but I doubt that it has increased or decreased the chance of another 9/11.

[Cervaise]

So you’re against the people of Iraq getting a chance to experience a democracy?Don't you dare fucking imply that opposition to the idiotic policies of Great Leader George is somehow equivalent either to callous disregard for the plight of the suffering people of Iraq or anyone else in the third world, or, worse, to support for the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. That's deliberately deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here. Feel free to go elsewhere if you want to wank yourself off like that.

[madmonk28]

So what's the point in leaving Iraq if leaving surmounts to allowing terrorist training camps to grow unmolested?

Where did I suggest pulling out? That is a different issue. I and several lefty outfits like the CIA, DIA, and NSA argue that invading Iraq in the first place has made us less safe. I did not address how to get us out of this mess the Bushies and chicken hawks have got us into here.

[Age Quod Agis]

Don't you dare fucking imply that opposition to the idiotic policies of Great Leader George is somehow equivalent either to callous disregard for the plight of the suffering people of Iraq or anyone else in the third world, or, worse, to support for the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. That's deliberately deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here. Feel free to go elsewhere if you want to wank yourself off like that.Oh, please. Spare us the righteous indignation. If you just can't abide by the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq, then you might be too tender to survive around here.

Where was this outrage when madmonk said Republicans worship Reagan, who was responsible for the gassing of the Kurds? How was HCG's comment any more inflammatory than this?Sorry to go off topic, but I just have to respond to this sudden Republican concern for the Kurds. Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds because Reagan let him, aided him in doing so (we hoped he'd gas Iranians, which he also did) and when Saddam got caught gassing his own people we increased our military aid to him. Link.

Now, the Republicans who go worship the ground that Saddam's ally and enabler, Ronald Reagan ....I'd say that's "deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here," but of course we all know that it will fly around here just fine.

[Gangster Octopus]

Oh, please. Spare us the righteous indignation. If you just can't abide by the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq, then you might be too tender to survive around here.

Fine, then I suppose you will and others will start advocating we bring democracy to North Korea, any number of African countries, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Democracy is a lovely idea, I fully support over any other form of government, but it is completley disingenuous to imply that opposing the Bush's Iraq invasion is tantamount to not supporting democracy. That's why the argument won't fly.

[Marley23]

Their skills are not particularly exportable, and they are not that welcome elsewhere (notice how the Taliban melted away - and is it really Taliban now in Afghanistan ?)
Yes, it really is as far as I know. And I think the argument is that they are now using a greater number of suicide bombings and similar tactics. I've read that soldiers in Afghanistan are now at as much risk for death or injury as soldiers in Iraq due to the Taliban's resurgence.

[madmonk28]

It would be a pretty daft terrorist that swapped fighting in Iraq for fighting in Afghanistan.

Totally different 'warfare'. Also not Mazlo friendly.

My take is that any invading army will whistle up 'insurgents', more commonly called freedom fighters, and they will get pretty good at fighting on their own terrain.

Their skills are not particularly exportable, and they are not that welcome elsewhere (notice how the Taliban melted away - and is it really Taliban now in Afghanistan ?)

Personally I reckon that the USA, UK, Europe risk of terrorism is now slightly lower, primarily because we are on the look out for it

At risk of making an infantile comparism, West oriented terrorism is done by cats and insurgency (or resistence) is done by dogs.

The invasion of Iraq has turned the place into a toilet, but I doubt that it has increased or decreased the chance of another 9/11.

There is plenty of evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan are sharing fighters and expertise.

For example an escapee from a US prison in Afghanistan was just killed in Iraq by the British Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Afghanistan has a long history of Arab fighters, bin Laden himself was an Arab fighting Soviet invaders in Afghanistan and there is strong evidence that fighters are working a circuit between Afghanistan and Iraq. Notice an increase in the use of IEDs in Iraq, there is also a concern expressed in the NIE mentioned in the OP that fighters are learning skills that they are then taking back to their home countries to undermine current regimes.

The invasion of Iraq has created a cottage industry in Pakistan and Syria to outfit and deploy Jihadists into Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been numerous articles about this including the cover story of the recent Newsweek (the international edition, my understanding that the US version has celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz on the cover instead).

The recent assasination of an Afghan governor and the bombing of his funeral is classic Iraqi tactics.

[elucidator]

Oh, please. Spare us the righteous indignation. If you just can't abide by the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq, then you might be too tender to survive around here...
And spare us the self-serving shift of focus. The indignation, which is, in fact, entirely righteous....had to do with the vile implication that one is less than patriotic for one's dissent. It is the kind of argument a polilte cowboy will scrape off his boots before entering the house.

I can certainly understand how you might wish to believe that bringing democracy to Iraq was the point of the excercise, especially since the central argument of self-defense and premptive actions have proven to be just so much buttwhistle.

[Age Quod Agis]

Fine, then I suppose you will and others will start advocating we bring democracy to North Korea, any number of African countries, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.Yes, I support bringing democracy to North Korea, any number of African countries, etc. But I reserve the right to decide the best method for bringing democracy to those nations. The fact that those countries are not democratic, standing alone, is not enough of a reason for a war. But that was also true with Iraq.Democracy is a lovely idea, I fully support over any other form of government, but it is completley disingenuous to imply that opposing the Bush's Iraq invasion is tantamount to not supporting democracy. That's why the argument won't fly.And yet it's fine to sugguest that Republicans worship the man who was responsible for the gassing of the Kurds. That's my point.

I'm not arguing that if you support democracy, you must support the invasion of Iraq. I'm arguing that Cervaise's mock outrage at that comment was silly. How many times have made the same remark as HCG on this board? And yet Cervaise is still so shocked and offended upon his 50th or 60th viewing of that comment that he/she feels compelled to curse in response? He/she suggests that the speaker should leave the board?

Please. I don't buy it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Don't act like things were not accomplished in Iraq.

Other than the fact that we have gotten rid of one dictator for the chance at a democracy, I can't think of one good thing. On the other hand we have a deeply divided nation, 3000 dead soldiers, $300 billion dollars of our fortune spent, almost all of our international goodwill evaporated, and a brand spanking new generation of terrorists.

Its not that we want to be isolationist and ignore problems in the rest of the world, its that we can't squander our resources. For the same amount of money we could have done so much more, heck we could have even reconstructed New Orleans to the level of Baghdad. We could have ensured that everyone in the world was vaccinated forever, we could have ensured that every child in the world received at least a 6th grade education (for the next 25 years), we could have fed every starving human being for the next 25 years, and we could have provided sex and prenatal education to the entire developing world for ever; or we could have just given every Iraqi man woman and child $10,000 to get rid of Saddam Hussein on their own.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I don't mean to go off topic, but do you have a cite for this please?

I got most of it off the wikipedia page on Qaddafi (under reformed character).

[John Mace]

And spare us the self-serving shift of focus. The indignation, which is, in fact, entirely righteous....had to do with the vile implication that one is less than patriotic for one's dissent. It is the kind of argument a polilte cowboy will scrape off his boots before entering the house.
Not that I'm particularly eager to defend HRC'sG, but what part of his remark implied anything at all about patriotism? The argument he did make was extremely weak and easily refuted. In fact something along the lines of this:

I can certainly understand how you might wish to believe that bringing democracy to Iraq was the point of the excercise, especially since the central argument of self-defense and premptive actions have proven to be just so much buttwhistle.
.. is just about right.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Actually the OP is about reports of an intelligence community consensus that the war in Iraq has mde us less safe by increasing the number of individual terrorists. It is not about the origins of the war or about Libya or any of that. It is irrelevant that Libya renounced its weapons program and state support of terrorism. Individual Libyans and those from other countries can be or are being radicalized into terrorism which is the reported gist of the intelligence report. It rather hollows out the meat behind GW's claim that we should reelect Republicans this fall because he is stronger on antiterrorism and needs a Republican congress to support his program.

This bears repeating. This administatrions unfettered ability to exercise its policies have made us less safe. I think any administration's ability to exercise unfettered power is a bad thing.

Another thing that may bear repeating (but may be the equivalent of pissing in the wind) is that you are more likely to die on your commute to work than get injured in a terrorist attack.

[John Mace]

Let's also keep in mind that we haven't seen the entire report. Yet. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_5)

I think it's almost a prima facie observation that the Iraq war is generating more terrorists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are less safe since there are other activities that have reduced the number of terrorists. I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election. Had something favorable to Bush been leaked, I have no doubt that we'd be descussing this in the Pit and hearing how this proved that the Republicans manipulate elections.

[Patty O'Furniture]

...the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq...

You can lead a horse to democracy but you can't make him... how does that go again?

[John Mace]

You can lead a horse to democracy but you can't make him... how does that go again?
Vote? ;)

[Der Trihs]

I think it's almost a prima facie observation that the Iraq war is generating more terrorists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are less safe since there are other activities that have reduced the number of terrorists. Like . . .what ?

I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election.You cannot play fair with the Republicans, nor do they deserve compassion or consideration. They are the the party of amorality, evil, and outright craziness as far as I'm concerned; corrupt and malignant and fanatical to the bone. Rather like the combination of a religious cult and the Mafia. You should use every dirty trick you can bring yourself to tolerate against them, because they will do the same ( minus the "tolerate; thay have no such compunctions ) without hesitation. You should also be prepared to deal with whatever forms of dishonesty or corruption or intimidation they will bring against you.

[Patty O'Furniture]

... run for office
... take office, if elected
... activate an effective police force or militia
... unite the fragmented scociety
... repair the infrastructure

Excuse me, I'd like to return this horse. I have a receipt.

[Marley23]

Let's also keep in mind that we haven't seen the entire report. Yet. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_5)
Nor will we, since he's only declassifying part of the document.

[elucidator]

... I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election. Had something favorable to Bush been leaked, I have no doubt that we'd be descussing this in the Pit and hearing how this proved that the Republicans manipulate elections.
Not that you're defending them, or anything. Keep this up, you're going to have to make that disclaimer your sig line.

And yes, I too have noted recent suggestions that the Bushiviks are going to engage another "Operation Candor" type activity. I also note the careful use of the word "parts" of the NIE, since, after all, truth is classified.

And just as you note, somebody leaked this. Probably someone who thinks they can benefit from the truth. After about four years of being lied to on a daily basis, my capacity for outrage is a bit worn.

Do I think that the Bushiviks will use their power to leak information favorable to themselves and disfavorable to their opposition, while witholding truth of the opposite spin? Why, yes, I do. Very much.

Do you doubt it?

[elucidator]

Offered without comment, developing.

From ThinkProgress (Decidedly lefty! Shields up!)

http://thinkprogress.org/

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, today disclosed the existence of a second classified National Intelligence Estimate “that gives a grim assessment of the situation in Iraq, and called for it to be shared with the American public — before the November elections.”

[jshore]

I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election. Had something favorable to Bush been leaked, I have no doubt that we'd be descussing this in the Pit and hearing how this proved that the Republicans manipulate elections.

There is a difference between different types of leaks. In fact, I have heard it argued that the sort of "leaks" you are talking about are really "plants". In a true leak, in the positive sense of the word, there is an element of whistle-blowing, i.e., of letting the public know something that the powers-that-be are trying to suppress from them. In a plant, by contrast, the powers-that-be are simply using that power, and the accompanying access to secret information, to anonymously discredit someone (as in the Plame case) or to cherry-pick what information that gets out to the public (as in the hypothetical cases that you discuss).

You might argue that the "leakers" of the type I am thinking of may have cherry-picked information too. However, since the President has the power to declassify whatever he wants to declassify, the ability to successfully play that game in opposition to the President is rather limited. In fact, the only way to really win would be if you in fact did not cherry-pick but gave an accurate presentation...In which case, we are back to this being a leak in the positive sense of the word. [I suppose another way you could win is if you were dealing with a President who was so principled that he would rather look bad and have his party lose an election than declassify any information at all that he thought shouldn't be declassified. (I'll now wait for the laughter to die down!) Or, you could leak the information so close to the election that the President doesn't have a chance to declassify the information that would rebut it...but that hardly seems applicable here.]

[Squink]

Offered without comment, developing.
http://thinkprogress.org/This helps explain the odd dance between the Democrats and Negroponte I brought up in post#27. The question remains, is there a third NIE being rushed to completion even as we speak?

[furt]

Nor will we, since he's only declassifying part of the document.Someone leaking selected portions of the NIE to make Bush look bad is a good thing, wondrously to be praised. Bush declassifying selected portions of it to make himself look good is a bad thing, earnestly to be scorned.

These things ought to be kept classified for obvious reasons: when one side chooses to use them for political purposes, the other will inevitably retaliate.

[Voyager]

Oh, please. Spare us the righteous indignation. If you just can't abide by the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq, then you might be too tender to survive around here.

Where was this outrage when madmonk said Republicans worship Reagan, who was responsible for the gassing of the Kurds? How was HCG's comment any more inflammatory than this?I'd say that's "deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here," but of course we all know that it will fly around here just fine.
Good job contradicting your statement with the quote. He did not say Reagan was directly responsible for the gassing. Please give a cite showing the Reagan administration's outrage about it, with ways that they punished Saddam for committing this atrocity - while we still had influence.

[Voyager]

Let's also keep in mind that we haven't seen the entire report. Yet. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_5)

I think it's almost a prima facie observation that the Iraq war is generating more terrorists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are less safe since there are other activities that have reduced the number of terrorists. I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election. Had something favorable to Bush been leaked, I have no doubt that we'd be descussing this in the Pit and hearing how this proved that the Republicans manipulate elections.
Since the report was completed in April. there was plenty of time to leak - or even release - the appropriate parts if there was good news. Perhaps those who did leak it were tired of all bad news being unavoidably delayed until after elections - do you think that is any better?
The real question is whether there are more terrorists now than there would have been if there was no war. The talking points I've heard so far have involved saying that there would be terrorism anyhow and that 9/11 was not due to Iraq. Strawmen, since no one is claiming the terrorist problem would go away if the Iraq war hadn't started.

Sure, terrorists/insurgents are dying in Iraq - but how many are Iraqis vs foreign imports, and are the number of foreign terrorists killed greater than those recruited thanks to Iraq? Doubtful.

Beyond that, we had won a clear victory in Afghanistan - that had to have hurt recruiting

I have a hard time imagining how the report could reasonably say that the war has helped the WoT. Though those quoted in the Times were anonymous (for good reason) they did not seem to be rabid anti-War types, and I suspect at least some of what they said would have been balanced by good news if there had been any.

[Ryan_Liam]

Madmonk28
The recent assasination of an Afghan governor and the bombing of his funeral is classic Iraqi tactics.

How is this 'classic Iraqi tactics?' They did this kinda horse hockey when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, so I doubt really the insurgents in Iraq are having that much of an effect when there already is a developed insurgency in the South a-la Taliban.

People in Afghanistan fighting the Coalition have had nearly 30 years of fighting experience, not to mention the culture is pretty much the law of the gun anyways.

[GIGObuster]

I also find it interesting that no one here has condemed the selective leaking of only this part of the report so close to the upcoming election. Had something favorable to Bush been leaked, I have no doubt that we'd be descussing this in the Pit and hearing how this proved that the Republicans manipulate elections.
I see it as a case of whistle blowing, I'm not willing to follow the Republican say so that that is a bad thing for the nation, I appreciate leaks like this when the current government is actively looking the other way at what is going on in Iraq, and I don't care what party gets egg on its face when the government is not forthcoming with accurate information regarding a war fought in the name of the American people.

Recently Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo made the point that the results of private Party polls are leaked when the results benefit the party. The interesting bit was noticing that Republican leaks in that regard are far and fewer this time around.

I think in this case it is not a party, but the whole country that is affected when information like that is hidden, if the report had been favorable to the Republicans, even a leak would not have been necessary.

[John Mace]

I see it as a case of whistle blowing, I'm not willing to follow the Republican say so that that is a bad thing for the nation, I appreciate leaks like this when the current government is actively looking the other way at what is going on in Iraq, and I don't care what party gets egg on its face when the government is not forthcoming with accurate information regarding a war fought in the name of the American people.
I don't know if it was a partisan leak. There isn't any evidence that it was. But there are any number of posters here who assume that leaks in favor of Bush are always politically motivated, and yet none of them seems to care when the leaks work the other way. If the leak was a distortion of the overall report, then I don't know if it's effective whistleblowing. Hopefully we'll see enough of the report to draw our own conclusions. But it is a fact that this country lives and breathes on leaks, even if it is illegal.

Nor will we, since he's only declassifying part of the document.
We may not have any way of knowing exactly how much of the report was declassified, but I don't expect them to declassify sources and methods so there are some aspects that should remain secret. Do you have any more specific info?

[Squink]

That was a quick declassification: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence_24) A declassified government intelligence report says the war in
Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that is likely to get worse before it gets better.The entire article contains one more paragraph at this point. No doubt we'll soon see more detail.
I hope they took the time to vet the redactions before pushing this baby out the door. ;)

[Squink]

The NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/27prexycnd.html?hp&ex=1159329600&en=5656b1b311db33ab&ei=5094&partner=homepage) has the declassified bits in pdf (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/nie20060926.pdf), and a link to the original release point at http://www.dni.com/
The later site is down or overloaded just now.

[elucidator]

..I hope they took the time to vet the redactions before pushing this baby out the door. ;)
Good bet. Real good bet. Mike Tyson vs. Carrot Top good bet.

[Age Quod Agis]

Good job contradicting your statement with the quote. He did not say Reagan was directly responsible for the gassing. Well, he didn't say he pulled the pin on the gas cannisters, but he clearly implied that he was responsible (apparently, the reason Hussein gassed the Kurds is "because Reagan let him"). In fact, he said that Reagan aided Hussein in gassing the Kurds. Here's his quote:Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds because Reagan let him, aided him in doing so (we hoped he'd gas Iranians, which he also did) and when Saddam got caught gassing his own people we increased our military aid to him. Link.

Now, the Republicans who go worship the ground that Saddam's ally and enabler, Ronald Reagan walked upon are suddenly outraged that Saddam poisoned his own people with the stuff we sold him or allowed to be sold on him.Surely saying that Saddam only acted because we let him, we aided him in his efforts to gas the Kurds, and then we rewarded him for it implies that we're partly to blame for it. Or did I misunderstand? Maybe madmonk was saying that Republicans should worship Reagan because he was absolutely not responsible for Hussein's activities. :rolleyes: Please give a cite showing the Reagan administration's outrage about it, with ways that they punished Saddam for committing this atrocity - while we still had influence.Why? What if Reagan didn't publicly condemn the attacks? Surely you're not arguing that Reagan would be ... responsible for the attacks if he didn't condemn them, are you? Surely you're not arguing that failing to take action to prevent human rights violations makes you complicit in those violations, are you? Because if you are, then you're pretty much agreeing with HCG's argument.

No, a mere condemnation wouldn't make any difference. madmonk's post would still be deceptive and inflammatory, and he'd still be criticizing someone else for something that he/she had done.

But it would have been very difficult to do more than condemn Hussein for his attacks on places like Halabja, in part because we had a hard time determining if Iraq was actually doing the gassing, or if it was Iran: (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1159416000&en=3089dd7b2486e7f0&ei=5070)And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle [at Halabja] the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.So I'm not sure exactly how Reagan could have condemned and sanctioned Iraq for an attack that we thought was committed by Iran.

But eventually, the Reagan admin condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/). (Surprisingly enough, there aren't a heck of a lot of newspaper articles from the early 80s on the web. However, I managed to find a support for this proposition in an article that is not at all favorable to the Reagan admin, so hopefully it's still trustworthy):Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later"

[John Mace]

That was a quick declassification: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence_24)
Just goes to show that Bush administration can act with lightning swiftness when the security of the nation is at stake! ;)

[RedFury]

Age Quod Agis,

Since, after all is said and done, we're here to fight ignorance, I figured a little refresher course of that time in history was in order. Won't take long. In fact, just read the following quote.

THE REAGAN-SADDAM CONNECTION (http://www.democracynow.org/static/rumsfeldcloset.shtml)

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department - in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"-pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special. Bolding/underlining mine.

Feel a bit more informed? Great. Glad I could be of service.

[Age Quod Agis]

Feel a bit more informed? Great. Glad I could be of service.Excellent. Another guy who agrees with HCG.

[Age Quod Agis]

To elaborate, I was aware of that, RedFury, although I was under the impression the bill was defeated in the House, probably in large part because of the Reagan admin's opposition -- See here (http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=192):U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., horrified at the attacks on the Kurds, got the Senate to unanimously adopt the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would end U.S. subsidies, U.S. purchases of Iraqi oil and ban the export to Iraq of technology that would help advance its weapons programs.

Still seeking to maintain its relationship with Iraq, and mindful that U.S. farmers and U.S. corporations were making a lot of money selling to Iraq, the White House opposed the sanctions.

One internal State Department memo put the tradeoff between ethical, political and economic considerations this way: “Human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq.”

The Prevention of Genocide Act died in the House.

In 1989, President George Bush opposed a second stripped-down Iraq sanctions bill right up to the day that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Within hours of the invasion, the bill passed 416-0 and Bush, by executive order, imposed a total embargo on Iraq and a freeze on Iraqi assets in the United States.That's hardly complimentary of the Reagan admin. But it doesn't contradict anything that I said. If you think I'm wrong about that, please elaborate.

But you can't say Reagan was responsible for the chemical attacks because all he did was condemn them, and also ignore the argument that Democrats effectively opposed democracy because all they support was condemning it. Again, if I'm missing something, please elaborate.

Moreover, we're getting pretty far afield from my original argument, which was simply that madmonk's post was overly dramatic, inflammatory, deceptive, and hypocritical.

[madmonk28]

To elaborate, I was aware of that, RedFury, although I was under the impression the bill was defeated in the House, probably in large part because of the Reagan admin's opposition -- See here (http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=192):That's hardly complimentary of the Reagan admin. But it doesn't contradict anything that I said. If you think I'm wrong about that, please elaborate.

But you can't say Reagan was responsible for the chemical attacks because all he did was condemn them, and also ignore the argument that Democrats effectively opposed democracy because all they support was condemning it. Again, if I'm missing something, please elaborate.

Moreover, we're getting pretty far afield from my original argument, which was simply that madmonk's post was overly dramatic, inflammatory, deceptive, and hypocritical.

I stand by my statement that Ronald Reagan did, in fact, enable the gassing of Kurds in Iraq. He did this by selling Saddam equipment that was used in the gassing and by allowing others to sell him the chemicals he used to make the gas. When it was revealed what Hussein did with that gas, Reagan then increased military aid to Hussein. There is ample evidence of this.

My point is that Republicans who are suddenly outraged by an event that happened decades ago, must surely also be outraged by Reagan's actions. I mean, how could they condemn the attacks and not condemn the man (Ronald Reagan) who helped enable them? It is not inflamatory to say that Reagan enabled the attacks, his role in the affair is well documented. So I can only assume anyone who is appalled by the gassing of the Kurds (as I am) is equally appalled at the hypocrisy of the party of Reagan suddenly condemning the attacks while still lionizing a man who helped make them possible.

How is this 'classic Iraqi tactics?' They did this kinda horse hockey when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, so I doubt really the insurgents in Iraq are having that much of an effect when there already is a developed insurgency in the South a-la Taliban.

Again, there is ample evidence that Afghanistan is adopting tactics learned in Iraq. These tactics differ from the kind used against the Soviets which were more along the lines of classic Maoist guerrilla tactics.

Here is one link (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/01/71de933c-eb38-4c16-a7aa-a42f46a74250.html)

I can tell you as someone who has worked in both Iraq and Afghanistan that there has been a sea change in Afghanistan. In the past, even during the worst of the Taliban, aid workers were largely allowed to do their work (as long as they didn't try to convert Muslims to Christianity). The use of suicide bombers targeting civilians and the targeting of non-military aid workers is a new and troubling development for the nation. A simple google search will reveal many articles and papers on this subject.

[John Mace]

Has the Iraq war increased the threat of terrorism? No, because Reagan helped Saddam gas the Kurds. Got it.

[Marley23]

We may not have any way of knowing exactly how much of the report was declassified, but I don't expect them to declassify sources and methods so there are some aspects that should remain secret. Do you have any more specific info?
I don't, no. This CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/nie.iraq/index.html) includes the following:
Senate Democrats also demanded Tuesday that Negroponte testify about the report and fully declassify not only the portion leaked over the weekend but also all intelligence estimates dealing with terrorism.

[madmonk28]

Has the Iraq war increased the threat of terrorism? No, because Reagan helped Saddam gas the Kurds. Got it.

I admitted that my calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy regarding thier new-found outrage of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and their lionizing of Reagan (the man who enabled the gassing) was off topic. I never said that Reagan gassed the Kurds, I said he enabled it, which it is very clear he did. I also never said that is why we are less safe. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans who bring up the gassing of Kurds without acknowledging the minor (but important) role Reagan's foreign policy played in it.

On the subject of the OP I think the fact that Iraq is now a terrorist training ground where fighters learn skills they will take with them when they go to other countries is proof that we are less safe. More terrorists = less safe for the targets of terrorism. The same thing happened in Afghanistan. People who fought the Soviets learned skills that they then used to stage terror attacks against the US. Osama bin Laden is one such person.

When OBL, using Afghanistan as a base, attacked the US, we invaded Iraq. In so doing, we not only did not eliminate one training ground for terrorists (Afghanistan); we created a second training ground (Iraq).
We are less safe because we have entered an ill-advised and unwinnable war that will creat a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that will likely destabilize the enitire region and possibley spread to the slums of Europe. We have also completely discredited ourselves in the eyes of the world and undermined the cause of democracy.

Moderate Arabs who once could agitate in their own nations for democratic reform and now seen as nothing by American puppets. The reformation movement has taken a huge step back in the region, and Bush has given a rallying cry to those opposed to democratic reform.

Terrorist attacks happen for a reason. The terrorists are trying to provoke a reaction. It isn't just a crazy man trying to kill people, it is a tactic designed to provoke a reaction. When Bush invaded Iraq, he did exactly what OBL wanted: he over-reacted, made this not a war on those who attacked the US, but on Muslims in general (or at least he gave it an appearance of that, which is enough for the OBL propaganda machine), and set out recruiting more terrorists than a thousand OBLs could have done on their own. Bush also undermined the general global sympathy that the US had generated on 9/11. Had he stuck to Afghanistan, most of the world (certainly all of our NATO allies). Would have stayed committed. After 9/11, you might recall that NATO met and agreed that 9/11 constituted an attack on a NATO ally and thus warranted a response from all NATO members.

[David Simmons]

Conclusions of the report were declassified by the administrations. Among them are that the leadership of Al Qaeda has been seriously crippled but that the overall, worldwide terrorism threat has increased.

I suspect that not all of the crippling of that leadership is a result of the Iraq war. Some is probably from elsewhere, such as Afghanistan and other captures around the world.

We can expect the administration speech machine to bear down hard on the crippling of the Al Qaeda leadership, as if Al Qaeda is the only threat from terrorism.

[monavis]

After Desert Storm there was a discussion on TV that was about why the Senior Bush didn't go into Baghdad. The reason given was that doing so would open a hornets nest in the Arab countries.( As it has)I heard that the Senior Bush and Scroforth wote a book on the subject. I am going to try to get the book.

People that are suffering as many do in the Arab states and the leaders blame it on the West, it is no wonder that they can easily recuit insurgents and suicide bombers. The people see only what they can get as news from Arabic stations and they are allowed to print anything that can incite hatred for the West. The little good that came is over shadowed by the killings of the families. The Iraqi people live with death every day.

If we had first taken care of the situation in Aphganistan we could have had more support from the world community, then if it looked like Iraq was a problem we coulfd have dealt with it then. But Bush had to play the Macho Man and didn't ask his father for advice,but said he consulted a higher father.

I do not see why we are surprised at the out come of the invasion of Iraq.

Monavis

[BJMoose]

Recently I've been suggesting we might as well leave Iraq now, since our sockpuppet regime there is destined to vaporize whenever we do.

But if we do (and whenever we do), the folks whom we've inspired to learn the gentle art of terrorism will tell themselves that they ran us off (as did the jihadists [including a feller named Osama bin Laden] who "ran" the Soviets out of Afghanistan,) and be emboldened to kick some Yankee butt wherever they may find it. If we stay in Iraq we encourage terrorism; if we leave Iraq we encourage terrorism. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. God damn the neocons who got us into this lose-lose situation

[David Simmons]

Recently I've been suggesting we might as well leave Iraq now, since our sockpuppet regime there is destined to vaporize whenever we do.

But if we do (and whenever we do), the folks whom we've inspired to learn the gentle art of terrorism will tell themselves that they ran us off (as did the jihadists [including a feller named Osama bin Laden] who "ran" the Soviets out of Afghanistan,) and be emboldened to kick some Yankee butt wherever they may find it. If we stay in Iraq we encourage terrorism; if we leave Iraq we encourage terrorism. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. God damn the neocons who got us into this lose-lose situationAs GW said. That's for the next president to worry about. (Well, he didn't actually say that but I couldn't resist.)

Sure we are wrong either way. However by staying we are wrong plus losing one or two or three soldiers a day and as you say, terrorists will strike whenever they get a chance. A better option is to leave which will also be seen as wrong but only mean terrorsits strike, which they will try to do in any case, but we are not losing soldiers.

The worst part is that I don't think you can defeat terrorism by retail killing or grabbing off individual terrorists, even leaders. I don't think Isamic terrorism can be solved by outsiders. We need the cooperation and assistance of Islamic leaders and GW's plan has thrown that away. Not to mention that right after 9/11 he said that we were going on a crusade against terrorism. That statement alone probably set us back a couple of years.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You can lead a horse to democracy but you can't make him... how does that go again?

embrace the ideals of democracy as we understand them and vote for a government that we would have voted for.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Like . . .what ?

You cannot play fair with the Republicans, nor do they deserve compassion or consideration. They are the the party of amorality, evil, and outright craziness as far as I'm concerned; corrupt and malignant and fanatical to the bone. Rather like the combination of a religious cult and the Mafia. You should use every dirty trick you can bring yourself to tolerate against them, because they will do the same ( minus the "tolerate; thay have no such compunctions ) without hesitation. You should also be prepared to deal with whatever forms of dishonesty or corruption or intimidation they will bring against you.

Would you support torture to protect us against the Republicans?

[rjung]

Would you support torture to protect us against the Republicans?
No, because I refuse to sink to their level.

I do, however, agree with Der Trihs that one should never underestimate how low the Republican Party will go in order to stay in power. Campaigning against the modern-day GOP with an antiquated notion of politics being a "gentleman's sport" is as stupid as bringing an epee to a gangland shootout.

[Der Trihs]

Would you support torture to protect us against the Republicans?Nope. It won't work, it goes rather beyond a "dirty trick", and it would just make me into them. If I support torture, I might as well vote Republican anyway and let them do it.

[elucidator]

More importantly, they have no information to divulge.

{'luc in medievil torturer drag, cranks up the amperage on the Torment-O-tron to eleven while the Republican writhes in pain...}

"Talk! All your dark secrets! Now!"

"Aaaaarrgh! All right! All right! We are winning the war in Iraq! Which is central to the War on Terror! Hilary had Vince Foster killed to cover up her lesbo affair with Madeline Albright! Ann Coulter is sane, and sensible...."

"Awww, Jesus, never mind, just shut the fuck up!......"

{Turns dial back to zero in disgust, looks for closest place to get really drunk....}