Declassified NIE terrorism findings

[Kerad]

Okay...I've read the portions of the report (pdf here) that Bush declassified, as he suggested. In fact, I've read it a few times...just to see if I was missing something.

"You can read it for yourself," he said. "We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy."

Well....ummmm..... .....ahhhhhh....

I'm not finding anything that even hints that the invasion of Iraq has had a positive effect, regarding the war against terror. In fact...there are many items which state quite the opposite.


Can someone please give me some Republican spin on this so I can see what he was so proud of?

 

[Kerad]

Its a silly argument, we werent in the "War on Terror" during Khobar, Embassy Bombings, Cole and ESPECIALLY 9/11.

Yet we were attacked during those times.

Okay. what does that have to do with the NIE report and my question.

Bush was upset about the portions of the report that were leaked to the newspapers...excerpts that stated the invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in terrorism. That it was leaked in such a manner to confuse Americans into thinking something that is not actually the case. So...he declassified the key findings to set the record straight...supposedly. Correct?

Well, I'm saying that the report Bush wanted us to read does nothing to dispute those initial claims. The invasion of Iraq has indeed increased the threat...according to the report Bush declassified.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sure!

Can someone please give me some Republican spin on this so I can see what he was so proud of?

...hold on to your hat and here...we...go!

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

 

[Lenny]

...hold on to your hat and here...we...go!

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

. . .and I don't see the yea and neas listed (not counting Democratic Presidential hopeful Kerry's two contradictory votes) but I seem to recall a vast number of Democrats were on the yeas list (not counting Democratic Presidential hopeful Kerry's two contradictory votes).

 

[Larry Gude]

Please...

. . .and I don't see the yea and neas listed (not counting Democratic Presidential hopeful Kerry's two contradictory votes) but I seem to recall a vast number of Democrats were on the yeas list (not counting Democratic Presidential hopeful Kerry's two contradictory votes).

...allow me;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

and...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237


Normally, when one votes for something, they support it. Now, it would be understandable to change ones mind, say, if circumstances had changed materially so that what you voted for no longer applied, but, well, if anyone actually reads the thing, it's pretty easy to see that it's as pertinent and correct today as it was 5 years ago.

The left, including a great many who voted for the use of force, have sabotaged public support for it from day one. It would be so much easier to stomach if they'd just voted no. As it is, we have a President who has poorly run the thing and an opposition who aren't offering leadership to fix it.

Some choice.

 

[Kerad]

...hold on to your hat and here...we...go!

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

While that document does indeed contain the words "Iraq" and "terrorism"....it is otherwise irrelevant to my initial inquiry.

But thanks anyways.

 

[ylexot]

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

At least, that's the line that I have heard the Bush Admin point to. :shrug:

 

[ylexot]

Here's another:

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

 

[ylexot]

Then there is this:

The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

DAMN YOU AL GORE! The internet you created has made us less safe!

 

[Ken King]

Okay...I've read the portions of the report (pdf here) that Bush declassified, as he suggested. In fact, I've read it a few times...just to see if I was missing something.

"You can read it for yourself," he said. "We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy."

Well....ummmm..... .....ahhhhhh....

I'm not finding anything that even hints that the invasion of Iraq has had a positive effect, regarding the war against terror. In fact...there are many items which state quite the opposite.


Can someone please give me some Republican spin on this so I can see what he was so proud of?

I think these were all positive statements.

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari a-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

 

[Larry Gude]

You'll excuse me...

While that document does indeed contain the words "Iraq" and "terrorism"....it is otherwise irrelevant to my initial inquiry.

But thanks anyways.

...for pointing out that since the passing of the resolution, the Left has told us that the words in the document do not mean anything.

So, two points; If no one, especially those who voted for it and now say they were lied to, outside of the document, don't want to discuss the resolution, how much consideration is due to the things they DO want to talk about? Where is the reference point in which to discuss this rationally?

And, I think if we all used a common reference point, the public document where we, as a people, chose to use force in regards to Iraq, then we can discuss the issue and the problems attendant with it, in a common, unified terms.

In summary, if we accept that it, voting, means nothing, then isn't any and all of this debate pointless?

 

[SamSpade]

Is there a rational reason why a report which has been sitting around since April is being leaked to the press 5-6 weeks before an election?

I'm just guessing that whoever leaked it wouldn't have done it a week AFTER the November elections.

BTW - two things. As Bush said, there's no reason to believe the idea that if invading Iraq made the world MORE dangerous, that pulling out will make it safer.

For one thing, the Iraqi president said so, today. They're safer as long as the Americans are there.

Secondly - why is it that classified documents are being regularly leaked to the press - and no one is being held accountable for it? Is it because the left just doesn't see this as an actual *war*?

Let me clarify - this will be used, however out of context, as a propaganda tool - and it is currently being used as just that in our OWN country. Believe it or not, wars are won and lost through propaganda. We largely won our own war for independence against the world's greatest power because we outlasted a country that had no desire to keep fighting what they were being convinced was a pointless war. We LOST Vietnam - a much weaker nation - through propaganda. I was so surprised to learn as an adult that the Tet offensive was a massive - *crushing* - DEFEAT for the Viet Cong. I'd always been told it was the Vietnamese equivalent of D-Day. That they kicked our azz. Guess what? Good reason - propaganda did that. We were being told we were "losing" Vietnam. We were kicking the crap out of them.

It is just as treasonous to engage in anti-US propaganda especially when we're dealing with classified information.

Maybe it shouldn't have been classified? Well hell, why did Pelosi want to call a SECRET meeting to discuss its de-classification? Was she just being stupid?

I've said this many many times - the time for arguing against a war is before you go to war - because once you engage, you have to see it to the end. It's a lot like deciding to have children - you can't decide - as I suppose some do - to change your mind about it once the kid is a few years old and has become a large drain on your social life and finances. You don't decide down the road that you don't want to do it anymore. That choice is made; you have to finish it. Once men have given their lives in war, it's too late to declare it a mistake. And it's massively hypocritical for those who voted FOR the war to turn around now that it has come to bite them in the azz politically, to suddenly be AGAINST the war.

 

[ylexot]

I think they should do a sting. Propagate a report, but have very subtle differences in the language of each copy. Then when the report is leaked, the language would be traceable to the person who leaked it. That person gets executed.

 

[SamSpade]

Something else - only a very little bit of the report was leaked - the part we've all heard on the radio.

Funny thing how Bush was accused of "cherry-picking" intel to make a case for the war - ignoring material that would argue against it while making use of data justifying it - but that is exactly what the left has done repeatedly in these instances.

I'm thinking that sooner or later, the American public is just going to get tired of it all.

Saddam was a threat; he's gone. The world is better off without him. He was executing people at a pace which makes our losses in the war seem paltry by comparison.

Had we gone after Kim Jung Il instead of Saddam, people against the war would be saying the same stupid stuff they're saying now - that he wasn't a threat, he didn't attack us, the world isn't safer.

I think it's safe to say that 9-11 wasn't just a wakeup call for us. It was a wakeup call to our enemies as well. They realized they could hurt us without being bombed into oblivion. When they broadcast images of people screaming from the falling WTC, a Chinese broadcaster called them cowardly and declared "we will never fear these people again".

So just because the world became more dangerous after 9-11 doesn't mean it's because we shook a hornet's nest. The nest was there; it was just a matter of time.

 

[Kerad]

Then there is this:

DAMN YOU AL GORE! The internet you created has made us less safe!

We don't know they're using Al Gore's internet...they could easily be using one of the other internets Dubya has referred to.

 

[Kerad]

I think these were all positive statements.

There are indeed positive comments scattered throughout the document...I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was all bad news. I'm just commenting that many of the negatives have been the result of, or have become worse due to the invasion.

Now, if the situation in Iraq had been handled more competently, maybe things would not have turned out the way they have.

Unfortunately, many of the positives are "if, then" scenarios. Scenarios that are dependent on the populations of the Middle East acting less...well...less like they normally act.:

(IF) Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority
nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. (THEN)Over time, such
progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the
vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida,
could erode support for the jihadists.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, (then)
political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and
groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

(BUT)
Nonetheless,
attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit. (DAMN)

Also, regretably, many of the positives that do exist are handcuffed to negatives:

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global
strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. (<--Yay!) New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-
American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose
and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups. (<--Crap!)

Unfortunately, there are many instances of negative findings that stand all on thier own.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its
vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

 

[Larry Gude]

I totally agree...

Now, if the situation in Iraq had been handled more competently, maybe things would not have turned out the way they have.

...with that.

 

[Kerad]

...allow me;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

and...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237


...Now, it would be understandable to change ones mind, say, if circumstances had changed materially so that what you voted for no longer applied, but, well, if anyone actually reads the thing, it's pretty easy to see that it's as pertinent and correct today as it was 5 years ago.

We agree on the bolded part of your statement, but I disagree with the end part. There are many items in the document that have since been found to be untrue.

I just finished a cut-n-paste fest...so will refrain from another one. Plus, that discussion (the validity of claims in the resolution) would merit it's own thread. (And more time than I have left today....)

 

[ylexot]

There are indeed positive comments scattered throughout the document...I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was all bad news.

Maybe we got the wrong impression from this:

I'm not finding anything that even hints that the invasion of Iraq has had a positive effect, regarding the war against terror. In fact...there are many items which state quite the opposite.

:shrug:

 

[Ken King]

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was all bad news.

Yet, you had asked -

Can someone please give me some Republican spin on this so I can see what he was so proud of?

And that is what I attempted to do, pull some things out of your attached linked information that were positive and therefore worthy of being proud of.

And something that I think is really important to keep in mind is that this report is just an estimate, nothing fully based in fact but more in a belief of what might be happening in the author's/authors' perception. It could be dead on, it could be close, or it could be a complete miss. Not to mention that it is only a sampling of the entire report that might shed a completely different light all together when taken in its entirety.