Declassified NIE terrorism findings

[Kerad]

Maybe we got the wrong impression from this:
:shrug:

Then you may be mistakenly thinking that those two statements refer to the same thought process.

There is nothing in the report (as I understand it) that points to anything good regarding the effect of the Iraq invasion has had on terrorism. The report does have some positive signs concerning other aspects of "the war on terror"....but nothing but bad news in relation to the Iraq aspect of it.

In other words, the report does nothing to refute claims that the Iraq war (as it has been handled thus far) has indeed made terrorism worse than before the invasion. In fact, it supports that claim.

 

[Kerad]

Yet, you had asked -
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.

I agree...it's an "estimate". But it's the agreed upon consensus of all 16 of our intelligence agencies. Not just the CIA or DIA...but 16 different agencies. That should be cause for concern.

I orignally thought Bush was going to declasssify the whole thing...which I agree would be the best scenario. I'm wondering why the existence of this report had to be leaked....why not put it out there? I read somewhere that many members of Congress (if not all) hadn't even read it. Why not? What could possibly be more important than knowing what needs to be done to deal with terrorism at it's roots?

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Then you may be mistakenly thinking that those two statements refer to the same thought process.

There is nothing in the report (as I understand it) that points to anything good regarding the effect of the Iraq invasion has had on terrorism. The report does have some positive signs concerning other aspects of "the war on terror"....but nothing but bad news in relation to the Iraq aspect of it.

In other words, the report does nothing to refute claims that the Iraq war (as it has been handled thus far) has indeed made terrorism worse than before the invasion. In fact, it supports that claim.

...are you a supporter if NIE's? Think carefully about how much weight you want to give them.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

I agree...it's an "estimate". But it's the agreed upon consensus of all 16 of our intelligence agencies. Not just the CIA or DIA...but 16 different agencies. That should be cause for concern.

...you're asking for it...

 

[Ken King]

I agree...it's an "estimate". But it's the agreed upon consensus of all 16 of our intelligence agencies. Not just the CIA or DIA...but 16 different agencies. That should be cause for concern.

And wasn't it one of these multi-agency estimates that said that Iraq did in fact have or was seeking the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear) that gave momentum to the Congress that pushed them to give the President authority to take military action?

 

[ylexot]

And wasn't it one of these multi-agency estimates that said that Iraq did in fact have or was seeking the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear) that gave momentum to the Congress that pushed them to give the President authority to take military action?

I think you just sprang Larry's trap...

 

[Larry Gude]

Ssshhhhhhhhhhhh.....

I think you just sprang Larry's trap...

Be verwy, verwy qwiuet. I'm hunting wabbits....hhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh...

 

[Ken King]

I think you just sprang Larry's trap...

Larry who?

 

[ylexot]

Larry who?

Put him on ignore?

 

[Kerad]

And wasn't it one of these multi-agency estimates that said that Iraq did in fact have or was seeking the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear) that gave momentum to the Congress that pushed them to give the President authority to take military action?

I was wondering how long until someone mentioned the pre-Iraq invasion NIE's. (I see Larry was getting to that, too.)

Yes...I am fully aware that the NIE's got that wrong...the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. The intelligence community has collectively come out and more or less said "Yeah....we got that wrong"...in one form or another.

That said, I don't think we automatically dismiss every intelligence report from that point on...do we? I would hope that intelligence would be more accurate now...after the agencies made the adjustments they claim to have made...in order to make sure they've got more accurate information.

Once again...I agree it is only an "estimate"...but is there an alternative? And no...I'm afraid I do not accept Dubya's/Cheney's/Rummy's assertions that everything is coming along nicely ("last throes") as a viable alternative.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bzzzzt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: Yes...I am fully aware that the NIE's got that wrong...the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. The intelligence community has collectively come out and more or less said "Yeah....we got that wrong"...in one form or another.

...you don't get ESTIMATES wrong.

They're based on best GUESSES and whatever facts can be applied AND then those FACTS and their relevency are ESTIMATED.

It was ESTIMATED that the fact that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, fact certain, PLUS the fact that he had so hampered inspectors so many times over so many years plus the facts of his prior behavior plus the danger of how much some of those WMD's could do in small amounts plus the FACT Saddam may well be interested in perhaps sneaking some help to the bad guys if, perhaps, he thougth he could get away with it plus the impotence of the UN in dealing with him lead to CORRECT, SANE, RATIONAL estimates that this guy was a lifelong azzhat who rather likely would have to be dealt with sooner or later, so, well, umm...should we whack him NOW while we're not so sure how and what and where he has OR should we wait until later when MAYBE we will know and, well, by then, maybe he will be a WHOLE lot more dangerous???

THERE is a national intelligence estimate.

The fact that it turned out to NOT be as accurate as MAYBE it could have been as regards to what we GUESSED he had is irrelevent.

The logic behind the Iraq War Resolution stands today as clear as the moment it was passed. PASSED by people who could see then and think then a whole lot clearer about looming danger than they see now about what they NOW claim to be the CURRENT looming danger.

So Dick Cheney said 'the proof could be a mushroom cloud over an major American city'. Big ####ing whoo dee doo. It COULD. Now, that is a whole lot less likely as regards Iraq and Saddam. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

At least, that's my estimate.

So now, do we help Iraq, however long it takes, to become a good place or just pack it in because the latest NIE says there may be a few more religious fanatics with sharp objects and boobie traps running about?

 

[Ken King]

I was wondering how long until someone mentioned the pre-Iraq invasion NIE's. (I see Larry was getting to that, too.)

Yes...I am fully aware that the NIE's got that wrong...the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. The intelligence community has collectively come out and more or less said "Yeah....we got that wrong"...in one form or another.

That said, I don't think we automatically dismiss every intelligence report from that point on...do we? I would hope that intelligence would be more accurate now...after the agencies made the adjustments they claim to have made...in order to make sure they've got more accurate information.

Once again...I agree it is only an "estimate"...but is there an alternative? And no...I'm afraid I do not accept Dubya's/Cheney's/Rummy's assertions that everything is coming along nicely ("last throes") as a viable alternative.

And that is the point - the NIE's are fallible, just as most projection/prediction tools are. It would be interesting to read the report in its entirety but I doubt if that will happen any time soon, or ever, to see exactly what they were saying.

And I agree that we shouldn’t dismiss them completely but use them as a tool to guide decisions and not as the sole reason for making decisions. After all they have only been around since 1994 (I’m sure there were preceding tools of a similar nature) with only a couple of them coming to the attention of the public and we know that one of those was way off base on a specific matter even if it was on base as to the threat that Iraq posed.

 

[Kerad]

...you don't get ESTIMATES wrong.

....

So now, do we help Iraq, however long it takes, to become a good place or just pack it in because the latest NIE says there may be a few more religious fanatics with sharp objects and boobie traps running about?

You keep trying to change the subject (to the war resolution/the course for Iraq) and I'm not biting. Not that I won't discuss these other issues (and have, in places)...but I get grumpy when I get caught up in a 4 page tangent. Often people are trying to attribute quotes dealing with one suject to a different item altogether...and the original intention of the thread gets lost.

However....estimates can indeed be wrong. Example: before the season started, what was your estimate of what the Skins' record would be after three games? (...not to go off on a tangent, of course....)

 

[Kerad]

"And that is the point - the NIE's are fallible, just as most projection/prediction tools are. It would be interesting to read the report in its entirety but I doubt if that will happen any time soon, or ever, to see exactly what they were saying.

And I agree that we shouldn’t dismiss them completely but use them as a tool to guide decisions and not as the sole reason for making decisions. After all they have only been around since 1994 (I’m sure there were preceding tools of a similar nature) with only a couple of them coming to the attention of the public and we know that one of those was way off base on a specific matter..."

I agree....almost completely.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm wondering...

You keep trying to change the subject (to the war resolution/the course for Iraq) and I'm not biting. Not that I won't discuss these other issues (and have, in places)...but I get grumpy when I get caught up in a 4 page tangent. Often people are trying to attribute quotes dealing with one suject to a different item altogether...and the original intention of the thread gets lost.

However....estimates can indeed be wrong. Example: before the season started, what was your estimate of what the Skins' record would be after three games? (...not to go off on a tangent, of course....)

...if I can maneuver you into agreeing that WHY we went to war is not tangental to the results of and current conditions of the war and, most importantly in a representative nation with a civilian controlled hence politcially sensitive military, what comes next.

I wonder...


Not only is WHY non tangential, I'd say purpose is central to any discusion of something truly tangential, like a NIE.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

This NIE report had the flags. Knocking out key leaders would destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaida, according to the NIE report. Yep killing Zarquawi has ended all the violence in Iraq ...

 

[Kerad]

...if I can maneuver you into agreeing that WHY we went to war is not tangental to the results of and current conditions of the war and, most importantly in a representative nation with a civilian controlled hence politcially sensitive military, what comes next.

I wonder...


Not only is WHY non tangential, I'd say purpose is central to any discusion of something truly tangential, like a NIE.

The NIE is most certainly not a tangential topic in a thread titled "Declassified NIE terrorism findings".

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

The NIE is most certainly not a tangential topic in a thread titled "Declassified NIE terrorism findings".

...it is. All that matters is the IWR. All else is incidental.

 

[Kerad]

...it is. All that matters is the IWR. All else is incidental.

If you really believe that...then you've already had too much to drink.

 

[ylexot]

This NIE report had the flags. Knocking out key leaders would destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaida, according to the NIE report. Yep killing Zarquawi has ended all the violence in Iraq ...

It did not say that killing Zarqawi would end all the violence in Iraq. It said that they thought that losing key figures in rapid succession would fracture them so that they would be a less serious threat. Learn to read. Here, I'll let you try it again:

The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.