THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Clinton Says Iraq `Hasn't Helped' War on Terror (Update1)

By Heidi Przybyla and Albert R. Hunt
Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said the war in Iraq ``hasn't helped'' the broader global fight against terrorism.

The conflict particularly has strained the U.S. effort in Afghanistan and the search for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said in an interview in New York.

``It's kind of taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and also reduced our manpower and resources available for that purpose,'' Clinton, 60, said.

While Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a menace, he said, the bigger threat was and still is from terrorist groups.

``Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy,'' Clinton said. Still, ``even the Republicans have said he was hostile to al-Qaeda in Iraq and had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with terrorist groups.''

Clinton spoke from his three-day Global Initiative summit of business and government leaders.

While Clinton expressed support for ``redoubling'' U.S. efforts to track down bin Laden and other terrorist leaders in Afghanistan, he said he doesn't support pulling out of Iraq.

``We can't just up and withdraw right away,'' he said. ``But I think we're going to have to be smart about how we spend this time and how we organize and deploy our troops.''

Clinton, who invested much of his presidency in trying to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, also expressed optimism about the outlook for progress there.

``A lot of the moderate Arab states are very scared of instability in the Middle East,'' Clinton said. ``They are more willing to recognize Israel and establish normal relations if they believe that there will be a resolution of the Palestinian issue,'' he said. ``Sometimes you have to be optimistic when the parties, if they're reasonable, understand they have no other alternative.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at [email protected] .

Last Updated: September 21, 2006 13:07 EDT

Quote:

Clinton Says Iraq `Hasn't Helped' War on Terror (Update1)

By Heidi Przybyla and Albert R. Hunt
Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said the war in Iraq ``hasn't helped'' the broader global fight against terrorism.

...
While Clinton expressed support for ``redoubling'' U.S. efforts to track down bin Laden and other terrorist leaders in Afghanistan, he said he doesn't support pulling out of Iraq.

``We can't just up and withdraw right away,'' he said. ``But I think we're going to have to be smart about how we spend this time and how we organize and deploy our troops.''

...

I still haven't seen any evidence that FISA isn't being broken by Bush, btw.

I still haven't seen any evidence that FISA is being broken by Bush, btw.

As I understand it, anyone who makes an accusation, possesses the burden of proof that the accusation is true.


Arguments that those who passed FISA in the first place were breaking the law are, well, less then persuasive.

What "arguments that those who passed FISA in the first place were breaking the law are, well, less then persuasive"?

What do you mean by the phrase "those who passed FISA"?

Cycloptichorn

I still haven't seen any evidence that FISA is being broken by Bush, btw.

leflibs = those who allege that America caused and continues to cause ICT to exist.

oh yeah

Quote:

leflibs = those who allege that America caused and continues to cause ICT to exist.

Caused AND continues to cause, or Caused OR continues to cause? Big difference.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I still haven't seen any evidence that FISA is being broken by Bush, btw.

Well, the gov't has admitted to a program of domestic spying which bypasses the FISA system. How isn't that evidence that FISA is being broken?

The government knows in advance that it is US persons they will be spying on. Prior to this program, the gov't got FISA approval to do this; now they are ignoring FISA. This doesn't seem too complicated to me.

Sorry, I still haven't seen any evidence that what you allege here is true.

Cycloptichorn

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt

-CITE-
50 USC Sec. 1806 01/19/04

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

-HEAD-
Sec. 1806. Use of information

-STATUTE-
(a) Compliance with minimization procedures; privileged
communications; lawful purposes
Information acquired from an electronic surveillance conducted
pursuant to this subchapter concerning any United States person may
be used and disclosed by Federal officers and employees without the
consent of the United States person only in accordance with the
minimization procedures required by this subchapter. No otherwise
privileged communication obtained in accordance with, or in
violation of, the provisions of this subchapter shall lose its
privileged character. No information acquired from an electronic
surveillance pursuant to this subchapter may be used or disclosed
by Federal officers or employees except for lawful purposes.
(b) Statement for disclosure
No information acquired pursuant to this subchapter shall be
disclosed for law enforcement purposes unless such disclosure is
accompanied by a statement that such information, or any
information derived therefrom, may only be used in a criminal
proceeding with the advance authorization of the Attorney General.
(c) Notification by United States
Whenever the Government intends to enter into evidence or
otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other
proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency,
regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, against
an aggrieved person, any information obtained or derived from an
electronic surveillance of that aggrieved person pursuant to the
authority of this subchapter, the Government shall, prior to the
trial, hearing, or other proceeding or at a reasonable time prior
to an effort to so disclose or so use that information or submit it
in evidence, notify the aggrieved person and the court or other
authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that
the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information.
(d) Notification by States or political subdivisions
Whenever any State or political subdivision thereof intends to
enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial,
hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department,
officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of a State or
a political subdivision thereof, against an aggrieved person any
information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance of
that aggrieved person pursuant to the authority of this subchapter,
the State or political subdivision thereof shall notify the
aggrieved person, the court or other authority in which the
information is to be disclosed or used, and the Attorney General
that the State or political subdivision thereof intends to so
disclose or so use such information.
(e) Motion to suppress
Any person against whom evidence obtained or derived from an
electronic surveillance to which he is an aggrieved person is to
be, or has been, introduced or otherwise used or disclosed in any
trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court,
department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of
the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, may
move to suppress the evidence obtained or derived from such
electronic surveillance on the grounds that -
(1) the information was unlawfully acquired; or
(2) the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order
of authorization or approval.

Such a motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or other
proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such a motion or
the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion.
(f) In camera and ex parte review by district court
Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to
subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made
pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or whenever any motion
or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other
statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court
or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or
obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to
electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress
evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic
surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court
or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United
States district court in the same district as the authority, shall,
notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an
affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would
harm the national security of the United States, review in camera
and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials
relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine
whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully
authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court
may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security
procedures and protective orders, portions of the application,
order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where
such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of
the legality of the surveillance.
(g) Suppression of evidence; denial of motion
If the United States district court pursuant to subsection (f) of
this section determines that the surveillance was not lawfully
authorized or conducted, it shall, in accordance with the
requirements of law, suppress the evidence which was unlawfully
obtained or derived from electronic surveillance of the aggrieved
person or otherwise grant the motion of the aggrieved person. If
the court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized
and conducted, it shall deny the motion of the aggrieved person
except to the extent that due process requires discovery or
disclosure.
(h) Finality of orders
Orders granting motions or requests under subsection (g) of this
section, decisions under this section that electronic surveillance
was not lawfully authorized or conducted, and orders of the United
States district court requiring review or granting disclosure of
applications, orders, or other materials relating to a surveillance
shall be final orders and binding upon all courts of the United
States and the several States except a United States court of
appeals and the Supreme Court.
(i) Destruction of unintentionally acquired information
In circumstances involving the unintentional acquisition by an
electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the
contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would
be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender
and all intended recipients are located within the United States,
such contents shall be destroyed upon recognition, unless the
Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of
death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(j) Notification of emergency employment of electronic
surveillance; contents; postponement, suspension or elimination
If an emergency employment of electronic surveillance is
authorized under section 1805(e) (!1) of this title and a
subsequent order approving the surveillance is not obtained, the
judge shall cause to be served on any United States person named in
the application and on such other United States persons subject to
electronic surveillance as the judge may determine in his
discretion it is in the interest of justice to serve, notice of -

(1) the fact of the application;
(2) the period of the surveillance; and
(3) the fact that during the period information was or was not
obtained.

On an ex parte showing of good cause to the judge the serving of
the notice required by this subsection may be postponed or
suspended for a period not to exceed ninety days. Thereafter, on a
further ex parte showing of good cause, the court shall forego
ordering the serving of the notice required under this subsection.
(k) Coordination with law enforcement on national security matters
(1) Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance to
acquire foreign intelligence information under this subchapter may
consult with Federal law enforcement officers or law enforcement
personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State (including
the chief executive officer of that State or political subdivision
who has the authority to appoint or direct the chief law
enforcement officer of that State or political subdivision) to
coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against -
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or
an agent of a foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence
service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign
power.

September 24, 2006
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,'' it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document's general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said that its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said that the White House "played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism." The estimate's judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

"Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe," concludes one, a report titled "9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges." "We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism."

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. "The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry," it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, "exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies."

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says that "Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack."

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of "self-generating" cells inspired by Al Qaeda's leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda's current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate's conclusions in public speeches.

"New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge," said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. "If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide," said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte's top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said that the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain's domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, "emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat."

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of "D+" to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that "there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking."

Here you go ican; even our own intelligence agencies say Bush's invasion of Iraq has helped terrorist.

So who the hell's side is Bush on anyway; ours or their's?

That's what happens when you have a fool as president who's a slave to some conservative ideology.

I highlighted a few points for you so you wouldn't get bored reading the whole thing.

Quote:

September 24, 2006
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
...

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ'S ... LINKS TO TERRORISM ...

September 8, 2006
...

2. Postwar Information - The Relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida

...
(report page 70; following note 184; up to note 186)

In its July 2002 Special Analysis, the DIA focused on contacts between al-Qa'ida an Iraq by examining the activitities of Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic organization based in Kurish-controlled northern Iraq. The DIA said that "Baghdad may have an indirect tie to al-Qa'ida through the militant Islamic Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam"
...
The DIA said that "al-Qa'ida has proven ties to Ansar al--Islam"
...
The DIA concluded that
...
"The Iraqi regime seeks to influence and manipulate political events in the Kurdish-controlled north and probably has some assets in contact with Ansar al-Islam either through liason or through penetration of an intelligence asset"

...
(report page 109)

(U) Conclusion 6: Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq
...

First question: What do you recommend these at least 51% of registered American voters do?

Second question: After you answer the first question, then tell me what you think the "overall terrorist threat" would be now if we had not invaded Iraq?

The Sunday Times September 24, 2006

Heroic fight for British Afghan base

ican wrote:

First question: What do you recommend these at least 51% of registered American voters do?

Vote Democrat. We need to find out, through investigation, how Bush abused and manipulated the intelligence community to pursue a war in Iraq. This country needs a Ken Starr type to go after Bush the same way Starr did Clinton.

Ahaaa!!! So it's revenge you seek!!!

It's revenge you seek and not the protection of humanity from ICT (i.e., Islama Caliphate Totalitarians).

For the record, the currently irrational leadership of the Democratic party scares the hell out of me!

ican wrote:

Second question: After you answer the first question, then tell me what you think the "overall terrorist threat" would be now if we had not invaded Iraq?

Far less and a more stable Iraq. As we have seen Saddam Hussein did not have close ties with Al Qaeda and did not aid Al Qaeda in any way. As I have said before, and what you refuse to accept, is Saddam Hussein had no control over the territory Zarqawi's camp was in.

Of course, I refuse to "accept" that. Any rational person would refuse to "accept" that.

The SIC [Senate Intelligence Committee] on September 8th reported:

Quote:

The DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] said that:

(1) "Baghdad may have an indirect tie to al-Qa'ida through the militant Islamic Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam"

(2) "al-Qa'ida has proven ties to Ansar al--Islam"

(3) "The Iraqi regime seeks to influence and manipulate political events in the Kurdish-controlled north and probably has some assets in contact with Ansar al-Islam either through liason or through penetration of an intelligence asset"

The SIC [Senate Intelligence Committee] on September 8th concluded:

Quote:

(Conclusion 6) Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

Regardless of what our elected officials on the SIC inferred was true, from the above two quotes, a rational person would conclude the following:

(1) Ansar al-Islam operated in northeastern Iraq;

(2) al-Qa'ida had ties to Ansar al--Islam;

(3) Saddam's regime had ties to Ansar al-Islam;

(4) Saddam's sought to influence and manipulate political events in the Kurdish-controlled north;

(5) Saddam's regime probably had some assets in contact with Ansar al-Islam.

THEREFORE, Saddam's regime:
(a) had indirect ties to al-Qa'ida;
(b) occassionally entered into the Kurdish-controlled north;
(c) chose not to attempt to remove Ansar al-Islam from the Kurdish-controlled north;
(d) allowed sanctuary to al-Qa'ida in the Kurdish-controlled north.

ADDITIONAL FACTS
(1) 9/11 occurred 5 years 4 months after Osama bin Laden left the Sudan for Afghanistan.
(2) In December 2001, about 2 months after 9/11 and about 1 month after USA invaded Afghanistan, Ansar al-Islam was re-established with the aid of al-Qa'ida in the Kurdish-controlled Iraq northeast.

CONSEQUENTLY, had the USA not invaded Iraq, it is highly probable that Ansar al-Islam would have grown to be at least as big an al-Qa'ida threat to the USA by April 2007 as it was in Afghanistan September 2001 (that is, before October 2001, when the USA invaded Afghanistan).

If we would have concentrated on Afghanistan and taken out Osama bin Laden there would be, more likely, less terrorism.

Osama's death last year, last week, today, or tomorrow, had or will have little impact on the growth of the ICT. Osama bin Laden is but one of their heros; he's neither their god, one of their current prophets, or even one of their primary motivators.

By the way, NATO is now doing a major part of the fighting of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan.

Bush refused, three times, to kill Zarqawi when he had the opportunity. You screaming lies will not change the facts.

Yes, three times Bush did refuse to attempt to kill Zarqawi. Bush's opportunities to kill Zarqawi required an attack on Iraq--either a lucky aerial assault or a ground assault. Bush eventually chose both March 20, 2003.

By the way, Clinton had three opportunies to accept a handover of Osama bin Laden, but refused each opportunity. Clinton also had multiple opportunities to try and kill Osama bin Laden: For example, in Afghanistan, Clinton did try an aerial assault on Osama bin Laden once and failed, but he never tried that again. Of course, he did try an aerial assault on Saddam's anti-aircraft systems. Also, Clinton refused to invade Afghanistan.

If we would have concentrated on Afghanistan and taken out Osama bin Laden there would be, more likely, less terrorism. Iraq was not an exporter of terrorism as Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Iraq had two enemies, Iran and Israel.

Yes, Iraq was not as big an exporter of terrorism as Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan 1996 thru 2001. But with al-Qa'ida alias Ansar al-Islam ensconced in Iraq beginning in December 2001, it would be highly probable that would in time change significantly.

...

I suspect the reason this intelligence report was leaked out is there are a lot of people in the government intelligence who do not like what Bush is doing or saying.

I don't like what Bush is saying or doing either. It's not accurate or aggressive enough.

He has and still is making accusations that do not stand up to the evidence. A lot of ignorant and nieve people out there still believe him because they need a simple answer to a complicated problem. 'Nuke en' is a simple answer for a simple mind.

Nuke 'em isn't a simple answer to our complicated problem. It will require great political skill and great military skill to use tactical nukes effectively.

I expect your answer to this complicated problem is: the USA must negotiate with an enemy that has said that we live their way or we live no way.

What's to negotiate? All we have to do is:

(1) vacate the middle east;
(2) stop supporting Israel;
(3) stop invading countries which abet or allow sanctuary to ICT;
(4) stop listening to suspected ICT electronic communications;
(5) stop aggressive interrogation of our ICT prisoners;
(6) grant ICT prisoners the same civil rights we grant our legal residents (e.g., 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments);
(7) stop trying to form coalitions against ICT.
(8) adopt the ICT version of the Muslim religion.

See! There is an easy solution to a seemingly complicated problem!

In a series of speeches Bush has been portraying the war in Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism.

This latest US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war implies while that may be true, that it is a front of America's own making.