Leaked report confirms Iraq War fuelling terrorism

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Good news for Bush admirers. He says that Iraq invasion was not a mistake.
.....................................
Leaked report confirms Iraq War fuelling terrorism
.
27 September , 2006
.
PETER CAVE: In the United States, President George Bush has bowed to pressure and released parts of a damning intelligence report that details how the war in Iraq has fuelled international terrorism.
.
First leaked in the New York Times, the excerpts declassified by the White House describe the Iraq conflict as a "cause celebre" for jihadists.
.
The report from 16 of Washington's key intelligence agencies goes on to describe how the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.
.
Even Pakistan, one of America's crucial allies, is now openly disagreeing with the White House about the effect of the Iraq war on terrorism.
.
KIM LANDERS: It was a report that was never meant to be made public.
.
Compiled by veteran analysts from 16 US intelligence agencies, it declares that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for global terror, "cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement".
.
Despite that, President George W. Bush still rejects any suggestion that the Iraq invasion was a mistake.
.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1750127.htm

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,304 • Replies: 32

No top replies

Jee! Who would have thought that they enemy would FIGHT BACK!!!!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Jee! Who would have thought that they enemy would FIGHT BACK!!!!

That, of course, is irrelevant to the thrust of the NIE report. And it is a PR dodge by Bush, with you predictably following.

16 intel agencies concluded that the war in Iraq (the institgation of it and the management of it both the responsibility of this administration) has increased worldwide recruitment and motivation of terrorists.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Jee! Who would have thought that they enemy would FIGHT BACK!!!!

That, of course, is irrelevant to the thrust of the NIE report. And it is a PR dodge by Bush, with you predictably following.

16 intel agencies concluded that the war in Iraq (the institgation of it and the management of it both the responsibility of this administration) has increased worldwide recruitment and motivation of terrorists.

You, and your liberal elite friends, state the obvious.

Next you are going to tell me that if we did NOT go into Iraq, everything would be rosey and we would be loving friends with the Muslims.

0 Replies

Certainly, we would have a few thousand less willing to kill us, several hundreds of thousands less willing to support them in that mission and tens of thousands of innocent civilians still alive. Oh yeah, and 2700 some-odd American troops able to visit their loved ones, instead of their loved ones having to visit their gravesides, not to mention the almost 20,000 wounded.

But keep on beating that Iraq drum. I'm sure some of the wilfully blind are still willing to believe and follow.

0 Replies

Well, at least you recognize our relative social and intellectional positions.

As to "the obvious", what conclusions do you dare draw from something so obvious?

Perhaps that this administration has been incompetent in considering and achieving its stated goals in this part of the world?

Perhaps that big shiny bombs and macho posing didn't really scare the enemy?

Perhaps that the "shining example of liberty" has actually become a disgusting and immoral example of the dangers of hubris and hegemony?

Perhaps that the world is now a more dangerous place?

Perhaps that US citizens are now in far greater danger of future terrorist attacks than before Bush and his team came to power?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Jee! Who would have thought that they enemy would FIGHT BACK!!!!

And who, exactly, is the enemy?

Muslims? Terrorists? Ba'athists?

Do tell.

0 Replies

Here is part of the reason there are so many Woiyo's in America...

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/138/nwleftnavcovov061002uz5.jpg

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, at least you recognize our relative social and intellectional positions.

As to "the obvious", what conclusions do you dare draw from something so obvious?

Perhaps that this administration has been incompetent in considering and achieving its stated goals in this part of the world?

Perhaps that big shiny bombs and macho posing didn't really scare the enemy?

Perhaps that the "shining example of liberty" has actually become a disgusting and immoral example of the dangers of hubris and hegemony?

Perhaps that the world is now a more dangerous place?

Perhaps that US citizens are now in far greater danger of future terrorist attacks than before Bush and his team came to power?

Your position is narrowminded and short sighted.

Muslim extremests have been attacking America and our interests for over 30 years dating back at least to the Carter Administration, and earlier. But let's keep this somewhat current.

Did they hate us less in 1993 when hey first bombed WTC? Did they hate us less when our embassys were blown away? They must have hated us less when they tried to sink the USS Cole, right?

Did they like us better when we liberated Kuwait? Apparently not.

I am no fan of GW with respect to how he is handeling Iraq. However, to tell me WE are to blame for "increase in recruiting" is IMO shortsighted and ignorant of the broad facts.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Did they hate us less in 1993...?

How does one measure hate? By the number of people expressing that hate and willing to die to express it? Then... yes. "They" did hate "us" less in 1993.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am no fan of GW with respect to how he is handeling Iraq. However, to tell me WE are to blame for "increase in recruiting" is IMO shortsighted and ignorant of the broad facts.

For goodness sakes, man...that's precisely what the 16 US intel agencies found is the case!

And let's add that the CIA, in a 2003 NIC report, warned Bush of exactly this liklihood.

0 Replies

Sometimes when you engage an enemy, especially one composed of numerous separate groups all over the world, there is a period of time during which you actually increase the level of danger by bringing yourself to his attention. This doesn't, however, mean that engaging someone who is truly a dangerous enemy isn't the only realistic course of action. The idea is that eventually, you will be safer, not that you'll be safer the moment you start fighting.

0 Replies

In other words, you agree with the findings in this report.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sometimes when you engage an enemy, especially one composed of numerous separate groups all over the world, there is a period of time during which you actually increase the level of danger by bringing yourself to his attention. This doesn't, however, mean that engaging someone who is truly a dangerous enemy isn't the only realistic course of action. The idea is that eventually, you will be safer, not that you'll be safer the moment you start fighting.

One hopes, however, that you would have a strategic plan for achieving victory, rather than just rushing to stick your dick in the grinder.

0 Replies

I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

Yeah, but Kerry lost. Cool

(I just couldn't help myself. Too good of an opening to pass up.)

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

Are you saying Bush doesn't fling poop, or that he's a different breed of ape?

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

Yeah, but Kerry lost.

(I just couldn't help myself. Too good of an opening to pass up.)

(Pssst... Kerry didn't run until 2004....)

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
kickycan wrote:
I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

Yeah, but Kerry lost.

(I just couldn't help myself. Too good of an opening to pass up.)

(Pssst... Kerry didn't run until 2004....)

Oooh, my error. I referenced the wrong poop-flinging baboon. Sorry. I get them so mixed up sometimes. Thanks for the correction.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I think a credible case could be made that we'd have been better off if a poop-flinging baboon had been president on 9-11.

Yeah, but Kerry lost.

(I just couldn't help myself. Too good of an opening to pass up.)

Ha! Nicely done, CR.

0 Replies

Leaked report confirms Iraq War fuelling terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know