Leaked report confirms Iraq War fuelling terrorism

Jed Babbin Wed Sep 27, 7:30 AM ET

The April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate - about which there has been much spin and too little factual analysis - was declassified in part Tuesday at the order of the president. It followed the Sunday NYT story which began, "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." A more objective reading indicates that the sixteen intelligence agencies agreed that:
ADVERTISEMENT

* Though US-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged Al-Queda and disrupted its operations the number and geographic dispersion of terrorists is increasing;

* The global terrorist movement is becoming more diffuse, adapting to the methods we're employing to fight it; and

* Europe is judged an important target by the jihadists.

More importantly, at least to the politics of the week, is the one paragraph that deals with Iraq. It says: (1) that the Iraq conflict has become a "cause celebre" for the jihadists; (2) that resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world does cultivate supporters of the jihad movement; and (3) that if jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and are perceived as having failed, this will reduce or eliminate Iraq as a recruiting tool.

The report also says that the recent condemnations of terrorist actions by Muslim clerics signal a trend that could grow into a religious counter to the jihadist ideology.

In short, the NIE confirms what the president has been saying for months. Iraq has become a central battle in the global war against terrorists because they believe it is one. If we are defeated there, the jihadists will be strengthened enormously and - conversely - if they lose, our strength is enhanced to at least as large an extent. Democrats, such as US congressional candidate Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, "The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers...keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security." Actually, it says no such thing.

Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, "The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers...keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security." Actually, it says no such thing.

Quote:

Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, "The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers...keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security." Actually, it says no such thing.

That is a misreading of the report (what we know of it). But that a dem candidate misreads the report is irrelevant to the report's contents.

The report does NOT confirm what Bush has been saying all along, unless one can point to Bush stating that the war in Iraq has increased recruitment and hatred worldwide, has motivated jihaddists, and has diffused organizational structures. Bush of course has not said any of those things and has continually implied that none of those things have happened.

This report puts the lie to the Bush PR campaign re success against terrorism. What he has done is make the world much less safe. This report details precisely what the CIA warned the administration regarding in 2003. This is, and will, hurt the administration badly.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, "The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers...keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security." Actually, it says no such thing.

That is a misreading of the report (what we know of it). But that a dem candidate misreads the report is irrelevant to the report's contents.

The report does NOT confirm what Bush has been saying all along, unless one can point to Bush stating that the war in Iraq has increased recruitment and hatred worldwide, has motivated jihaddists, and has diffused organizational structures. Bush of course has not said any of those things and has continually implied that none of those things have happened.

This report puts the lie to the Bush PR campaign re success against terrorism. What he has done is make the world much less safe. This report details precisely what the CIA warned the administration regarding in 2003. This is, and will, hurt the administration badly.

It's not a misreading of the report, it's a more complete content than what the NYT cherrypicked is all, and that's the part you choose to hang on to.

Brand X wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, "The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers...keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security." Actually, it says no such thing.

That is a misreading of the report (what we know of it). But that a dem candidate misreads the report is irrelevant to the report's contents.

The report does NOT confirm what Bush has been saying all along, unless one can point to Bush stating that the war in Iraq has increased recruitment and hatred worldwide, has motivated jihaddists, and has diffused organizational structures. Bush of course has not said any of those things and has continually implied that none of those things have happened.

This report puts the lie to the Bush PR campaign re success against terrorism. What he has done is make the world much less safe. This report details precisely what the CIA warned the administration regarding in 2003. This is, and will, hurt the administration badly.

It's not a misreading of the report, it's a more complete content than what the NYT cherrypicked is all, and that's the part you choose to hang on to.

But, even the full report hasn't been released, only the parts that Bushco. cherrypicked. So why would some cherrypicked parts, be more believable than other cherrypicked parts?

I think we can all agree that whatever the report says about terrorism recruitment, the prognosis for Iraq is, yeah, not good.

Cycloptichorn

The bottom line is these NIE's are made up of an either/or scenario...I'm sure a few Dems saw the whole report in April along with Repubs. The leak was one sided when the full report is not.

Quote:

The bottom line is these NIE's are made up of an either/or scenario...I'm sure a few Dems saw the whole report in April along with Repubs. The leak was one sided when the full report is not.

A few dems who were constrained from saying anything at all about a classified document, even to their own staffs, much less to the American public.

That the reports in the Times or Post or LA paper were "distorted" or "one sided" is the Bush damage-control PR line which you parrot. Again.

Yeah, great comeback there, sheesh

Cycloptichorn

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