By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.
The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Sen. Bill Frist (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. said he had not seen the classified report, which was completed in April, but said Americans understand the United States must continue to fight terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes."
there's more if you're interested http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
Look, there have always been and there will always be terrorists. People will always be killed by them, it's horrible, it's scary and I have spent a great deal of tears on it. But it isn't going to go away, a war on "terror" isn't feasable, because that's exactly what terrorists want. The idea of a terrorist attack is not so much murder, thats more a means of achieving the goal of provoking emotional over reaction.
We can never be free of a terrorist threat, but I sure felt a lot safer before we started pissing everyone else off.
I'm not willing to have our soldiers killed while trying to achieve the unachievable.
"you people will never learn" - i'm not antaganizing, but I would really like to have a level headed conversation to understand what you really mean.
The way I see it, it over reaction is something that never works. Look at Brittain, before Blair became Bush's bitch they just delt with terrorism, and it worked a lot better. They would up security, but they wouldn't go to war...its putting yourself much closer to thier level, and it can't work.
Look at bom bay, huge attack, but the people mourned, and got on with it. This is not to downplay the attrocities, but just that an emotional reaction is exactly what these people want, and the only way we can 'win' is not to give them one.
Terrorists don't want an emotional responce. They want everything that we love and hold dear to be destroyed. Thats why they attack schools, kill innocent civilians, and blow up buses and subways.
If we just sit back and let them continue to do it, without a counter reatcion from us, then they will continue to think we are weak and they will continue to attack us. Like I said before, if we don't kill them first, then they are going to kill us.
Bottom line: You cannot kill an idea. If you have people who are willing to die for an idea, what can you do, but not try and protect yourself and not give more moderates a reason to hate you?
A little known series of events that occurred in Germany after W.W.II. There was a small group of Nazi soldiers who refused to let the war end. They occupied a small town and sniped US peacekeepers. The US put up with it for a while then tried to remove them. No good. The US evacuated all civilians and waited for the next attack. The place was then bombed to the ground by bombers. End of story.
I think that our responce should be greater than what they gave to us. In WWII, the Japanese killed about 250,000 americans. In turn, we killed around 4 million. We bombed every Japanese city, not to be cruel, but to send a message to the Japanese. That message was that if you don't surrender, then the Japanese race will be bombed into extinction. By killing terrorists, even before they do anything, we are sending the same message. Except this time, even if they do surrender, we will continue to kill them, until there are none left.
We should kill them all. After all, when they are dead, they can no longer attack us. We may be attacked again, but each time, more of them will die.
"Did you not hear about the 1000 Taliban that were killed in one offensive the other day?"
Nope. Can you point me to the article?
Nothing. Nothing makes me want to kill someone. In fact, it makes the terrorists the winners if they turn everyone into people who want to kill.
What makes a terrorist repugnant is the willingness to kill and die -- in such a way as to create a lasting fear and hatred and chaos even beyond the immediate impact of his/her act of destruction.
This is not our way. Or, perhaps, I should say, that is not my way.
Perhaps it is yours; perhaps you are a terrorist also. You want to strike fear into the heart of your enemy -- just like the terrorits. You want to see your enemy utterly wiped off the face of the earth -- just like the terrorists. You think your point of view is the only valid one -- just like the terrorists.
Have you joined a the battle yet? You need to go -- this sounds like it's your war and you ought to get in on the action. If my side wins, you'll never again get the chance to go slaughter whoever disagrees with you, that's for sure. But right now while the lunatics are running the asylum, you fit right in.
Elyse if that makes you feel better I pitty you. What did clay do? Is living off of relatives coattails big? Pathetic.
The fact is that there is a political element that "uses" the things terrorists do against our soldiers to try and gain strenght. If a bunch of soldiers die in an attack who benefits? what element in american society will point to it to say we are wrong? Why did Osama bin laden say that if Kerry wasnt elected, he would attack america again? Look it up. Al Quaida wants people like Clay and Elyse to call the shots. Anybody dispute this?
Oh and my oldest son is in the army now and the second plans to be a marine. Makes my position no stronger or weaker.......I am me they are brave Americans.
I do dispute this, Bush is practically doing Osama's job for him.
I still find it funny how nobody disputes the fact that the "leaked" segment in the intelligence estimate wasnt in the final report. I know I know....how could you? Its new information! TYhere is no way for you to know the whole thing. But you people hope for the worst. That IS pathetic Elyse.
You're right, the terrorists ARE coming out of the cave - and that's usually about the time a 7.62mm round hits their skull.
Our strategy of taking the fight to them on their home field is a great way to get them all gathered in one place............like in Afghanistan the other day. 1000+ of them were killed in one offensive. That's the kind of kill-zone we like creating for the Taliban. The goal in this war is to wipe them out. If more take up the Taliban cause, they get killed too. The attrition rate is already getting so bad that they can't field an effective force. NATO is doing great there.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out between now and the mid terms. We all know the fires of terrorism were there before the war in Iraq. But this administration chose to throw gas on those fires and add more fuel. They are guilty of aiding the political agenda of the terrorists.
The latest response about that report, yes there may be more terrorists but they are not organized they are poorly funded and they are not as determined as the ones who are gone. In short the numbers are increasing but the danger they present is decreasing.
Your big civil war in Iraq is about 1000 people and shrinking. The president of Iraq said during an interview some of them have laid down their weapons and are going to join the new government. They are talking to other groups as well. No Iraq was a slam-dunk but it will be good for the world in the end.
We invade Iraq to remove a fascist dictator from power. He had committed atrocities against his own people. In what way was this not similar to W.W.II and Germany?
As for moral authority do you think they had moral authority to murder thousands? Do you think they still have Moral authority to continue suicide bombings? Something you may find interesting is Islam has the same roots as the Old Testament and the torah. Islam says the other religions in the Qur'an are to be tolerated. We (meaning the others who share the same origin) are called the people of the book. One of the ways we differ greatly is Islam the religion is also the law. Tell me then if we set back and watched the radical groups that have developed their own flavor of Islam. Those that think we are infidels If we sit back and watch them take over Iraq and rule through terror and brutality to their own people, would we not loose any moral authority we may have ever had. The Clinton administration handed Afghanistan to the Taliban on a golden platter. Talk about creating more terrorists.
I guess the intent has a lot to do with it. We intended to attack their military targets they intended to attack our civilian targets. It's a practical matter.
The technical term for attacking civilian targets is, Chicken shit.
And Tony, going into Iraq was not a mistake. We took out an evil and vile dictator who killed millions and who had demonstrated that he was not afraid to get and use WMD's. Why should we have to pander to the cowards who were unwilling to stand up for what's right? We shouldn't. If anything, they should say that they screwed up by allowing evil to continue so long!!
To be certain I will remind you that the death from starvation of 400,000 Iranian children is the fault of the UN sanctions against Iran.
IF your look closely at history Iraq was under the thumb of Saddam Hussein and he killed far more people of his own than we have to date. (which is what he is on trail for now)
We are actively training the Iraqi soldiers. There are 10 divisions actively protecting some areas.
I felt a very strong sense of pride when I saw footage of an Iraqi soldier patrolling the street in Baghdad. In the background there was an Iraqi teen looking at the soldier with the look of adoration. I have had no clew what the reporter said until I saw the report the second time.
It is from these sights and the information that isn't based on interpretations that I make my statements. The number of insurgents 1000, that is measurable. When compared to the total number of Iraqi people it's not even a drop in the bucket.
Now the issue about all the supposed lies. I don't have any fancy words but here is an analogy.
Your hungry you and your wife decide to order Pepperoni. You call and order 1 large pepperoni Pizza. Before the pizza arrives your wife says what did you order. You tell her I ordered a large pepperoni Pizza. The pizza guy gets there and you open the box to find anchovies. We all know you didn't lie to your wife.
That is what is happening here. Intelligence said pepperoni the war started and then intelligence said well we said it could be pepperoni or it could be anchovies. There were the centrifuge tubes that could have been actual centrifuge tubes but later were said by others to be tubes for missals. That does not mean that anyone knowingly made false statement.
Praising Clinton and forgetting his part. He did a great job getting the budget back on track. The Intelligence community suffered terrible losses from cutbacks or attrition that was never brought back up to the same levels. Then two years later, when we needed the best intelligence we could get we had a lot of novice people.
The events that led to the Iraq war started in 1959. Both sides had ample opportunity over the years. Then the Iatola Komanie (SP) put a chill on the whole thing. Because the USA had been an ally with Iran and we had provided them with nuclear power technology we knew they were a serious threat. We backed Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. Iraq was poised to run across Iran but Saddam stopped. The Iatolla sent unarmed children into battle by the millions. Saddam retreated. Then became belligerent toward the USA.
It is irrational to take a study, even if all sixteen intelligence agencies were involved. It is irrational to say that study shows an increase in the threat of terrorists. The terrorists have been on the increase for many years. The Iraq war surely didn't set well with some people they have been robbed of their chance to be the next dictator. Some are probably angry because they have lost loved ones. These new terrorists aren't the breed that has been training for 15 or 20 years in the camps in Afghanistan. No doubt they are still dangerous but ill prepared.
"You also might want to subtract the thousands of Kurds and rebellious Shi'a that died immediately after Gulf War I, when the U.S. incited those populations to rise up against Saddam in the aftermath of that war and then not only refused to help them get it done but lifted the no-fly zones so Saddam could kill them more effectively from the skies. I'd subtract that lot as well, not good P.R. for the U.S., there."
This exactly the reason we should't pull out of Iraq now. We let them down seariously they wer a political football and we should all take a whipping for that. But to repeat the same mistake again because of a silly 30 page report would be the shame of America for the rest of eternity.
These types of events are the very worst part of the American system. administrations change and think they should undo all the effort of the administration be for them. The polls show numbers that aren't in favor of something and we say Oh look theres a bird. And people die.
I Hate war. War is a part of human life. Some times there is no choice. When we are in it i stay in it untill the very end.
This report was generated to contradict Bush when he said The USA is safer now than it has been for a long time.
Clay, the majority of the American people can't even point out or pronounce Iraq correctly. Iraq may not have been a threat to US soil, but it was a threat to the stability of the region and our allies there. We did free Iraq when we invaded. We freed them from a evil dictator. Like I told Tony, Its not our fault that the Iraqi people are too immature to know that killing each other is bad.
And clay, if we were doing such a good job at fighting terror before we began this ass-kicking policy, then why is it that terrorists managed to attack our embassies in Africa and in the Middle East? Why is it that they managed to attack our navy? Why is it that they managed to pull off 9-11? Since we started this policy, there has not been a single attack against the US mainland. We have arrested and killed more terrorists in 5 years than we have in the last 25. We have almost cut off funding to several terror groups. We may be causing some instability, but its working to our advantage. The people over there are going to get sick of their homeland being blown up by a bunch of animals. We have already seen some groups lay down their weapons and join the governemnt, and tribal leaders are voicing their support for the democratic government.
Things may be bad in Iraq, but they will get better. The terrorists are fighting an army that will never give up, and they are not used to that. We will win. Just be patient.
You people constantly try running through doors before even turning the nob first. How long before you will be writing articles how you and the democrats where duped into beliveing the suggestion in the N.I.E. was actually the report itself by Karl Rove? Another vast right wing conspiracy? Who woulf have thunk it?
www.drudgereport.com
How is it possible to randomly choose representative anything? This would imply that a given criterion was analyzed and some possible samples were eliminated. What criteria was used to eliminate them.
"Mostly by Air strikes by coalition forces." That's odd we haven't bombed anything for a long time. When counting civilians In Iraq, after the war was there a distinction made between the ones that were shooting at us or not. Because after the army and the Special Forces and that other funny named group was gone that would include everyone. How was this data gathered? Counting bodies or interviewing people.
And Clay you can say it doesn't matter if you want to but it does matter who is killing who. There will no doubt be some tangential Iraqi dictator-wanna-be that will fight other dictator-wanna-be, and there will be more casualties.
Another point given Saddam Hussein ages. Given that before the war there were already freedom fighters in Iraq. How long would Saddam have survived without the war? If there had been no war and he would have died, What would have happened? (A side note) (That is one advantage of elections). The descent into chaos and anarchy was inevitable.
Finally the doctrine of proximal cause. It has long been established that a chain of events can be interrupted by any of the participants in that chain of events. LAST CLEAR CHANCE.
A person is driving down the road. He sees a stop sign and decides he's running too late for work. He decides not to stop. He T-bones a car. The damage to the other car and the injury to the other driver are his fault. He had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
A person is driving down the road. He sees a stop sign and decides he's running too late for work. He decides not to stop. He T-bones a car. Both cars come to rest and a third car speeds through the same stop sign and hits the already wrecked cars. The first driver is not at fault for the second accident. In this situation the third driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. He is responsible for the damage to his own car and any additional damage to the other cars. The first and second drivers were powerless to stop the third driver when he set his vehicle in motion.
When compared to the war in Iraq. Civilians that are bombed and shot by terror groups or rebels are innocent victims. The rebels or terror groups had the last clear chance to drop their weapons or choose a combative target. Some would even argue that the civilians had the last clear chance but if they stayed around an area that is a combat zone they took the risk. Of course this does not apply when a suicide bomber suddenly bombs a peaceful neighbor hood.
If you care to read about it copy and past this into your browser.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/roberts.pdf
Any one of you who says we shouldn't have attacked. Should answer a couple of question. Just answer them to yourself. Have you ever had an angry person point a gun at you and say they were going to kill you? What did you do?
If that has never happened to you. What do you think you would do?
I once believed that all war was stupid. Then a man broke into my house and pointed a sawed off shotgun at me. Time stops every beat of your heart takes forever. Your vision narrows and you can't feel anything. In my case I flew into action and disarmed the man as the gun went off. If I had waited one second I would not be here today. About a year later I was talking to a person and said something they didn't like. He pulled a shotgun and pumped to load a shell into the chamber. Before he was done pumping it I had it out of his hand. And destroyed the gun. We fought until neither one of us could fight any more. He left. Several years later at a keg party a person pulled a pistol and aimed it at me. I did not wait to see if it was loaded or if he was serious. I took it out of his hand and threw it into a tree row. He never did find it.
My point, If someone is making threatening gestures and has guns aimed at you or your friends do you wait to see if someone gets shot or do you disarm them. Death is very real you only get to choose one time.
This new report shines some light on something that me along with many others have feared. Although not knowing the contents of the report leaves alot up to individual speculation, it is not surprising that there is a rise in radicalism. This situation is similar to when the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan and was held off by the Muhadeen. I am not saying that the US has gone in with the same intentions, but from the viewpoint of the radical groups such as Al-Qaeda, they are fighting a similar fight in their minds.
This war on radicalism and barbarism cannot be fought only with guns and bombs, although some bloodshed is required. Economic and social incentives are also important to create a stable Iraq. Policies domestic and foreign which serve to help the resurgence of the Iraqi middle class are important as is strong border control to keep insurgents from infiltrating the country. Ultimately this will be Iraq's responsibility, but at this point its quite difficult for them to go it alone because they lack the stability and resources.
I hope that Iraq can eventually stand on its own two feet, but I fear there is way too much ethnic instability. If there is any promise in Iraq, it lies with the Kurds and the northern region. I imagine at one point in the future they will fight for their own independence. Their ethnic identity far overrides their identity as an Iraqi. Could you imagine if there was a whole state in the US that was comprised of one ethnicity? (No, not Florida :P) There would likely be a lot of conflict with the primarily white central government.
Alas, my mini-rant has come to an end, but I think it's important that we stop debating whether Iraq was a mistake or not and have intelligent discussion on a solution that will benefit all.
Of course, after that there was an hour long debate between those who thought Iraq was a good idea (who almost always linked it to 9/11) and those who thought it was not. The debate was almost a mirror image of what has been going on here for the last two days, it was really incredible. People saying we're there, we can't leave so everyone get behind the president, people saying it's unpatriotic not to question the government and so on.
What I noticed was that everyone (in the class) wanted to attack those who felt what we are doing in Iraq isn't working, for being unpatriotic... I think it's strange that we have become so afraid of facts. And again, I'm talking about the class, not the tirades that were going on here.
It seems that many people supported Bush to begin with, then, it turned out we were mislead, now there are two choices, change the opinion of bush, or ignore the facts...that doesn't mean lynch bush, it means come to terms with what's really happening, what's going on, what people (like generals) are saying we need to be doing, what the world is saying that we need to be doing.
There is a place for discussion about the reason for going into Iraq, I think it is vital that we do discuss it. It doesn't have any implication for what we do there now, but this isn't working, and we need to take a long hard look at how it happened to prevent it in the future. It is incomprehensible to me, how many people think that talking about it is a bad idea.