DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on September 24, 2006, 02:32:12 AM
-
I am sure it will be amusing and amazing.
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006
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.
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 its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.
Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said 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.â€
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.â€
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, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.â€
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 the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.
Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.
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.â€
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.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/ (http://www.nytimes.com/)
-
This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?
-
This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?
I was about to say the same thing Ami. Their connclusions were denounced as not amounting to anything credible or substantive. So much for the Bush lied diatribe
-
Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted. Maybe you should remember that there was also intelligence saying Iraq didn't have WMDs, but that was pretty much ignored - it didn't bolster the case for war.
-
Well that's a little different spin than I was expecting. I thought the spin would be, it's not the invasion and occupation that increased the terrorism, it was America's weakness and division as manifested by treasonous liberal Democrats that encouraged these murderous antisemitic beheading savages to resist our noble efforts to steal their oil, ooops, I mean to liberate them from tyranny.
But this is even better - -
"Years of intenive study, my ass. In 1991 these folks said [blah etc.] Once wrong, ALWAYS wrong."
Which of course, begs the question, well why does the Commander in Chief continue to rely upon such dunderheaded incompetents to provide him with such crucial information? If they're so unreliable, why do they still have their jobs? And of course, we all know the answer to that one - - Ya know who HIRED them all? It was CLINTON!!!! This is all Bill Clinton's fault. Bush has only had 1 and 1/2 terms, it'll take a LIFETIME to undo all of CLINTON'S mistakes.
-
so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted
Who said that? Boy that's one twisted distorted conclusion
-
This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?
Of course you are right. One can never ever admit to a mistake. Instead never admit it and continue in a wrong-headed path that destroys any chance at success like the Bushidiot does.
-
Of course you are right.
Of course.
Instead never admit it and continue in a wrong-headed path that destroys any chance at success like the Bushidiot does.
So, you're saying that the NIE you just quoted from is wrong, correct?
-
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.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So terrorism is getting worse than it was .
But not here?
-
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.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So terrorism is getting worse than it was .
But not here?
Bush was nice enough to export 147000 nice young American men & women closer to the terrorists so that they could be more easily killed. Why bother coming here when you have plenty enough Americans to kill closer to home? Decent of him, dontcha think? Cuts down on overhead of all those one -way tickets.
-
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.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So terrorism is getting worse than it was .
But not here?
Bush was nice enough to export 147000 nice young American men & women closer to the terrorists so that they could be more easily killed. Why bother coming here when you have plenty enough Americans to kill closer to home? Decent of him, dontcha think? Cuts down on overhead of all those one -way tickets.
Yes , this has given them the chance to shoot at Americans who are well armed and likely to shoot back , not what they would prefer I suppose since in the past they had a marked prefrence for the unarmed and helpless.
-
Yes , this has given them the chance to shoot at Americans who are well armed and likely to shoot back , not what they would prefer I suppose since in the past they had a marked prefrence for the unarmed and helpless.
I doubt if it matters to those that are willing to die for their cause whether their targets are armed or not. The hijackers on 9/11 died along with their victims. I also wonder now whether our troops are as well armed as you seem to think. We did the war on the cheap to save your tax cuts you know.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,1,3969385,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
-
Who said that? Boy that's one twisted distorted conclusion
You missed the best part of the quote...
Maybe you should remember that there was also intelligence saying Iraq didn't have WMDs, but that was pretty much ignored - it didn't bolster the case for war.
Of course, that disagrees with your alternate reality, so I understand.
-
You missed the best part of the quote..."Maybe you should remember that there was also intelligence saying Iraq didn't have WMDs, but that was pretty much ignored - it didn't bolster the case for war".
Didn't miss it at all. The fact is the vast preponderance of intel said otherwise however. I agreed with the NIE & produced it along with a plethora of other sources to back up the decisions made by Bush, in going to war. Now perhaps, you can demonstrate where anyone claimed that when their (NIE) conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, they then can't be trusted
Ball in your court, in any reality
-
Posted by: sirs
Insert Quote
You missed the best part of the quote..."Maybe you should remember that there was also intelligence saying Iraq didn't have WMDs, but that was pretty much ignored - it didn't bolster the case for war".
Didn't miss it at all. The fact is the vast preponderance of intel said otherwise however. I agreed with the NIE & produced it along with a plethora of other sources to back up the decisions made by Bush, in going to war. Now perhaps, you can demonstrate where anyone claimed that when their (NIE) conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, they then can't be trusted
Ummm, H. Did you miss this the last go around?
-
Nope.
Ignored it. Why bother?
-
Ignored it. Why bother?
It appears, you maded a baseless/meritless claim. I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims. Is that how you wish to leave it? Were you simply in error? ???
-
Can you look back and see where Ami, then you, intimated as much? Though no doubt you'll try to put some other spin on it, which is why I asked, 'Why bother?'
You should also know by now, that I don't jump just because you say so. You're 'I'm waiting oh so impatiently' crap bears no weight with me.
I disagreed with the original NIE (the one that you oh-so-agree with) for the reasons I've given - it cherry picked information that bolstered the case for war with Iraq, and ignored the intelligence that didn't. We'll just have to wait to see what this one says, since Dubya has apparently agreed to declassify it.
BTW, as for Ami's and your snark that these are the same folks that produced the original NIE that was wrong about WMDs, they may be different folks altogether - or do you have a personnel roster for the agencies and people involved in drawing up both NIEs?
-
Can you look back and see where Ami, then you, intimated as much?
I looked back. I can't speak for Ami, but dare I say you're "assuming" something that never was? I never intimated anything of the sorrt. However, sounds quite familiar to charges being levied at me, during our saloon days, when you'd get all bent out of shape for me daring to assume what you were "intimating". Best stick with "I errored, my bad" vs "why bother". More credibility with that tact.
Though no doubt you'll try to put some other spin on it, which is why I asked, 'Why bother?
Naaa, that's more likely your ego being unable to acknowledge you were wrong, since you have been unable to provide an answer to a very simple charge, so best just pretend it never happened
-
So you just stick with being an ass.
And again I ask, 'Why bother?'
Told you I was blunt.
-
And again I ask, 'Why bother?'
And again I'd respond that you maded a baseless/meritless claim. I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims. If that's how you wish to leave it however, fine by me
-
You wanted an answer, I gave you one. If you feel it was in error, perhaps you can explain how. Without the feeble attempt at making fun of my vocabulary would be nice. It might go a long way toward dispelling my belief that you are an insufferable ass.
-
You wanted an answer, I gave you one. If you feel it was in error, perhaps you can explain how
Easy enough. The baseless claim was "Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"
Now, going back to my posts prior, I quote "I was about to say the same thing Ami (This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?). Their conclusions were denounced as not amounting to anything credible or substantive. So much for the Bush lied diatribe"
If you notice I'm referencing (intimating if you wish) how the Anti-war & anti-Bush clans, with the most verbosity coming from Tee as I recall, were the ones denouncing the NIE's reports regarding WMD. In other words, couldn't be trusted. Of course here they're praising it because it happens to fit their anti-war or anti-Bush agenda. Basically validating your claim, but for the other side I'm afraid, as I've been consistently supporting the NIE's conclusions.
See where your baseless accusation aimed at Ami & myself was actually backwards?
-
That Iraq is makeing terrorism worse is a slam dunk.
-
The baseless claim was...
Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.
See where you're not really telling me anything I don't already know? I just figure what's fair for the goose, turnabout is fair play, et cetera, et cetera, and so on. If you don't like it thrown back at you, well, you can refrain from throwing it at others. Nah, that would be too easy.
Accusation aimed at you and Ami? Where did I make such? I don't recall accusing anyone of anything, let alone mentioning names. I did speculate a bit, though.
You really have to get over this persecution complex. Have you looked into professional help?
-
Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.
What silly snark?
-
What silly snark?
Whatsamatter, you use up all your mental energy making up Smileys that call people 'stupid' and 'troll'?
I'll narrow it down for you. You've made three posts on this thread. It isn't the one this is in reply to. That leaves one, or both, of the others.
-
I'll narrow it down for you. You've made three posts on this thread. It isn't the one this is in reply to. That leaves one, or both, of the others.
Must be where I agreed with Knutty when he said I was right.
The other two lines were questions.
(http://forum.explosm.net/images/smilies/facts3.gif)
-
Miss.
Tsk, tsk. I gave you so much more credit than that.
-
Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others. See where you're not really telling me anything I don't already know?
Define "silly snark"? I just demonstrated how your baseless accusation was actually applicable to your side. Not Ami or I
I just figure what's fair for the goose, turnabout is fair play, et cetera, et cetera, and so on
Ahhhh, so some truth comes out. All that victim outrage in the saloon about how dare anyone make bogus assumptions about you, is no big deal when you do it. Gotcha
Accusation aimed at you and Ami? Where did I make such?
"Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"
You have yet to demonstrate where anyone's even implied such
You really have to get over this persecution complex. Have you looked into professional help?
Ahhh, so the tactic when you're being mis-assumed or supposeedly misrepresented is to feign outrage. But if someone brings it to your attention of you doing preceisly the same, they're simply having a "persecution complex". Would have been so much easier if you just fessed the fact you were wrong in your original erroneous assumption. No help necessary, though I do get periodic professional physical therapy on my shoulder. Old tennis injury, but thanks for asking
-
...baseless accusation...
There you go again. What accusation? You haven't shown one yet. Where did I accuse you or Ami of anything? Where did I accuse anyone of anything? I speculated on what the new rules were for accepting the conclusions of NIEs and made a generalization. If you don't like it when anyone besides yourself makes generalizations, tough. If you feel this overwhelming desire to take them personally, tougher still.
By the way, the same goes for your erroneous assumption
bullshit. Just substitute that for accusation
in the paragraph above.
-
There you go again. What accusation? You haven't shown one yet. Where did I accuse you or Ami of anything?
H, you are NOT this dense ??? The implied accusation was claiming that either Ami or I, or both were laying claim that the selected NIE info that was leaked couldn't be trusted because it dared to show something negative about the current war. I don't think I need to paste your quote a 3rd time, do I?? I guess I do....following only single responses from Ami & myself came "Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"
So, if not Ami or I, then WHO is claiming the current leaked NIE info can't be trusted???
I speculated on what the new rules were for accepting the conclusions of NIEs and made a generalization.
What new rules? When were they applied? Was there a meeting we missed? How come we weren't provided any memos?
If you don't like it when anyone besides yourself makes generalizations, tough
I have no problem with generalizations. We do that all the time. But if you're not going to practice what you preach, don't be pulling out the victim card if someone starts misrepresenting your position. We'll just have to chalk that outrage up as an apparent persecution complex, as established by yourself of all people
-
This is OBVIOUSLY another case of bad intelligence.
Hey, I'm a righty - I get to make those kinds of jokes! ;D
-
Poochmeister....where you been hiding, ya old dog? ;)
-
This is OBVIOUSLY another case of bad intelligence.
Hey, I'm a righty - I get to make those kinds of jokes! ;D
Bad intelligence isn't a joke with the right. It is a fact of life.
-
Bad intelligence isn't a joke with the right. It is a fact of life.
Well, at least that's better than the problems with the left - no intelligence.
-
H, you are NOT this dense
Obviously, someone in this discussion is. Keep working on it, you'll figure it out.
-
Obviously, someone in this discussion is. Keep working on it, you'll figure it out.
Well, considering who keeps asking the same question, while ignoring how it keeps getting answered, I think I have
-
Well, considering who keeps asking the same question, while ignoring how it keeps getting answered, I think I have
Yeah, you do tend to keep asking the same thing over and over, and disregarding the answers you are given.
-
you do tend to keep asking the same thing over and over, and disregarding the answers you are given
LOL Perhaps you need to see someone about that persecution complex. Or better, try answering the question "Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted" if not Ami or I, then WHO is claiming the current leaked NIE info can't be trusted? Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy cabal? Evil Fox News? Some other Leftist decreed boogey-man/group?
You know, the question you keep saying you answered, but surprisingly, no where to be found. Must be in invisible type, I guess. Perhaps we need special software to access some of H's postings ;)
-
...persecution complex...
Not sure where that comes from, but hey, who cares?
I have given you an answer. You may not like it, you may not want to take it as it is, you may not be able to figure it out, but it is all the answer you are going to get, and a helluva lot more than you deserve. So hey, if you want to keep going on and on about it, get used to seeing your posts just hanging out there all alone. I'm moving on.
-
Not sure where that comes from (persecution complex)
That would be from you
I have given you an answer (if not Ami or I, then WHO is claiming the current leaked NIE info can't be trusted?)
Funny how no one can find it. Yet according to you, it's there. You could make a good politician with that non-answer H. Reminds me of a recent interview I heard with Rahm Emmanuel, where he was all over the ball park in supposedly answering a simple question as to what the Dems would do regarding Iraq. Everything and anything other than answering the question. Just rattling off 1 DNC talking point after another. Quite entertaining to have listened to
-
Funny how no one can find it.
No one? You are the only one whining about it. As usual.
-
If your ego is that fragile, by all means, you may have the last word. It has been as entertaining & eye opening as the Emmanuel interview. Much appreciated ;D
-
aAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaAAaaaaaaaaaaaaAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Whew , wait one while I catch my breath.......
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaa!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa!
You Know what I mean?
-
:D