Spy report links Iraq invasion to more terrorism

Started by KharmaDog3 pages

Spy report links Iraq invasion to more terrorism


Spy report links Iraq invasion to more terrorism
By BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - It couldn't have come at a worse time for U.S. Republicans trying to get re-elected in mid-term elections in November on the strength of their national security efforts.

Part of a comprehensive spy report finished in April and leaked last weekend said the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create a new generation of Islamic radicals and increased the global terrorism threat.

That's the opposite of what President George W. Bush has been telling Americans for weeks in pre-election speeches and it could have a significant impact on whether the party retains control of Congress this fall.

The National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus view of 16 separate spy agencies including the CIA, was the talk of the capital Monday as Democrats held hearings on all the failings in Iraq and White House officials blitzed the airwaves in a bid to control the damage.

The classified report, maintained White House spokesman Tony Snow, talked about a lot more than just Iraq and contained nothing Bush hasn't already said: that al-Qaida is more dispersed and there are more independent terrorists.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee both urged the government to declassify the document so Americans could see it and draw their own conclusions.

"This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality," said the committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)

While Bush has long described Iraq as the centre of the anti-terror war, he has repeatedly told voters that they're less vulnerable than they were after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Today we are safer, but we are not yet safe," the president said in a televised address to mark the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

And in a news conference on Aug. 21, Bush said the theory that everything was fine until the United States stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq "just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned."

"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East," he said.

White House officials complained about the timing of the leak to the New York Times and Washington Post, calling it a an obvious election ploy six weeks before the congressional races.

"We have always understand that extremist radical groups . . . are going to use Iraq or any other grievance they can come up with to try to incite recruits," said Dan Bartlett, Bush's counsellor.

"They are very good at using whatever grievance they can find."

And the leaks never mentioned a central conclusion of the report that success in Iraq "will deal a crippling blow to terrorism around the world," said Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry, a Republican who has seen the estimate.

"Let's just look at it from a common sense standpoint," Thornberry said. "Any time you stand up to a threat, you are increasing the dangers somewhat."

"The United States did not cause terrorism. We did not create it. But we are standing up to it."

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky said the report also noted that pulling out of Iraq prematurely would "bring terrorists here to our shores again."

"Obviously we've been doing it the right way by staying on offence and going after these guys in Afghanistan and Iraq."

It was a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 that wrongly said former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

This one is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism since the Iraq war began in March 2003.

It could be pure gold for Democrats, who have been looking for ways to tap into widespread public unease about Iraq while chipping away at the approval Bush retains among voters on anti-terrorism.

More Americans are telling pollsters these days that reducing the U.S. military presence overseas would reduce the terrorist threat.

The war has cost more than US$300 billion so far and claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American soldiers.

The U.S. army is stretched so thin by Iraq that it's extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond the promised 12 months for the second time since August. Defence officials are also considering sending in National Guard troops.

Retired military officers were blunt at Senate Democratic hearings Monday, saying Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has bungled the war and misled Americans.

Maj.-Gen. John Batiste, who commanded an infantry division in Iraq, said Rumsfeld once threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

If there had been a plan, it's likely the U.S. would have kept its focus on Afghanistan and "not fuelled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe and not created more enemies than there were insurgents," said Batiste.

In an autobiography released Monday, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf he never favoured invading Iraq.

"I feared it would exacerbate extremism, as it most certainly has. The world is not a safer place because of the war in Iraq. The world has become far more dangerous."

Musharraf, who is meeting with Bush this week, refused to say in an interview if the president should be blamed for making the world more dangerous.

"Let's live in the present and the future and not discuss what decisions were taken in the past."

Bush's latest public relations offensive has been centred on convincing Americans that Iraq has not been a dangerous diversion from hunting down terror mastermind Osama bin Laden and crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan, where Canadians have been dying in combat.

Former Democratic president Bill Clinton defended his own record on the search for bin Laden since the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000.

"We contracted with people to kill him," Clinton told Fox News on Sunday. "I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since."

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try - they did not try."

Comments?

Terrorism is a terrible thing, and so is 'fighting' it in the wrong way.

If I allow myself to conjecture as I consider it, these latest reports seem to show the fallacy of the argument that 'doing something is better than doing nothing'; the World is now a much more insecure place, with growing numbers of anti-Western sentiments because some people went about their response to a legitimate threat in the most ridiculousy erroneous way.

It's also pertinent to note that the UN inspector for torture - or whatever his title is - came out recently and said that there is now more torture of the Iraqi civilians than during the time of Saddam.

Therefore, in conclusion, every single change/resolution that the American, Australian and British governments said they were trying to achieve is actually being reversed - and worsened - by their mistakes and misjudgements. So, the only question remaining is: when are they going to be made culpable, and if these results were intended, when are they going to be made accountable?

Hahaha...Yeah, some hopes...

Yeah, so here's the link for that UN report on the torture in Iraq:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0922/dailyUpdate.html?s=u

I am gone for a day and this is the only response that this thread recieves?

Wow.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So, the only question remaining is: when are they going to be made culpable, and if these results were intended, when are they going to be made accountable?

Never. Because Bush has made the world a safer place...didn't you hear him, that's what he said, so it must be true.

Truely, Krunk's points are exactly what I was thinking, and it frustrates me that the world just accepts the situation, and it frightens me that many in America don't see what's going on.

staying out of the war and infact being actively against it doesn't do you any good either...so whats the other options available?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/09/al_qaeda_declares_france_enemy/

"The National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus view of 16 separate spy agencies including the CIA..."

"Part of a comprehensive spy report finished in April and leaked last weekend said the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create a new generation of Islamic radicals and increased the global terrorism threat"

im supposed to place equal stock in what robert kagan from a right wing blog said?

"the bombing and destruction of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. That doesn't mean the threat has diminished because of the Iraq war, but it does place the burden of proof on those who argue that it has increased."

that makes no sense at all. no burden of proof is placed on those who argue that the threat of terrorism has increased. that factor is judged by the number of militant islamists. simple as that. if there are far more now than then, then their is more motivaton for recruitment. simple.

could it be because we have a small scale (unfortunately) war in afghanistan? yes, keeping them busy, thats good. but AGAIN, what are we doing in iraq? whats the connection? how is the war in iraq and no terrorist attacks >>>ON AMERICAN LAND<<< connected?

on the same point, a complete pullout from iraq would lead to yet another disaster in the making. HOWEVER it shouldnt have been like this. thats the point that this guy missed, and i guess in turn the point that you missed. we opened up the power vaccume, let the genie out of the bottle, opened the can of worms *insert various other cliches*. iraq is fast becoming a terrorist state, and all we can do is keep our finger in the dyke and pray to jesus at the cost of a thousand or so u.s. soldiers a year.....at best *huh huh he said put our fingers....*

Maybe Dubya will initiate a program called "Afghanistanization" in which he slowly pulls troops out of the Middle East 😬.........

why wont people wake up and realise that iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist threat, and that the "mushroom cloud" bullshit was what got us there? why doesnt anyone care?

A lot of people realize it and don't like it. But what the Hell are commonfolk like myself gonna do other than say "Boohoo, I don't like that!"

Originally posted by PVS
why wont people wake up and realise that iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist threat, and that the "mushroom cloud" bullshit was what got us there? why doesnt anyone care?

1.)We mostly know there is no Terrorist threat, that wasn't the main reason for going, yet there are quite a few Terrorists there
2.)Iraq may not have been a good idea at the start, but if it succeeds there, we can begin in destroying Radical Islam, if you can't see that what's happening there is for the better, then I suggest stop reading NewsPapers

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
1.)We mostly know there is no Terrorist threat, that wasn't the main reason for going, yet there are quite a few Terrorists there

yet you just made that up. how can you do that in good conscience without the urge to hit yourself very hard in the face...well, bless your heart.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
2.)Iraq may not have been a good idea at the start, but if it succeeds there, we can begin in destroying Radical Islam, if you can't see that what's happening there is for the better, then I suggest stop reading NewsPapers

...and reports by the cia and various intelligence commissions and just pull shit out of my ass and post it at kmc. *gets up and dances* OH LORDY LORDY YOU HAVE SHOWN ME THE LIGHT!!!

Originally posted by PVS
yet you just made that up. how can you do that in good conscience without the urge to hit yourself very hard in the face...well, bless your heart.

...and reports by the cia and various intelligence commissions and just pull shit out of my ass and post it at kmc. *gets up and dances* OH LORDY LORDY YOU HAVE SHOWN ME THE LIGHT!!!

So you're denying Al Quada wasn't there, as well as several other Terrorist Organizations?

Also, are you denying that Iraq isn't becoming a better place? The reason there is more torture(that's definately off), is because Saddam's supporters and Terrorists don't want any Democracy to succeed there, it isn't our fault they have problems, it's the Terrorists and their hate of our form of Government/us altogether. Despite what the Media says, Iraq is a lot better than it was, save Baghdad, which is the #1 Target of Insurgents

PVS, I don't feel a need to find crap and post it, your hate of anything Conservative destroys the use

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
So you're denying Al Quada wasn't there, as well as several other Terrorist Organizations?

yes. i am denying that al qaeda was there, because they were not there, as was admitted by our president. as far as "terrorists" there were many militias in iraq, all kept in check by a dictator. they were not an organisation hellbent on destroying america. learn what the hell the facts are before running your mouth.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Also, are you denying that Iraq isn't becoming a better place?

yes i am. are you paying attention? should i make it more clear? give me your forehead and a tattoo needle and ill try.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The reason there is more torture(that's definately off), is because Saddam's supporters and Terrorists don't want any Democracy to succeed there, it isn't our fault they have problems, it's the Terrorists and their hate of our form of Government/us altogether. Despite what the Media says, Iraq is a lot better than it was, save Baghdad, which is the #1 Target of Insurgents

only thousands are killed because of this war per month, they are still kidnapped and tortured by our military and by their "police". no, they are not better off. get it?

PVS, I don't feel a need to find crap and post it, your hate of anything Conservative destroys the use

you dont feel the need to research the truth because i hate anything conservative...so whether or not you research world events is based on my opinions on neoconservatism....you really are a sharp one, huh? (that was a rhetorical question, sunshine. no need to answer that one)

Originally posted by KharmaDog
it frustrates me that the world just accepts the situation, and it frightens me that many in America don't see what's going on.

I think people around the world don't accept the situation, but too many of their governments do. Whether this is due to economic pressure, or a genuine synchronicity of beliefs, it is not totally clear, although I feel the former is the stronger reason.

Originally posted by jaden101
staying out of the war and infact being actively against it doesn't do you any good either...so whats the other options available?

That scenario is probably created by the situation the US has given us. What I mean is, if the US hadn't taken this erroneous course of action, it is unlikely that nations that favour a different course would have been so affected by the fall-out from whatever the alternative action was. Basically, what the US has done has tainted all of Western democratic countries, regardless of their support or otherwise. That seems like a grand-standing statement, but in light of these recent reports, it certainly rings true.

As for other options, anything offered is attacked by the pro-war lobby as pandering to terrorists, so it looks like we're stuck, Yossarian.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
1.)We mostly know there is no Terrorist threat, that wasn't the main reason for going, yet there are quite a few Terrorists there

Bush distinctly implicated a link between 9/11 and Iraq. To deny that is just plain ridiculous and revisionist history.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
2.)Iraq may not have been a good idea at the start, but if it succeeds there, we can begin in destroying Radical Islam, if you can't see that what's happening there is for the better, then I suggest stop reading NewsPapers

Destroy radical Islam? Iraq was a secular country before the invasion. It has only been since the removal of Sadam that fundamentalist Islamic leaders have been able to take hold. Have you paid attention to anything that has happened at all or do you just repeat what you have been told?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Also, are you denying that Iraq isn't becoming a better place? The reason there is more torture(that's definately off), is because Saddam's supporters and Terrorists don't want any Democracy to succeed there, it isn't our fault they have problems, it's the Terrorists and their hate of our form of Government/us altogether. Despite what the Media says, Iraq is a lot better than it was, save Baghdad, which is the #1 Target of Insurgents

Wow, just wow. I don't which comment is more absurd. Between, "are you denying that Iraq isn't becoming a better place?" or "it isn't our fault they have problems" or finally "Iraq is a lot better than it was, save Baghdad" I am just amazed that someone could actually believe that.

It makes me lose a little hope in the world knowing that people like that are actually out there.

Originally posted by PVS
yes. i am denying that al qaeda was there, because they were not there, as was admitted by our president. as far as "terrorists" there were many militias in iraq, all kept in check by a dictator. they were not an organisation hellbent on destroying america. learn what the hell the facts are before running your mouth.

yes i am. are you paying attention? should i make it more clear? give me your forehead and a tattoo needle and ill try.

only thousands are killed because of this war per month, they are still kidnapped and tortured by our military and by their "police". no, they are not better off. get it?

[B]

you dont feel the need to research the truth because i hate anything conservative...so whether or not you research world events is based on my opinions on neoconservatism....you really are a sharp one, huh? (that was a rhetorical question, sunshine. no need to answer that one)

Guess ya don't remember Zar-Quawi(sp), I never said they were an "Organization Hellbent on destroying America" in fact I never said it was a good idea going in at first, but there is now something to fight for

So Democracy, freedom from Saddam, freedom in all, and the lack of mass execution/torture isn't better?

Oh really, our Military is capturing and Torturing Thousands of people, that's a bunch of bull, what was it? 4 of our Guards at that Prison tortured some people? And it's not like we're cutting off fingers or anything, we're giving them Pain Drugs and Electroshots, but I forgot, you can't do that with Psycohpathic Extremeists, it's not right is it, we have to be Humain to the people who want to kill us

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Bush distinctly implicated a link between 9/11 and Iraq. To deny that is just plain ridiculous and revisionist history.

Destroy radical Islam? Iraq was a secular country before the invasion. It has only been since the removal of Sadam that fundamentalist Islamic leaders have been able to take hold. Have you paid attention to anything that has happened at all or do you just repeat what you have been told?

Wow, just wow. I don't which comment is more absurd. Between, "[b]are you denying that Iraq isn't becoming a better place?" or "it isn't our fault they have problems" or finally "Iraq is a lot better than it was, save Baghdad" I am just amazed that someone could actually believe that.

It makes me lose a little hope in the world knowing that people like that are actually out there. [/B]

Again, "MAIN" reason, it was in the quote but ok. That was mostly bad intelligence, but still the MAIN reason was WMD's, he had them, more are turning it, a whole crap load of Poison Gas has turned up, there are Terrorists in Iraq, including Al Queda, but ok? 😕

Reading comprehension, I never said Iraq was......if Iraq succeeds, Terrorism won't be loved so much like it is over there, this will affect the WHOLE Middle East. This is important, and if you want to pull out, by all means, keep them behind, and hateful of us, it's a little nicer than what I'm for(Nuking 1 Major City every once in a while if they don't hand over the Terrorists). I again say, going in was a mistake, but pulling out would be a much greater mistake, we need Iraq/Afghanistan to function.

Iraq is becoming better, despite what your friendly Ex-Presidents/Media tells you. The thing with you people is you arn't willing to make sacrfices should it be for the greater good

So much of your post is garbage, so I wil only respond to the following:

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Oh really, our Military is capturing and Torturing Thousands of people, that's a bunch of bull, what was it? 4 of our Guards at that Prison tortured some people?

Even one incident is too many. Your justification and absolution of torture is pathetic.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
but I forgot, you can't do that with Psycohpathic Extremeists, it's not right is it,

Actually, many of the people in Abu Garib were neither Islamic extemists or insurgents. Just people who got caught up in a bad mess. Your generalization of the population shows your grasp of the situation. So is it still o.k. to torture and imprison them just cause they're Iraqi?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
we have to be Humain to the people who want to kill us

Well yes. And if you could look outside the box, you would comprehend that you have to win the hearts of the people, not torture them. As the U.S. is the invading army promoting their invasion as "for the good of Iraqis", it looks pretty bad when you torture or wrongfully arrest them.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So much of your post is garbage, so I wil only respond to the following:

Even one incident is too many. Your justification and absolution of torture is pathetic.

Actually, many of the people in Abu Garib were neither Islamic extemists or insurgents. Just people who got caught up in a bad mess. Your generalization of the population shows your grasp of the situation. So is it still o.k. to torture and imprison them just cause they're Iraqi?

Well yes. And if you could look outside the box, you would comprehend that you have to win the hearts of the people, not torture them. As the U.S. is the invading army promoting their invasion as "for the good of Iraqis", it looks pretty bad when you torture or wrongfully arrest them.

Yes, because a few of our soldiers are screwed up, that means we're terrible people, how could we do this?!?! Damn the Military, they ordered those Soldiers to do it! Get real.

I didn't Generalize the Population, the people in that Prison were Insurgents/Terrorists, that is why it was guarded by the Military. When did I ever say that "put them in prison cause they're Iraqi"? You're putting words in my mouth, as well as butchering statements

Look outside the box? Are you that dull? Win the hearts of the Terrorists? You have lost reason, that is who we torture, not the average farmer. You seem to be living in a world where everything has to be perfect, or it's all wrong, there are FEW mistakes, and you use that as Evidence for not being there

But because my posts are Conservative Garbage, you shouldn't listen to me hang

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger

I didn't Generalize the Population, the people in that Prison were Insurgents/Terrorists, that is why it was guarded by the Military. When did I ever say that "put them in prison cause they're Iraqi"? You're putting words in my mouth, as well as butchering statements

Actually no they weren't - which is why most where released soon after the incident. The Coalition and Iraqi forces did a lot of "mass" arresting early on - former soldiers, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time, people incorrectly identified and so on.

The majority of people who ended up in AG. and were tortured were not terrorists nor insurgents.

As to this, I only heard about it on the news here last night. Made me wonder - the lead was about how the senate had dismissed a report from the intelligence whatever saying the threat of terrorism had risen. I didn't realise your sent could be so summery with reports.

And then a couple of days before this there was a news report about a study that had found torture and the like was now likely just as bad, if not worse in Iraq then during Saddam's rule - what with every other day a hundred people turning up dead - killed by insurgents, killed in sectarian violence, killed by terrorists (note - terrorists and insurgents are technically two different groups.)

Besides, a while back the statistics were tallied and it was shown that prior to the invasion the threat of terrorism was less. All acts of terrorism were tallied and compared with previous years - and due to the inclusion of Iraqi terrorist acts and the like it was shown it is now statistically more likely there will be terrorist attacks then it would have been prior to the war.