declassifying of NIE: truth laid bare?
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
Can't we just get the same info from the NY Times instead?
"0RaNJE !1!1!" is all you twits need to know.
Considering that there was also an article in the WaPo recently about how the intelligence agencies were all in agreement that the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic fundamentalism and helped swell the ranks of terrorists, do you still contend that going into Iraq was a good idea and that it's helping in the fight against terror?
I only think it helps in that other countries with the idea of harboring and aiding terrorist groups will think twice about it because there's been a precedent which shows the US means business. It doesnt do much for the terrorists themselves, but no leader wants to be deposed and put to trial by the US military. We've shown we'll do it, and that's got to make some of these governments think twice before aiding/giving money to Al Queda etc...
While it may not actually reduce the number of terrorists, you have to beleive it reduces their ability to be effective. Without funding and support, the terrists will have a tougher time being seen as a legitimate political force. This is good. If we can reduce them to random suicide bombing and hijackins vs. attaining any real political prowess through radical islam, Id say we're on some form of the right track.
Probably true in some cases, but it doesn't really seem to bother Iran, Syria, possibly North Korea etc.
The big problem even if we did shut down governments funding Al K. Dugh we ramped up hatred of the US and swelled their bank accounts with private support.
And it took how many hundred-million dollars to come up with this conclusion??
Because we've shown that we are willing to go into a country that WASN'T harboring terrorists? Oh, and I see it's done wonders for Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc.
Edit: Transcend beat me to it, but he forgot Pakistan. (Reminds me of "He forgot Poland."
That's the whole point of the article. It has had the opposite effect. The report is basically saying that we are more at risk now than we were before we went into Iraq.
but it was canadian money, which has shown to be dodgy
Guys,
I realize that our current situation doesnt lend itself to being considered successful, but I honestly think that with a less-heavy-handed approach (i dunno trade incentives, etc) we can get some of these govts. on our side AND the rest of the world to help us out if we just play our cards right. Radical islam and western culture simply CANNOT peacefully exist. If we show that we're willing to work with the Syrias of the world, but that we also arent going to take any terrorist **** it can be a win-win.
I realize that our current situation doesnt lend itself to being considered successful, but I honestly think that with a less-heavy-handed approach (i dunno trade incentives, etc) we can get some of these govts. on our side AND the rest of the world to help us out if we just play our cards right. Radical islam and western culture simply CANNOT peacefully exist. If we show that we're willing to work with the Syrias of the world, but that we also arent going to take any terrorist **** it can be a win-win.
Or they just learn how to hide it better. That gives us more terrorist, but fewer KNOWN terrorist.
The funding is still happening, support for terrorist is growing and for what? To bring to justice someone that did nothing to us other than act like he would resist us?
Well time to invade Somalia (again), Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Cuba... the list goes on and on.
In a weird way our government acts like the terrorist, and I'm not talking about killing civilians and things that obvious..
We call them violent and evil, so they riot and attack anything western - which proves our point.
They say we are trying to kill off Islam and 'westernize' the Middle East, and we invade 2 countries and try to control others - which proves their point.
The war for the hearts and minds of the people is being lost, which means terrorism can only grow. Hence the war on terror has already been lost. How does violence change people minds when they believe they are being victimized?
And, without the surrounding text, we have no way of knowing whether those accounts mean what you think they mean. Further, the NIE is supposed to bring together all the work of the many intel agencies, so it would not be surprising if there were some differing views. The point is that the NIE as a whole goes against the view that we are helping ourselves.
are you trying to suggest someone would take a fair-and-balanced report & quote select parts to fit their agenda?
it's this kind of demogoguery by 99% of politicians that make the other 1% look bad.
Considering that the Bush admin is already speaking out against the NIE, I would think that the NIE is not flattering for the admin.
it's a rope-a-dope, another crafty scheme hatched by kkkarl rove himself.
"the thrilla-on-the-hilla"
Good points......consider this scenario:
Looking back to our past---to the civil rights movement. What if the NY Times ran a story that read: "Civil Rights Movement said to Worsen Threat of Racism." Reading on, the article says: "...Efforts by the Justice Dept. to end racial discrimination in the South has fanned the flames of racial animosity" and "Recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan have increased since the federal government increased its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks."
So....the question is, would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?
They're saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism.
In other words: We made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might upset Islamic terrorists. Could you imagine how mad they might be if we caught Osama bin Laden? After all, if we catch them, it's just going to piss them off......well, can't have that, can we?
Looking back to our past---to the civil rights movement. What if the NY Times ran a story that read: "Civil Rights Movement said to Worsen Threat of Racism." Reading on, the article says: "...Efforts by the Justice Dept. to end racial discrimination in the South has fanned the flames of racial animosity" and "Recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan have increased since the federal government increased its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks."
So....the question is, would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?
They're saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism.
In other words: We made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might upset Islamic terrorists. Could you imagine how mad they might be if we caught Osama bin Laden? After all, if we catch them, it's just going to piss them off......well, can't have that, can we?
Begging the question. The Civil Rights struggle was actually a struggle against bigots, etc. The war in Iraq was not a fight against the terrorists, since there weren't any there before we got there. Nice try though.
Saudi Arabia is giving you the finger and laughing right now
I just dont understand why people bother being so idealogical when there's so much money to be made. We can all be fat and happy and worship whatever the hell we want. Why people gotta explode themselves and pay people to explode themselves is beyond me. I could see it from Afghanistan who has nothing but heroin to offer the world, but these other places could be living a legitimate dream due to their natural resources. This is what I mean about crazelamists being incompatible with the rest of the world. We're all searching for this answer...and there isnt one.
Well to be fair, I guess they could have Morphine and other opiates as well? :biggrin:
Some of those craselamista are pissed that the US talks about freedom and democracy while supporting what is basically a Kindom. They watch the Royalty piss away the countries wealth on their own personal whims. Those royals in charge limit freedoms to supress those crazilamists and incite the rest of the country with anti-american propeganda to distract the rest of the country from what is really going on. There are so many puppet strings tangled up in this mess it will pretty much be impossible to fix.
Why supress the crazelamists only to make crazelamists out of everyone else? That seems counterproductive to me. I can see wanting all the cash, but why drum up hate toward the source of it? If its as simple as it sounds, the Saudi people must just be stupid, but I doubt that's teh case. This is basically where my knowledge on this topic ends.
i was just reading this:Bush is going to declassify 'select portions' of the NIE now. Flip-flopper.
rather disappointing, i must admit
What, all dictators are terrorists now? Man, now we'll have to go after so many more rulers and countries in the war on terror.
Religion is certainly weilded as a tool of control over people, much like the church used it to control the population during the Dark Ages in Europe. In this case, it seems to be Islam instead of Xtianity during the DA.
You're seeing it all wrong---Islam teaches one how to be at peace with God---not his fellow Muslim or Christian.
i'm sure there's some appropriately butchered pastor neimoller poem "first they came...".
Afghan President Hamid Karzai pwn3d reporters yesterday...
It's a fair point. Terrorist has become our catch-all for "bad man."
But a terrorist used to be used only for non-government groups specifically using tactics designed to create terror among civilians to achieve political ends. Technically the definition is broader, but that was what it used to mean and it is useful for it to have a specific meaning.
Labelling Saddam a terrorist both diminishes and misrepresents Saddam's particular flavor of evil. He was a tyrannical dictator and most certainly employed terror tactics on his populace often for political ends, but sometimes just for fun, and it was only one of many political tools he used (see Gulf War I, and early 80s US diplomacy for different approaches he has used at times). Also his power was amplified (and centralized) by his official government position.
This oversimplification and inability to define our enemies is part of what got us into this whole mess. Let's not exaccerbate the problem. We'll leave that to Bush.
Here's a good op-ed on Iraq making matters worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801455.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801455.html
So says a Clinton Administration hack...
NY Times Iraq Report Fodder for Democrat Party
By Jim Kouri, 9/28/2006 3:01:53 PM
When the mainstream news media and their bosom buddies in the Democrat Party throw accusations around about the conservative-right information machine, most clear-thinking Americans recognize it as a cleverly manufactured smokescreen. The conservatives and Republicans are pikers compared to the true party of misinformation and Orwellian spin.
Last week, the Democrats and the news media broke out in a cold sweat when they saw the latest Gallup poll figures that showed President Bush's approval rating rising, and the overall GOP poll numbers climbing, as well. But what really scared them was that only 25% of those polled liked house of congress. Which means to most observers, that the voters will take out their dissatisfaction with the President in 2008, not 2006.
There had to be a way to stifle the momentum that occurred as a result of falling gas prices, encouraging economic numbers, Americans remembering the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and potential voters being turned off by the rantings of liberal members of the House and Senate.
And so they found it on Sunday. A story that I suspect was fabricated by the New York Times with the help of another treasonous member of the so-called intelligence committee who, as usual, remains an "anonymous source."
The gist of the story was: The war in Iraq actually caused an upsurge in terrorist recruitment. In other words, had we not invaded Iraq, there would be fewer terrorists. I guess the 9-11 attacks, the USS Cole terrorist incident, the bombing of two US embassies, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers and the first bombing of the World Trade Center were aberrations, and it was our toppling of the monster Saddam Hussein that's caused a worldwide increase in terrorism.
The Sunday Times story was a gift from the journalists and editors to the Democrat Party. An anonymous traitor leaked classified information to the Times. However, the Times printed the story without mentioning the name of any person who actually perused the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to corroborate the information provided by the anonymous traitor. In fact, the anonymous source claims he read the NIE, but I'm certain he never gave a copy to the Times. Also, how interesting that this story came out the day before the Democrat were to begin their full-court press to show they'd be better at fighting terrorism.
This particular NIE, according to Intelligence Czar John Negroponte, is 30-pages long. Are we to believe that the paragraph in question was the only subject of the entire classified report? Further, it takes someone who is ignorant of the NIE to believe the Times story.
The National Intelligence Estimates which is given to the President of the United States and specific officials contains the analysis of several agencies and many individuals. It is not unheard of to read an NIE containing contradictory intelligence estimates. It's just that -- an intelligence estimate. It is not the Holy Bible nor is it etched in stone.
The anonymous sources had to have memorized the 30 pages, which I find doubtful. But let's say they did memorize the NIE -- why a story on only one or two paragraphs that corroborate what the Times editorial writers has been saying ad nauseum for months? Why is there only a segment of the NIE paraphrased in the Sunday New York Times that corroborates the statement made in the past by Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc., or members of Congress such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, etc. If these Democrats are able to forecast what the NIE will later report, then we are in deep doo-doo.
The Democrats seized on the NY Times story to score political points, although Associated Press, Washington Post and other media organizations continuously said the Democrats seized on the NIE to launch their attacks. But that isn't so. No one, outside of the people who are supposed to, read the actual National Intelligence Estimate because it's a secret document.
In other words, the only part of the NIE that was quoted by an anonymous traitor is the part that said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat. The Democrats, in turn, all day Sunday said it was further evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections. Further evidence from whom? Their lapdogs at the New York Times?
Quite simply, Democrats hoped for some sort of report that would undermine the GOP's image as the party more capable of handling terrorism as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch. Democrats know they couldn't fight a war against the Marx Brother's mythical nation of Freedonia if their lives depended on it, but they can sure undermine our soldiers, intelligence professionals and law enforcement officers in an effort to make the Commander-in-Chief look bad in the news media.
The Democrats' criticisms came in a collection of press releases sent to reporters Sunday amid the disclosure of a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. Currently, I have some calls out to find out when these press releases were actually written. Did the NY Times tip off people such as Clintonista Rahm Emanuel? Or did the Democrats actually help the Times by providing "an anonymous source." Remember, we're talking about Washington, DC. I've had more than a few colleagues in law enforcement suddenly garner high-paying jobs within the Beltway.
"This particular NIE was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an anonymous intelligence official. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity on Sunday because the report is classified, " wrote the Associated Press.
"Unfortunately this report is just confirmation that the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach to the Iraq war has not just made the war more difficult and more deadly for our troops, but has also made the war on terror more dangerous for every American," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic effort to take control of the House. Emanuel is also a diehard Clintonista who's part and parcel of efforts to create a myth about the Terrorism Warrior William Jefferson Clinton.
But I say, "What report?" No one has seen the report -- we've seen the New York Times version of a report its reporters never read, leaked by an anonymous intelligence official or two, while pinpointing only a small part of the alleged National Intelligence Estimate.
By Jim Kouri, 9/28/2006 3:01:53 PM
When the mainstream news media and their bosom buddies in the Democrat Party throw accusations around about the conservative-right information machine, most clear-thinking Americans recognize it as a cleverly manufactured smokescreen. The conservatives and Republicans are pikers compared to the true party of misinformation and Orwellian spin.
Last week, the Democrats and the news media broke out in a cold sweat when they saw the latest Gallup poll figures that showed President Bush's approval rating rising, and the overall GOP poll numbers climbing, as well. But what really scared them was that only 25% of those polled liked house of congress. Which means to most observers, that the voters will take out their dissatisfaction with the President in 2008, not 2006.
There had to be a way to stifle the momentum that occurred as a result of falling gas prices, encouraging economic numbers, Americans remembering the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and potential voters being turned off by the rantings of liberal members of the House and Senate.
And so they found it on Sunday. A story that I suspect was fabricated by the New York Times with the help of another treasonous member of the so-called intelligence committee who, as usual, remains an "anonymous source."
The gist of the story was: The war in Iraq actually caused an upsurge in terrorist recruitment. In other words, had we not invaded Iraq, there would be fewer terrorists. I guess the 9-11 attacks, the USS Cole terrorist incident, the bombing of two US embassies, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers and the first bombing of the World Trade Center were aberrations, and it was our toppling of the monster Saddam Hussein that's caused a worldwide increase in terrorism.
The Sunday Times story was a gift from the journalists and editors to the Democrat Party. An anonymous traitor leaked classified information to the Times. However, the Times printed the story without mentioning the name of any person who actually perused the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to corroborate the information provided by the anonymous traitor. In fact, the anonymous source claims he read the NIE, but I'm certain he never gave a copy to the Times. Also, how interesting that this story came out the day before the Democrat were to begin their full-court press to show they'd be better at fighting terrorism.
This particular NIE, according to Intelligence Czar John Negroponte, is 30-pages long. Are we to believe that the paragraph in question was the only subject of the entire classified report? Further, it takes someone who is ignorant of the NIE to believe the Times story.
The National Intelligence Estimates which is given to the President of the United States and specific officials contains the analysis of several agencies and many individuals. It is not unheard of to read an NIE containing contradictory intelligence estimates. It's just that -- an intelligence estimate. It is not the Holy Bible nor is it etched in stone.
The anonymous sources had to have memorized the 30 pages, which I find doubtful. But let's say they did memorize the NIE -- why a story on only one or two paragraphs that corroborate what the Times editorial writers has been saying ad nauseum for months? Why is there only a segment of the NIE paraphrased in the Sunday New York Times that corroborates the statement made in the past by Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc., or members of Congress such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, etc. If these Democrats are able to forecast what the NIE will later report, then we are in deep doo-doo.
The Democrats seized on the NY Times story to score political points, although Associated Press, Washington Post and other media organizations continuously said the Democrats seized on the NIE to launch their attacks. But that isn't so. No one, outside of the people who are supposed to, read the actual National Intelligence Estimate because it's a secret document.
In other words, the only part of the NIE that was quoted by an anonymous traitor is the part that said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat. The Democrats, in turn, all day Sunday said it was further evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections. Further evidence from whom? Their lapdogs at the New York Times?
Quite simply, Democrats hoped for some sort of report that would undermine the GOP's image as the party more capable of handling terrorism as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch. Democrats know they couldn't fight a war against the Marx Brother's mythical nation of Freedonia if their lives depended on it, but they can sure undermine our soldiers, intelligence professionals and law enforcement officers in an effort to make the Commander-in-Chief look bad in the news media.
The Democrats' criticisms came in a collection of press releases sent to reporters Sunday amid the disclosure of a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. Currently, I have some calls out to find out when these press releases were actually written. Did the NY Times tip off people such as Clintonista Rahm Emanuel? Or did the Democrats actually help the Times by providing "an anonymous source." Remember, we're talking about Washington, DC. I've had more than a few colleagues in law enforcement suddenly garner high-paying jobs within the Beltway.
"This particular NIE was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an anonymous intelligence official. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity on Sunday because the report is classified, " wrote the Associated Press.
"Unfortunately this report is just confirmation that the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach to the Iraq war has not just made the war more difficult and more deadly for our troops, but has also made the war on terror more dangerous for every American," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic effort to take control of the House. Emanuel is also a diehard Clintonista who's part and parcel of efforts to create a myth about the Terrorism Warrior William Jefferson Clinton.
But I say, "What report?" No one has seen the report -- we've seen the New York Times version of a report its reporters never read, leaked by an anonymous intelligence official or two, while pinpointing only a small part of the alleged National Intelligence Estimate.