Iraq Made Terror Worse? You Mean You Didn't Know That?
It's so quaint really - hearing these cries of protest now that a new secret report from our intelligence community blames Iraq for worsening the War on Terror. First of all, thank goodness for leaked reports that were never supposed to be seen by the public. If we had to rely on this administration to tell us what was really going on, then we would be lost. Check that. We would be left to figure things out for ourselves, which is what we've had to do anyway.
The new terror report is similar to the one claiming we're losing in Anbar Province. That was another analysis the American Public was not meant to hear about. In both cases, the White House was quick to counter with a big dollop of spin. In the case of the Anbar report a general immediately came out and said, "Although I completely agree with the secret report, I do not agree with it at all. Yes, Anbar is lost but I want to stress one point: We are winning in Anbar. And though the War in Iraq is going very, very badly, I also want to stress that the War in Iraq is going great. Everybody got that?"
My question is for the critics. You actually protest and say "gotcha" when a report finds Iraq hurting the War on Terror, and making it worse? Where do you get the naivete? Even buying into the idea that Iraq was part of the War on Terror is ridiculous - at least in the beginning. Oh, there's plenty of terrorists now - more created there and throughout the world every day - but you bought the Bush line that we had to go to Iraq because it was vital in fighting terrorism? That's so sweet. Tell me. I've got to know. Do you also believe in Santa Claus?
Okay, I think I understand: You see the War on Terror as a part of the bigger War on Christmas. Maybe not. Still, let me give you a check list that will save you a ton of aggravation in the future. We've got more than two more years with these clowns. We haven't even made it through the October Surprise. So print out a copy of this if you want, and refer to it later. And then go ahead and protest whenever any little bit of truth slips out of the spin fortress called the White House. But don't get all freaked out about it. Why? Because it's counterproductive letting them think you bought it in the first place. Heck, it's even a little embarrassing. Okay, here's the list:
1. Winning the War on Terror is not about winning the War on Terror.
2. The need to go into Iran is not about the need to go into Iran.
3. Spreading democracy in the world is not about spreading democracy in the world.
4. Making America safer is not about making America safer.
5. America wanting Peace in the World is not about America wanting Peace in the World.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. Getting all stressed out because it turns out the administration's claims on this or that aren't true, just shows you haven't been paying attention. Hey, you'll just wear yourself down too soon. If you want to freak out, wait till they steal the November elections. That's when we should freak out.
posted by Bill McDonald @ 7:09 PM
38 comments
38 Comments:
Damn Bill,
Your list sounds just like the Bush administration. Check out this link
http://www.stoplying.ca/ It has alot of 9/11 videos that can be watched online. it is a great site. also check out Hijacking Catasrophe, 9/11 the fear and the selling of american empire. It is at the library, it explains the neocon agenda and how Bush Brought them with him. This is a great video for those who have no clue as to what is really going on. Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.
I'd also recommend "9/11 Whistleblower Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez Speaks Out Cincinnati Post, Lauro Chavez, US Central Command" I believe it's on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth site.
It gets into NORAD from inside the military and how puzzled they were when a civilian was put in charge. She also was surprised at the secret war games run during those days leading to 9/11 as they hadn't been classified before in the same way.
Then she discusses the stand down order given by the new cilvilian head before the 2nd plane hit. Do I have to tell you who that was? Two hints: His first name was Dick and his second name was Cheney.
Oh....so NOW we should believe American Intelligence assessments?
Ho hum....just another leak of classified information from this Administration's enemies in the CIA meant to damage them before an election. Why not? Its worked so well the last four times.....
Butch, I swear I said to myself that this would be the official right-wing response. It's really quite brilliant.
You use a former lie - that the intelligence was all wrong about Iraq - to hide behind again. There was bad intelligence on Iraq, but there was also deceitful manipulation and manufacturing of intelligence. Warnings were removed and vague guesses were presented as hardened facts. So to hide behind this excuse is doubly galling - and pretty clever in a very predictable way.
You didn't say what you really believe though: Is Iraq lessoning the number of terrorists around the world, or energizing the anti-American movement? See how ridiculous you have to sound to make that case? Remember, right wing people are calling for a World War 3, Clash of Civilizations. They don't want things to be getting better, or how are they going to sell that load to the American Public?
Bill, I am merely pointing out your rather selective interpretation of what is truth, fact, or accurate. You selectively believe as fact anything that is damaging to Bush, and dismiss as spin or fiction anything that is not. This newest leaked report to the NYT is nothing but a political hit job by its timing. Has Iraq fanned the flames in the short term? Maybe. It may have even made us temporarily 'less safe' in that there may be more attempts to attack us. But that is the very nature of a war. Hitler wasn't concerned with our shipping supply lines until we entered the fray, correct. I think that Mario Loyola at National Review has a pretty good assessment of this:
"A former senior administration official told me that in the run-up to the 2002 mid-term election, he remembers being horrified at how the CIA was leaking qualified intelligence estimates "like a sieve" for political effect. He thinks that the CIA and the State Department are both political assets for the Democrats, but unlike the State Department, which more often undermines the president quietly, the CIA actively intervenes in national elections by systematically leaking stuff calculated to have an adverse political impact on Republicans.
That this latest "secret" report (Iraq-makes-terrorism-worse) was leaked for political effect is obvious in the "conclusion" of the report, which turns on a philosophical (and policy) question that no intelligence credential makes one particularly qualified to address: Is Iraq part of the War on Terror, and will fighting them over there keep us from having to face them here? If you think the campaign in Iraq is part of the War on Terror, then examining whether terrorist recruitment has increased as a result is like measuring public opinion polls in Germany in the days after D-Day to see if the invasion is succeeding.
Attacking your enemies can be expected to make them angrier. Hitting the beaches at Normandy is going to increase your casualties. Those are things you'll see on your way to victory.
The New York Times commonly sites the anger of our enemies and our increased casualties as evidence that we are losing, and cites CIA "estimates" (political opinions, really) in support. This tells you much more about the NYT and the CIA than about whether we are headed for victory or defeat in the Middle East."
Darn, I wish I had the time to give this the response that it deserves. I don't just latch on to anything anti-Bush and believe it. I had this opinion about Iraq long before this report came out. Yes, there is gaming the elections on both sides. The Anbar Province report was a respected military analyst.
Overall if you take the Bush/Cheney claims about Iraq and what it means they've been consistently wrong. They had admitted being wrong. Yet, everytime they float their next shining pronouncement about it, you buy it. So who's latching on and who's doing the critical thinking here?
What "shining pronouncement" about Iraq are you referring to? I guess not the ones where Bush repeatley says this will be a long, hard struggle.
I admittedly do hold optimism that in the LONG RUN this will been looked back on as a shining success. As was mentioned above, if you took the pulse of public opinion the day after the D-Day invasion, you wouldn't find a whole lot of optimism about the future of the conflict....despite that it was a 'success'. We lost as many soldiers on D-Day alone as we have in Iraq to date - and that is just US casualties on the beach. The Allies together lost 12,000 soldiers on that SINGLE DAY....and mostly due to a very poorly executed war plan and bugled intel and execution. But it is looked back upon as a turning point to Allied victory. T
That is how I look at Iraq. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. But one thing is absolutely certain : to pull out of Iraq would be a resounding defeat in the War on Terror.
I'll give you this: One sure sign of how big a mess Iraq is, is that there are no good solutions. Our brilliant Commander-in-Chief has boxed us in. I think we're in that long decline where we will eventually get the hell out.
I do remember during the Iraq-Iran war right after one of our ships had accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, I said to my Dad that this will make things get much worse. He said that actually the Iran-Iraq War was winding down, and I was amazed. It sure didn't look like it, but he was right. There is a chance that this thing is burning so hot that it might burn out. I've been wrong before.
There is also a chance that it will be our Afghanistan - the war that marks the beginning of the end of America's superpower status. The empire overreach that causes our position in the world to plummet. Your side hopes that a mediocre C-student somehow stumbles into the Middle East and solves it. I think you are being overly optimistic. As for pronouncements Bush and Cheney made, we can go back to the flowers and liberators routine.
By the way, are you sensing how confidant the world is in acting now? It's almost like they feel America's shrinking power already.
I'll give you this: One sure sign of how big a mess Iraq is, is that there are no good solutions. Our brilliant Commander-in-Chief has boxed us in. I think we're in that long decline where we will eventually get the hell out.
I do remember during the Iraq-Iran war right after one of our ships had accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, I said to my Dad that this will make things get much worse. He said that actually the Iran-Iraq War was winding down, and I was amazed. It sure didn't look like it, but he was right. There is a chance that this thing is burning so hot that it might burn out. I've been wrong before.
There is also a chance that it will be our Afghanistan - the war that marks the beginning of the end of America's superpower status. The empire overreach that causes our position in the world to plummet. Your side hopes that a mediocre C-student somehow stumbles into the Middle East and solves it. I think you are being overly optimistic. As for pronouncements Bush and Cheney made, we can go back to the flowers and liberators routine.
By the way, are you sensing how confidant the world is in acting now? It's almost like they feel America's shrinking power already.
Bill, you have to hand it to the Cheney groupies for their ability to mould facts into whatever they want to believe at the moment.
And their ability to reframe is down right impressive. To compare D-Day, an invasion against thousands of dug-in soliders who had tanks and big honking guns aimed at them, to fighting a bunch of insane religious nutjobs (and losing to them) is like... well, nothing I can think of right now.
In a single day, we lost nearly 3000 civilians. It's taken us three years to lose that many again in a pointless war. Who is winning here?
Maybe the Cheney fans will take their pre-election gift of 'cheaper' gasoline and go somewhere else. (I still think the administration won't produce bin Laden until October of '07;).
So are you actually saying it is a bad sign that it took us 3 1/2 years to suffer as many casualties as Al Quaeda inflicted upon us in a single day? Interesting logic to say the least.
And my point of comparing Iraq to D-Day is not to say the enemy is the same or that the conditions for battle are the same. The point is that we look back at D-Day now and we see one of our Nations - and the Free World's - greatest victories. At the time however, it was nearly a disaster. We were never supposed to suffer the casualties we did. The orininal invasion plan was a complete and utter failure.
Generals do make mistakes, even very good generals. The plan for the assault at Omaha Beach failed, and American forces had to improvise a new plan under enemy fire. Bradley's own words attest to this fact: "I was shaken to find that we had gone against Omaha with so thin a margin of safety. At the time of sailing we had thought ourselves cushioned against such reversals as these. Had a less experienced division than the 1st Infantry stumbled into this crack resistance, it might easily have been thrown back into the Channel. . . . [M]y choice of the 1st to spearhead the invasion probably saved us Omaha Beach and a catastrophe on the landing."
Hey Butch!
Why did world Trade Center 7 collapse?
Hey Butch!
Why are Ex-military officers criticizing Rumsfeld?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/
ap_on_go_co/iraq_democrats
Hey Butch!
How come the security videos from the Pentagon Have'nt been released?
Hey Butch!
How come no other steel building in history has been brought down by fire?
Hey Butch!
What is the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
The original reports say that Iraq has been a tremendous recruiting tool for terrorism, which seems logical. So what does Tony Snow say? ""One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse." He also insisted that the new reports "contain nothing that the president hasn't said."
That is what is known as B.S.
By the way, Butch doesn't want to hear the 9/11 stuff anymore so you're wasting your time on that. But Butch, how does it feel hearing the White House say the reports are what President Bush already said? Weren't you just calling them a polticial hit job? Didn't you say that I was selectively believing anything that was anti-Bush. If your guy is to be believed this is stuff Bush says.
The truth? This administration is so deep in its lies that at this point they'll say anything.
Bill, first of all, who is "my guy". Second, recruiting "more terrorists" does not equate to terrorism being "worse". If all it depended on was the number of participants, India would be a greater vacation destination than Las Vegas and Wal Mart would be a better place to shop for groceries than Whole Foods and New Seasons.
Once again....it is not surprising at all that now that we are actually fighting back against our enemy, they in turn are trying to retaliate. This isn't rocket science.
That's it. We sent an Atlas rocket to attack a group of firecrackers. And then we send it to the wrong planet.
Your guy is President Bush. Others speak for him but he is your guy. He's my President but you are a strong supporter of the Republican Party and the Right Wing. And that's something you'll just have to live with.
--
Butch was "pointing some things out."
Why? Everything he points out is a lie or irrelevant.
Why? To burn your time reading nonsense and thinking you can say some logical argument to convert him. No, see, he is paid to jam and monkeywrench and bend the blog away from clearsightedness.
Funny that Bill shields the enemy Butch who 'doesn't want to hear 9/11 stuff anymore.'
I don't give a crap what Butch does or doesn't want to hear. It ain't his threat to toot.
On 9/11 Cheney mass murdered 3000 Americans.
In phony wars Cheney Rummy Condi at Poppy Bush's direction, (Junior is clinically imbecilic), has committed war crimes and mass murdered 3000 more Americans counted, and tens of thousands American soldiers coming home radioactive contaminated with DU, and killed over half a million Iraqis -- ALL BECAUSE of 9/11 lies and murders fear mongering caused by Poppy Bush's team.
In Iraq, the Pentagon arms both sides. The roadside bombs killing American troops are bombs made in USA, paid for by us taxpayers, shipped to Iraq and supplied to phony 'resistance' forces who are Pentagon controlled, mercenaries mostly but still 'our guys,' so they have munitions to war with. To think USA is not arming both sides is to think there is an arms factory there somewhere that sq.ft.-by-sq.ft. surveillance can't find, or arms are coming across the border and surveillance doesn't 'catch' them.
Besides, reports say 'their side' gets its arms from USA, like the mysteriously? stolen? arms cache? at al-Kaka.
Both sides is our money, as plain as Red Army / Blue Army war gaming military 'exercises' is both sides our money. Controlling both sides in a phony war is the only way to be certain of keeping it going and going and going ...
If Butch ever says something that is not repeating a lie he has been issued to say, then ... hell, I don't know what then, it has never happened. Stuff it in your guckert, clown, you're a nazi collaborator and fascism facilitator.
Your Butch endorsement and enthusiasm for untold tens of thousands of torture murders and depraved bloodlust civilian-in-the-street murders and thousands of psycho-sick beheadings by (next generations) US taxpayer-paid mercenaries and agents, has spent your mortal soul. You are the devil. You are unacceptable. You are your own inhuman defamation.
Here is NSA-grade intelligence reports, leaks and whistles-blown, which corroborate every charge indicting you here. Read back to where Wayne Madsen Report (dot) COM lists the tail numbers and flight data of the torture-murder war crimes planes, like reading Hitler's torture-murder train schedules.
I'm not shielding Butch. I just think the 9/11 stuff addressed to him isn't being read by him.
I admit I'd hate to lose his comments as he helps my blog, but shielding Butch? That's White-House level spin.
I also don't know if he's being paid. Since you seem to know, who's paying him? And as a freelancer, my next question is, "How can I get paid to argue with him?"
Read the second comment on this post. The one where I recommend the latest government whistleblower on 9/11. I'm still pushing the 9/11 stuff, I just don't address it directly to Butch because he couldn't care less.
"You are the devil. You are unacceptable. You are your own inhuman defamation."
Hmmm....and you are, well, a bit wierd.
Hey Bill, this is going to get interesting. Bush just ordered the full document that was leaked to the NYT (less parts that would jeopardise NS) to be declassified and released. When it shows exactly the opposite of what the out-of-context leaked portions stated, will you admit this was just another politically motivated hit-peice by the NYT?
I do agree it will be interesting, but I bet the parts he releases tend to make him look good. The national security argument is only a cover story, that is also currently being used to gut our judicial system.
Remember, if it's a matter of national security, President Bush believes he can even murder a U.S. citizen. And one other thing: He alone can determine if it's a matter of National Security. That's a dictatorship, although his trusting supporters have no problem turning our liberties over to one-man rule. It's a damn shame.
I also stand by the general sense I get that this charge - that Iraq has made things worse - is a no-brainer.
Right. Every breathing american knows it in their gut that the Iraq war has made us less safe. No amount of spin can change that.
It certainly made it less safe for those 20,000 Americans badly wounded, and the nearly 3,000 killed.
Sully, better go read the just released NIE report. Surprise, surprise....it says pretty much the opposite of the NYT's original article.
Here's a news story on the report.
I see the strategy now: President Bush just announces that the report says something other than what it really says, and then the supporters jump in and agree. We're near the point of spin as total mind control:
A declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that is likely to get worse before it gets better.
In the bleak report, released Tuesday on President Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
"If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide," the document says. "The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."
Selective interpretation, Bill. The report has something for everyone. You are right that it states Iraq has become the "cause celebre" for Jihadists. But what they mean is that it is just their current central recruiting focus. Before that, it was Afghanistan, before that 9/11, before that Palestine, etc etc. It doesn't matter. Here is what is key:
"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
In retrospect I am so glad that the Times suppressed the second sentence in this finding and thus assumed poll-position in the race to go down as the Official Laughinstock of the '06 Election. Here's more:
"If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit."
So, in essence the NIE judges that the Democrats' proposal to leave Iraq's democracy to its own devices would eliminate the major opportunities it sees for diminishing the jihadi movement. Ergo, Iraq - and successfully winning there - gives us our opportunity to defeat the Jihadists. Sitting back and waiting for them to strike again does not. Appeasement does not. They will find an excuse to attack us no matter what we are doing just as they have for decades. The greatest most horrific terrorist attack agains the United States came BEFORE IRAQ.
You must be fairly limber because it took some real contortions to pull your analysis off. The report states things as facts and as hypotheticals. One fact: "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." That sounds to me like Iraq has made things worse. But then it follows with a hypothetical: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
You accept that as fact, although it is not written that way.
It does assume that jihadists are leaving Iraq headed out into the world, which hurts your case, but it doesn't say they feel like failures. I bet they feel quite successful having killed and injured so many Americans. What could be a bigger thrill for a jihadist than killing American soldiers? Yet, you somehow see this sentence as proof that Iraq is making things better. Why? Because something that isn't happening, might have a positive effect if it ever does happen? You're really streching here, Butch, and judging by the reaction to the report, it's not working.
The only two people who fell for this were President Bush and you.
I think you are interpreting "cause celebre" differently than I. I take it to mean 'flavor of the month'. They are using it to recruit, but absent Iraq, they would just focus on something else with the same results.
But I have a question for you. Why didn't the "corporate owned media"...ie the NYT...that is so trying to protect this administration, print this excerpt of the NIE along with their assertion that Iraq has made us 'less safe'?:
"United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization."
-
No, I don't think it helps your blog, Bill, having an idiot in it. Remember in school, the one that took more than gave. I tutor and help and feed and house and clothe and transport and whatever I can think or hear of to be together with others. EXCEPT when they are yanking my chain, stealing my life, faking it, ON PURPOSE.
Sure there is proof he or she is mercenary in vandalizing blogs for hire. Simply stating it is so is proof. Same as the idiocy dished out.
No, it is a blight on your blog, Bill, even to read it. I don't care what the devil writes, I see the name, I skip over it. But then your comments address the punk like interaction moves anyone anywhere.
Throw down the gauntlet: 9/11 was mass murders by Cheney, et al., and until Butch gets that far and gets it, keep pointing there and sending him to it. It's like training a dog, man, you don't let it pee in the house because it doesn't want to go outside. You euthanize it.
If there were no idiots allowed, I couldn't even write on my own blog.
But you should chill a little. Haven't you ever used opposing viewpoints to energize your thoughts?
Besides, you can't have a debate without two sides.
Is Butch.....James?
I don't know if James is pretending to be Butch, but I'm damn sure going to ask him.
You know that cable show is a trip. I put it out of my mind completely and then someone at the store brings it up. TV is quite a medium.
Actually, Butches comments are entertaining and somewhat humorous. They give us that know the truth something to laugh at. Butch is entitled to his opinion. Bush has'nt repealed that yet. wait till next year. Patriot act part 3. Butch no longer gets to speak his mind....along with the rest of us due to censorship of the internet.
Who is James? Is he getting paid by the Bush administration to troll liberal blogs like I am?
James is the co-host of the Emmyless cable access show called "Born to Slack".
Sundays, 22, 10 pm
Tuesdays, 23, 10 pm (Up against Boston Legal. Ouch)
Fridays 11 at 11pm.
I'm okay with Butch's contrubtion as well. I feel like he would admit if he realizes he was wrong, just as I will.
By the way, cable access is another area that the government is coming after. So get your dissent in while you still can.
The Born to Slack show is one of my favorites.....Can we borrow some butter?
Post a Comment
<< Home