Al-Qaida has rebuilt, U.S. intel warns

[UCFGavin]

war on terror doesn't seem to be doing so well

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned. The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would be ready for distribution this summer.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer time frame to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

"Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

Several European countries — among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands — are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis."

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The counterterror official said the report does not focus on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in the terrorist network. Officials say al-Qaida has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

"They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaida," Fingar said.

[queeby]

So I guess since it is not working, they will give us our civil liberties back. Right?

Can we count how many posts until someone blames the "liberal media"?

[pure_waves]

i blame the liberal media :action-sm

anyway, not a big surprise here. there's no way we can ever win this thing unless we use massive force, on the ground, on all fronts.

leaving the safe haven on the afghani-paki border, is the equivalent of leaving ex-nazis to mingle in austria in 1946. either wipe them out completely and totally or dont wage the war. theres no nice way to war...its a horrible bloody mess. you just have to get nasty and fight thoroughly if you are going to get into it at all. thats it.

[Southpaw]

Can we count how many posts until someone blames the "liberal media"?

And/Or Bill Clinton.

[YourAmishDaddy]

You mean all this time in Iraq and al Qaeda has "rebuilt?" Kinda like the Taliban has rebuilt in Afghanistan. Boy oh boy I sure thought that "surge" ( massive sucking of the treasury dry to give to defense contractors better known as 'the war on terror' ) would have paid off.

One day they'll learn.

[MrBogey]

You mean Al Qaeda was able to adapt to our tactics and rally? Who knew people could do this? Why this must mean that we've lost. Quick! Everyone run around screaming and wailing!!!

[sknight]

What I found funny about the reports is that we know the training camps have geared up, we know where they are, and specific shit about them because we undoubtedly have CIA spies on the inside, but we don't send about a dozen missiles into those mountains to close these places down because we want to hit a precise target or some shit.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Do you guys honestly believe that what is going on over there. As a whole has anything to do with stopping al Qaeda and terrorism? Seriously?

God bless the innocent service men and women there doing their duties valiantly, but the ones orchestrating this thing could give a fuck about terrorism, terrorists, or bin Laden.

And we all know this.

[talljimmy0]

Al-Qaeda has rebuilt!

This only means they bought an extra box of plastic box cutters, explosion resistant passports, and conveniently placed flight manuals in locations the FBI could easily find them. :rolleyes:

[Six-Pack]

Amazing, a day after a handful of Republicans pledge to join the anti-war legislations the White House supplies us with a report for why we NEED to be fighting the war in Iraq. So convenient.

Taking from AmishDaddys idea, I'd have to ask "Mr. President, if Al-Qaeda is building their bases in Pakistan, why are we fighting them in IRAQ???"

[Plunkies]

"Mr. President, if Al-Qaeda is building their bases in Pakistan, why are we fighting them in IRAQ???"

Freedom.

[Six-Pack]

Freedom.


How so?

[AJellyDonut]

I think it's time to send in the pros.

http://www.yourstandardlife.com/images/team-america-world-police-1.jpg

[Plunkies]

How so?

Because freedom. You don't hate freedom do you?

[YourAmishDaddy]

Now now, if one is to say it, we need to say it the way the Republicans actually mean it....

The actual word is "© 2007 Freedom"


Since the word to them is merely nothing more than a trademark and buzzword.

[SKEPTIC]

You mean all this time in Iraq and al Qaeda has "rebuilt?" Kinda like the Taliban has rebuilt in Afghanistan. Boy oh boy I sure thought that "surge" ( massive sucking of the treasury dry to give to defense contractors better known as 'the war on terror' ) would have paid off.

One day they'll learn.

Although I disagree with you on some issues relating to different topics (satellite radio merger, etc.), YourAmishDaddy, I'm with you on this one. Oh yeah, and also I'm with you on Ron Paul. :action-sm

Keep up the good fight, sir. :clap:

[YourAmishDaddy]

Although I disagree with you on some issues relating to different topics (satellite radio merger, etc.), YourAmishDaddy, I'm with you on this one. Oh yeah, and also I'm with you on Ron Paul. :action-sm

Keep up the good fight, sir. :clap:


Thank you budday. Much appreciated.

[mendozathejew]

Do you guys honestly believe that what is going on over there. As a whole has anything to do with stopping al Qaeda and terrorism? Seriously?

God bless the innocent service men and women there doing their duties valiantly, but the ones orchestrating this thing could give a fuck about terrorism, terrorists, or bin Laden.

And we all know this.

what in your opinion is going on then?( in in afghanistan, not iraq. )

[YourAmishDaddy]

what in your opinion is going on then?( in in afghanistan, not iraq. )


When we first got into Afghanistan our initial move to corner and surround bin Laden in those mountains went like this. "You cover this side, you cover this side, and you this side"

Now that's three sides. One was left right open. And bin Laden supposedly escaped through that very side. Since then we've backed off the hunt for bin Laden, outsourced the search to people who would kill us if we let them, and focused a lot on the drugs there, which instead of decreasing dramatically after the invasion have astoundingly gone up in production.

We've disbanded the CIA unit charged with tracking down bin Laden's whereabouts. And massively taken away from the initial force there to deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. To send them to iraq.

This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.

[Taintkisser]

When we first got into Afghanistan our initial move to corner and surround bin Laden in those mountains went like this. "You cover this side, you cover this side, and you this side"

Now that's three sides. One was left right open. And bin Laden supposedly escaped through that very side. Since then we've backed off the hunt for bin Laden, outsourced the search to people who would kill us if we let them, and focused a lot on the drugs there, which instead of decreasing dramatically after the invasion have astoundingly gone up in production.

We've disbanded the CIA unit charged with tracking down bin Laden's whereabouts. And massively taken away from the initial force there to deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. To send them to iraq.

This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.

:clap::clap::clap: abso-fuckin-lutely!!!!!!! Thats why bin laden was never found, only because the assholes in charge saw this aS A way to get into iraq probably from 9/12 on.

[Taintkisser]

I think it's time to send in the pros.

http://www.yourstandardlife.com/images/team-america-world-police-1.jpg

America, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!:icon_lol:

[mendozathejew]

This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.

I agree on there being a complete failure of strategy in several regards. But are you saying we only went in because we eventually wanted in iraq as well? Meaning 3k killed on 9/11, and if it happens again, eeeh who cares is the attitude.

I think you are extremely jaded and let your bitterness get the better of you too often.

Im far from one to compliment this shitty administration at this point but lets paint a more complete picture here, there hasnt been another terrorist attack since 9/11, and there are reasons for it. the fbi actually has a clue whats its doing now. the cia has gone through several leaderships changes to try and do the same. clearly small amounts of special forces in afghanistan has not been enough, but at the same time we've got to coddle musharraf and prevent him from getting a grenade tossed in his lap

[robertkeys]

i say we just drop a giant bomb or better yet have a nuclear war head suspended from blimp like the sword of damocles and say behave or else!
either they do and bush can give all the treasury to his pals for reconstruction efforts or they dont and are decimated and bush then gives all the treasury to his pals for reconstruction efforts.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I agree on there being a complete failure of strategy in several regards. But are you saying we only went in because we eventually wanted in iraq as well? Meaning 3k killed on 9/11, and if it happens again, eeeh who cares is the attitude.

I think you are extremely jaded and let your bitterness get the better of you too often.

I understand 9-11 happened. 3,000 people died. I know, and since 3,000 more have died, and pretty much people say "well it could have been more, but we're doing good" Which is another version of the who cares attitude.

I can only come to that conclusion not because I'm bitter but because no one ever fails this badly with something so simple. That's all.

I'm simply saying I can't base every aspect of my life on the feeling I have because of 9-11. There are lots of stuff I believed should have happened. And believe me I was a lot more rabid than most of you after it. But the rush to get into Iraq and seeing the billions of dollars go to these contractors, and the events that have taken place since are the reasons I feel like I feel.


9-11 was a tragic event. Nothing will take that away. But I can't use 9-11 to justify the added insult to injury that has happened since. Basically some people are telling me that because a tragedy as big as 9-11 happened I am supposed to excuse lesser tragedies like the massive bleeding dry of our treasury, and the war profiteering going on. And other greater tragedies like 3,000 more innocent lives gone since 9-11. For what reason?

[mendozathejew]

I can only come to that conclusion not because I'm bitter but because no one ever fails this badly with something so simple. That's all.

I'm simply saying I can't base every aspect of my life on the feeling I have because of 9-11. There are lots of stuff I believed should have happened. And believe me I was a lot more rabid than most of you after it. But the rush to get into Iraq and seeing the billions of dollars go to these contractors, and the events that have taken place since are the reasons I feel like I feel.


9-11 was a tragic event. Nothing will take that away. But I can't use 9-11 to justify the added insult to injury that has happened since. Basically some people are telling me that because a tragedy as big as 9-11 happened I am supposed to excuse lesser tragedies like the massive bleeding dry of our treasury, and the war profiteering going on. And other greater tragedies like 3,000 more innocent lives gone since 9-11. For what reason?


First off, I am not talking about the disaster in Iraq, only Afghanistan. Once we destroyed their operations, put them on the run, basically eliminated their effectiveness (in the relative short term), the effort has been half assed ever since. Whats surprising about that? Thats pretty typical, especially for this administration. we thought we could do the rest on the cheap.

as for dealing with something "so easy" which would be tracking down this group along the pakistan afghanistan border is easy? its one of the most brutally awful landscapes on the planet, with some of the most savage people on the planet, and we have to balance out going after bin laden with not tipping the boat for musharraf, who is just barely not a dead man at this point already.

Im not sure anyone has ever called that operation easy. you are probably the first. ever.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Crushing al Qaeda should be easy. Basically nothing more than finding the point men we associated with in the previous decades. How soon we forget.

Other than that. Musharraf being toppled really doesn't concern me. This is the man who has coddled and protected Khan all these years. And the whole treating of Pakistan is still amazing to me.

people hear "Muslims" and freak out, the hear the word "nukes" and freak out, and a Muslim nation getting nukes oh that's just the worst thing ever. But Pakistan having them is just fine. Mix that with the fact that any other terrorist group that wished to ever get any threatening material got it one way or another from Khan, and the Pakistani government basically has the man in protective custody and one can see why I think the whole thing is BS.

[MrBogey]

Basically nothing more than finding the point men we associated with in the previous decades.

Interesting. Can you name me some of these men we worked with.

Handicap: Friend of a friend doesn't count nor does having the same goals.

[SKEPTIC]

I agree on there being a complete failure of strategy in several regards. But are you saying we only went in because we eventually wanted in iraq as well?

I think what he getting at was, "Which was given the higher priority by Bush: Iraq or Afghanistan/Al Qaeda?"

I think it's clear that Bush has given a much higher priority to Iraq than to Afghanistan/Al Qaeda.

Within days of 9-11 Bush clearly erroneously linked Afghanistan and Iraq, and had a plan of Afghanistan first, Iraq second.

The following is just one example of evidence of this. It describes a conversation between Blair and Bush, nine days after 9/11.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1185407,00.html

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war


· Decision came nine days after 9/11
· Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

David Rose
Sunday April 4, 2004
The Observer

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Personally, I think we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan/Al Qaeda and left Iraq alone.

But Bush's plan from the very beginning was to "go light" in Afghanistan/Al Qaeda so he could then turn his attention and focus to his Iraq plan.

Has anyone noticed that Bush is once again using FEAR as a rationale for his Iraq policy? "We can't leave from Iraq or there will be catastrophic consequences." This is just an updated notion of the Domino Theory that was used to justify that misguided war in Vietnam.

Does anyone trust Bush when he says we need to wait and wait for General Petraeus to give his report in September? Let's see, a military commander is by definition OBEDIENT to his Commander-in-Chief, Bush. So, the odds of Petraeus releasing some sort of objective analysis are nil. It's guaranteed that Petraeus will recommend "staying the course," "we need more time", "we need more troops," or some combination, variation of that. General Westmoreland was also lauded as a brilliant commander back in the days of Vietnam, and also pleaded for more and more men to fight and die.

[MrBogey]

Has anyone noticed that Bush is once again using FEAR as a rationale for his Iraq policy? "We can't leave from Iraq or there will be catastrophic consequences." This is just an updated notion of the Domino Theory that was used to justify that misguided war in Vietnam.

That post wins the "Immune to Irony" Award for 2007.

[mendozathejew]

Crushing al Qaeda should be easy. Basically nothing more than finding the point men we associated with in the previous decades. How soon we forget.

Other than that. Musharraf being toppled really doesn't concern me. This is the man who has coddled and protected Khan all these years. And the whole treating of Pakistan is still amazing to me.

people hear "Muslims" and freak out, the hear the word "nukes" and freak out, and a Muslim nation getting nukes oh that's just the worst thing ever. But Pakistan having them is just fine. Mix that with the fact that any other terrorist group that wished to ever get any threatening material got it one way or another from Khan, and the Pakistani government basically has the man in protective custody and one can see why I think the whole thing is BS.

that is an awfully bizarre, maybe selective reasoning, but bizarre way to look at it the issue of musharraf and pakistan. and your disregard for the difficulty and size of that border, not to mention the savage tribes that live along it, is astonishing. Im sure its info you are aware of, but for some reason seem to be ignoring.

[SKEPTIC]

That post wins the "Immune to Irony" Award for 2007.

I disagree. The way I see it Vietnam was a mistake. Iraq is a mistake. Both are based on fallacious arguments. The appeal to fear is a logical fallacy.

[MrBogey]

Saying Bush is using fear to keep us in Iraq then citing Vietnam to create fear about us staying in Iraq is ironic.

[Legend of Snuka]

Interesting. Can you name me some of these men we worked with.

Handicap: Friend of a friend doesn't count nor does having the same goals.

During the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, we did provide support to the Mujahadeen through the Pakistani ISI to fight the Russians...The whole thing was pretty much paid for by elements in Saudi Arabia..While this did ultimately help lead to the demise of the Soviet Union, it did lead partially to Al Queda.

[SKEPTIC]

Saying Bush is using fear to keep us in Iraq then citing Vietnam to create fear about us staying in Iraq is ironic.

It wasn't my intention to create fear about staying in Iraq. I was simply pointing out that Bush's rationale was similar to the flawed logic used to justify Vietnam. I was looking at it from a formal logic point of view. Many commentators have pointed out this similarity to the Domino Theory.

[Sam_Adams]

Just stock up boys. Thats about all you can do. Stock up and wait for the savages.

[MrBogey]

During the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, we did provide support to the Mujahadeen through the Pakistani ISI to fight the Russians...The whole thing was pretty much paid for by elements in Saudi Arabia..While this did ultimately help lead to the demise of the Soviet Union, it did lead partially to Al Queda.

True. Partially is an important qualifier. Many of those we helped opposed AQ as well. Mainly our focus was on nationalist forces and not religiously backed internationalists. People though stumble into making the mistake that AQ=mujahadeen.

[mendozathejew]

I
Personally, I think we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan/Al Qaeda and left Iraq alone.

But Bush's plan from the very beginning was to "go light" in Afghanistan/Al Qaeda so he could then turn his attention and focus to his Iraq plan.


well going "light" was the actual military strategy. thats how rumsfeld saw the military int he future- high tech special forces in small numbers doing massive damage to the enemy. which clearly worked great, the first 75 percent of the way, achieving the initial victory in both iraq and afghanistan.

but its also clearly a MAJOR reason why we are still fighting in both countries, without true victory. this strategy would work fine in a war with say, some european enemy. it doesnt work in the arab world, where the enemy refuses to take an "L" on their record, and move on with life trying to rebuild, but instead launches guerrilla warfare.

basically, that means both were half assed efforts, in terms of the a complete strategy. there was not a complete strategy and thats why we are in the mess that we are. thats where I do agree with you- a complete plan for afghanistan, and the plan finished 100% should have been the way to go.

but with the small, light special forces styled attack rumsfeld believed the US could fight a war on several fronts. that was part of his philosphy on a future US army. clearly, in regards to fighting the arab and larger muslim world, he couldnt have been more wrong

[domelogic]

When we first got into Afghanistan our initial move to corner and surround bin Laden in those mountains went like this. "You cover this side, you cover this side, and you this side"

Now that's three sides. One was left right open. And bin Laden supposedly escaped through that very side. Since then we've backed off the hunt for bin Laden, outsourced the search to people who would kill us if we let them, and focused a lot on the drugs there, which instead of decreasing dramatically after the invasion have astoundingly gone up in production.


this is completely untrue. did we fuck up yes but we didnt leave a side open. what we did was put faith and money into the hands of the afghan leaders for each territory. the us counted on them being trustworthy(which we knew they wouldnt be) since we didnt totally commit to getting bin laden. this was all before we backed off the search and mainly the reason we did back off











We've disbanded the CIA unit charged with tracking down bin Laden's whereabouts. And massively taken away from the initial force there to deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. To send them to iraq.


this i totally agree with. finish something before you start and in that part of the world you cant finish anything in one year unless you go all in.


This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.


it isnt the way to do the job but i dont believe it was the false front to get into iraq. we have fucked up because we wont let the military do their job. everything is about business one way or another



now can we stop with the party bashing because both sides have serious flaws when it comes to running our military and their ideologies.

[Legend of Snuka]

well going "light" was the actual military strategy. thats how rumsfeld saw the military int he future- high tech special forces in small numbers doing massive damage to the enemy. which clearly worked great, the first 75 percent of the way, achieving the initial victory in both iraq and afghanistan.

but its also clearly a MAJOR reason why we are still fighting in both countries, without true victory. this strategy would work fine in a war with say, some european enemy. it doesnt work in the arab world, where the enemy refuses to take an "L" on their record, and move on with life trying to rebuild, but instead launches guerrilla warfare.

basically, that means both were half assed efforts, in terms of the a complete strategy. there was not a complete strategy and thats why we are in the mess that we are. thats where I do agree with you- a complete plan for afghanistan, and the plan finished 100% should have been the way to go.

but with the small, light special forces styled attack rumsfeld believed the US could fight a war on several fronts. that was part of his philosphy on a future US army. clearly, in regards to fighting the arab and larger muslim world, he couldnt have been more wrong


QFT

You're totally correct....We should have finished off Afghanistan way before we even thought about Iraq...

IF you are going to war, you need to go full blast or not go at all...Police actions never work...Every time this country has tried to play cop, we end up in a cluster f..

Fighting Guerilla Warfare is like fighting roaches....you can't totally get rid of them unless you fumigate the whole house....And I hate sounding like the "carpet bomb them" guy, but after 9/11 we did have the political capitol to kill everything within a 100 mile radius of a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

Granted they are spread out all over the world, and I believe Bush's partial reasoning for going into Iraq was to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran to get in line as Iraq borders both of those countries. But I feel we could have tried to put pressure on these countries via other means.

[UCFGavin]

good to see a lot of people against the continued occupation in iraq. now we've got a "gut feeling" coming from the administration that another terrorist attack is coming.

these people are so fucking insane and corrupt. the current president holds a ridiculous amount of power, and we the people, and congress gave it to him.

[UCFGavin]

QFT

You're totally correct....We should have finished off Afghanistan way before we even thought about Iraq...

IF you are going to war, you need to go full blast or not go at all...Police actions never work...Every time this country has tried to play cop, we end up in a cluster f..

Fighting Guerilla Warfare is like fighting roaches....you can't totally get rid of them unless you fumigate the whole house....And I hate sounding like the "carpet bomb them" guy, but after 9/11 we did have the political capitol to kill everything within a 100 mile radius of a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

Granted they are spread out all over the world, and I believe Bush's partial reasoning for going into Iraq was to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran to get in line as Iraq borders both of those countries. But I feel we could have tried to put pressure on these countries via other means.

they had the iraq invasion planned a while before 9/11. there are also more private contractors working in iraq for the US companies than there are soldiers there. its a huge fucking mess.

[Vyce]

Has anyone noticed that Bush is once again using FEAR as a rationale for his Iraq policy? "We can't leave from Iraq or there will be catastrophic consequences." This is just an updated notion of the Domino Theory that was used to justify that misguided war in Vietnam.

Except many people who ARE looking at the Iraq situation objectively are acknowledging that if we leave now the results will be catastrophic.

That's something that Democrats in Congress don't want to even touch, because it might prove Bush right for once. Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/07/what-about-th-1.html), a senior correspondent for ABC (and a LIBERAL - he used to work for Salon for christ's sakes) asked about potential genocide if we leave, and Harry Reid flat-out completly blew off his question.

I tend to trust people like Michael Yon on the issue, when he claims that the surge is working (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=ad2ccbe4-c31a-422f-b099-65ba45ec5887), for the simple reason that he's actually on the ground IN Iraq, and fools like Harry Reid couldn't find their asshole if you drew him a diagramed picture of it.

Does anyone trust Bush when he says we need to wait and wait for General Petraeus to give his report in September? Let's see, a military commander is by definition OBEDIENT to his Commander-in-Chief, Bush. So, the odds of Petraeus releasing some sort of objective analysis are nil.

And this is why we might be doomed, in the near future, from success in warfare. Commanders will get repeatedly second-guessed by CIVILIANS because there are too many people like you who believe in this fallacy that the military are nothing but puppets for whatever administration is currently in power.

[weakside]

Amazing, a day after a handful of Republicans pledge to join the anti-war legislations the White House supplies us with a report for why we NEED to be fighting the war in Iraq. So convenient.

I agree that is all this is, but either way I think this story will do more harm than good:

People who see this story as false propaganda: Our White House is full of bullshit and liars.

People who see this story as being true: Despite the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, we have accomplished little to nothing. Hates everyone in the White House.

People who see this story as true: Wants even more tax dollars and young adults to go over to fight this war. (Very small minority of our country.)

They went from, "We are winning the war on terror," to this. The White House has made some odd choices of late.

[SKEPTIC]

Except many people who ARE looking at the Iraq situation objectively are acknowledging that if we leave now the results will be catastrophic.
a senior correspondent for ABC (and a LIBERAL - he used to work for Salon for christ's sakes) asked about potential genocide if we leave, and Harry Reid flat-out completly blew off his question.


Let's put aside the question of the U.S. leaving Iraq will be catastrophic to Iraq and/or the Iraqi people, which may or may not be true.

Let's look at the assertion:

Leaving Iraq will be catastophic to the U.S.

This is the assertion which Bush is explicitly making (increased terrrorism in the U.S., etc.), and the assertion which, if true, would carry the most weight with the American people in terms of continuing this war.

Can you provide evidence from any renowned expert in counterterrorism that will support Bush's assertion that leaving Iraq will be catastrophic to the U.S.? I'd like to see you provide some evidence because the majority of counterterrorism experts don't support Bush's assertion.


Does anyone trust Bush when he says we need to wait and wait for General Petraeus to give his report in September? Let's see, a military commander is by definition OBEDIENT to his Commander-in-Chief, Bush. So, the odds of Petraeus releasing some sort of objective analysis are nil. It's guaranteed that Petraeus will recommend "staying the course," "we need more time", "we need more troops," or some combination, variation of that.

A reporter interviewed the president the other day, and Bush said that if Petraeus asks for MORE troops in September, Bush will give him more troops. So, I stand by what I (dmf) said above that there is no way that Petraeus will recommend any reduction in US combat troops.

And this is why we might be doomed, in the near future, from success in warfare. Commanders will get repeatedly second-guessed by CIVILIANS because there are too many people like you who believe in this fallacy that the military are nothing but puppets for whatever administration is currently in power.

Your premises are:

1. The military are not puppets to the administration
2. Military commanders should not be second-guessed by civilians
3. If civilians second-guess military commanders, the country might be doomed from success in warfare.

Premise 1: The military are not puppets to the administration

The U.S. Constitution shows that your premise is false.

Since the president is Commander-in-Chief, and since the Commander-in-Chief is the commander of the U.S. military, therefore, by definition, the military is obedient to the president.

Recent history also shows that your premise is false.

For example, take General Casey, who preceded Petraeus. Casey publicly discussed a reduction in U.S. troops, and was promptly fired by Bush, and replaced by Petraeus. You're telling me that Petraeus isn't factoring this into his next report in September?

There are many, many more examples like this throughout U.S. history.

Premise 2: Military commanders should not be second-guessed by civilians

The U.S. Constitution shows your premise to be false.

And now for a refresher (or introduction?) to U.S. Poli-Sci. The Founders of this country deliberately intended for the Commander-in-Chief to be a CIVILIAN, because of the inherent dangers to this country of a military Commander-in-Chief. Since the president is the Commander-in-Chief, and since the president is the leader of the executive branch of this representative democracy, therefore we the people, the ones who vote and pay the taxes which fund the wars by the way, get to have a say:action-sm. The president is not a king. He is our (the people's) representative. It's not his power, it's our (the people's) power which he collectively represents.

The United States is not a military dictatorship, even though you may prefer it that way.

Premise 3: If civilians second-guess military commanders, the country might be doomed from success in warfare.

The history of the United States shows this premise to be false.

This premise, like premise 2, reflects a misunderstanding of our Republic.

Civilians have been second-guessing military commanders in this Republic for over two hundred years, and the country is still here.

Since your premise is based on a logical fallacy, the appeal to fear, it lacks any logical basis to support it, and is therefore false.

The appeal to fear is a logical fallacy. Here you try to scare people that they better not question the military or the entire country "might be doomed." You provide no evidence or any logic to support your premise, and therefore your premise is false.

[Southpaw]

I don't think you can just leave the fate of the Iraqi people out of the equation. I was against this war from the start, marched in protests, argued in person and on line etc. And even though it has gone as bad and possibly worse than I imagined, if our troups are the only thing preventing genocide then we probably should stay.

As for the question of possible catasrophic consequences for the US should we withdraw, it's a tough question because it may well be too late to avoid catasprophe whatever we do. Despite our well known ability to never self criticize or accept blame, whatever happens in Iraq is our fault and responsiblity. It was well known before the invasion that one of the predictable outcomes of our action would be to ignite a civil war - and it looks like we did. We cannot just pullout and pretend like we can wash ourselves clean of the situation. There is also the not insignificant fact that the Muslim fanatics will have gained an enormous propaganda victory (much larger than the one they are enjoying now) as they yodel and cut themselves in celebration of kicking out the infidels. Handing the US its worse military defeat will no doubt stimulate recruitment among the poor and hopeless and stupid. And then what? The neighbors decide that it's their right to that delicious oil and we have a regional conflagration perhaps?

That's my tenderhearted leftist heart thinking. My blackhearted cynical side thinks that an actual military "victory" is hopeless. We're now to the point where even the slightest improvement of results over the last 5 years of incompetance and failure is cited as evidence of this clusterfuck finally "working." If we force the administration to pull out before they've had a chance to prove this then we will be handing Bush and the neocons a propaganda victory similar in scale and danger to the one we'll be handing to al qeida. The blame for the inevitable consequences will easily be shifted by those who got us into this to those who tried to get us out. Their theorists at the think tanks will transmit the meme, through blogs and talk radio and Fox and then CNN, that cowardly Democrats stabbed the military in the back and didn't allow W to finish the job and made us lose and didn't care when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died (Iraqi life will now be worthy to be considered by people who once argued that we should nuke the place and turn it into a glass parking lot) I don't think those of us who had the moral courage and sanity to oppose the war when everyone else was getting in line (like the fat obediant overmedicated sheep that they are) should accept that blame or even be in the position of having to fight it. I suspect that the September report by General Patraeus will one of hope and optimism that we've turned the corner. If he's wrong then it's over Johnny and the pro war nexis will have suffered a fatal blow. If he's right and we pull out before it can be proven then we'll have at least another 35 years of blame worse than what the anti war coalition suffered after Vietnam. That's IF we survive another 35 years...

[YourAmishDaddy]

Let's put aside the question of the U.S. leaving Iraq will be catastrophic to Iraq and/or the Iraqi people, which may or may not be true.

Let's look at the assertion:

Leaving Iraq will be catastophic to the U.S.

This is the assertion which Bush is explicitly making (increased terrrorism in the U.S., etc.), and the assertion which, if true, would carry the most weight with the American people in terms of continuing this war.

Can you provide evidence from any renowned expert in counterterrorism that will support Bush's assertion that leaving Iraq will be catastrophic to the U.S.? I'd like to see you provide some evidence because the majority of counterterrorism experts don't support Bush's assertion.



A reporter interviewed the president the other day, and Bush said that if Petraeus asks for MORE troops in September, Bush will give him more troops. So, I stand by what I (dmf) said above that there is no way that Petraeus will recommend any reduction in US combat troops.



Your premises are:

1. The military are not puppets to the administration
2. Military commanders should not be second-guessed by civilians
3. If civilians second-guess military commanders, the country might be doomed from success in warfare.

Premise 1: The military are not puppets to the administration

The U.S. Constitution shows that your premise is false.

Since the president is Commander-in-Chief, and since the Commander-in-Chief is the commander of the U.S. military, therefore, by definition, the military is obedient to the president.

Recent history also shows that your premise is false.

For example, take General Casey, who preceded Petraeus. Casey publicly discussed a reduction in U.S. troops, and was promptly fired by Bush, and replaced by Petraeus. You're telling me that Petraeus isn't factoring this into his next report in September?

There are many, many more examples like this throughout U.S. history.

Premise 2: Military commanders should not be second-guessed by civilians

The U.S. Constitution shows your premise to be false.

And now for a refresher (or introduction?) to U.S. Poli-Sci. The Founders of this country deliberately intended for the Commander-in-Chief to be a CIVILIAN, because of the inherent dangers to this country of a military Commander-in-Chief. Since the president is the Commander-in-Chief, and since the president is the leader of the executive branch of this representative democracy, therefore we the people, the ones who vote and pay the taxes which fund the wars by the way, get to have a say:action-sm. The president is not a king. He is our (the people's) representative. It's not his power, it's our (the people's) power which he collectively represents.

The United States is not a military dictatorship, even though you may prefer it that way.

Premise 3: If civilians second-guess military commanders, the country might be doomed from success in warfare.

The history of the United States shows this premise to be false.

This premise, like premise 2, reflects a misunderstanding of our Republic.

Civilians have been second-guessing military commanders in this Republic for over two hundred years, and the country is still here.

Since your premise is based on a logical fallacy, the appeal to fear, it lacks any logical basis to support it, and is therefore false.

The appeal to fear is a logical fallacy. Here you try to scare people that they better not question the military or the entire country "might be doomed." You provide no evidence or any logic to support your premise, and therefore your premise is false.

Damn.

You may want to change your name on here.

I salute you.

[SKEPTIC]

Damn.

You may want to change your name on here.

I salute you.

Thank you, sir. :)

[poopiebottoms]

Can anyone honestly still say they believe that Bush's War On Terror/Iraq has been a success?

God Bless our troops dying for our government's blunders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

Al-Qaida plots new attacks on U.S. soil

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

Al-Qaida is using its growing strength in Pakistan and Iraq to plot attacks on U.S. soil, heightening the terror threat facing the United States over the next few years, intelligence agencies concluded in a report unveiled Tuesday.
At the same time, the intelligence analysts worry that international cooperation against terrorism will be hard to sustain as memories of Sept. 11 fade and nations' views diverge on what the real threat is.
In the National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush and other top policymakers, analysts laid out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years.
The findings focused most heavily on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, which was judged to remain the most serious threat to the United States. The group's affiliate in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could do just that, the report concluded. Al-Qaida in Iraq threatened to attack the United States in a Web statement last September.
National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar warned that the group's operatives in Iraq are getting portable, firsthand experience in covert communications, smuggling, improvised explosive devices, understanding U.S. military tactics and more.
The Iraqi affiliate also helps al-Qaida more broadly as it tries to energize Sunni Muslim extremists around the globe, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives — "including for homeland attacks," according to a declassified summary of the report's main findings.
In addition, analysts stressed the importance of al-Qaida's increasingly comfortable hideout in Pakistan that has resulted from a hands-off accord between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders along the Afghan border. That 10-month-old deal, which has unraveled in recent days, gave al-Qaida new opportunities to set up compounds for terror training, improve its international communications with associates and bolster its operations.
The assessment shows how the threat has changed.
Just two years ago, the intelligence agencies considered al-Qaida's various "franchises" decentralized offshoots, with bin Laden mostly providing ideological direction.
Fingar said his experts believe bin Laden and his top deputy are hiding in Pakistan. "There is no question that the ungoverned character of the space is a major factor in the Taliban's and al-Qaida's and other extremist groups' ability to hide — hide in plain sight," he said.
National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies across the breadth of the U.S. government. These documents reflect the consensus long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts.
Tuesday's publicly disclosed judgments are part of a more expansive, still-classified document, approved by the heads of all 16 intelligence agencies on June 21.
Analysts — who concluded the U.S. now faces a "heightened threat environment" — painted an increasingly familiar picture of al-Qaida: A group focused on high-profile attacks against political, economic and infrastructure targets, while striving to cause mass casualties and dramatic destruction.
FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said the bureau does not know of any al-Qaida cells in the United States, although his agents continue investigating such questions. The estimate said international counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have hampered al-Qaida's ability to attack the United States again, while also convincing terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.
Charles Allen, the Department of Homeland Security's top intelligence official, said the department isn't changing the nation's threat level, which remains at yellow, or "elevated" — the middle of a five-point scale. Airlines remain one step higher, at orange.
Even as authorities warn of dangers in the U.S., analysts concluded the threat is more severe in Europe. The problem could touch the United States directly, Fingar noted, because of the ease of travel between Europe and here.
The White House sought to downplay the report's worries about the future of international counterterrorism cooperation. Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, said the administration isn't concerned about being abandoned by allies. Cooperation is "actually as strong as it's ever been," she said.
The Bush administration also brushed off critics who say the administration released the intelligence estimate now to help its case as the Senate debates whether to withdraw troops from Iraq. White House press secretary Tony Snow said critics are "engaged in a little selective hearing ... to shape the story in their own political ways."
Meanwhile, Democrats said the report was proof that U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are being drained by the Iraq war.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., called on the U.S. to "responsibly redeploy" its troops from Iraq and turn security over to the Iraqis. "In hindsight, we should have concentrated our efforts on al-Qaida in Afghanistan from the beginning," he said.
Significant debate in recent weeks has focused on the genesis of the al-Qaida threat in Iraq and the nature of its links to al-Qaida's leaders. With the intelligence report's release, Bush sought to draw the threat in Iraq closer to bin Laden. "These people have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered the attack on September the 11th, 2001," he said.
At a briefing and in a later interview, Ted Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said al-Qaida in Iraq did not have any active cells when the U.S. invaded in March 2003. He said the watershed moment was when its now-deceased leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared his allegiance to bin Laden in an October 2004 Internet message.
Beyond al-Qaida, the report also laid out three other potential terror threats to the country:
_Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.
_The number of homegrown extremists in the U.S. and its Western allies is growing, fueled by Internet web sites and anti-American rhetoric.
_So-called "single issue" terrorist groups probably will attack here on a smaller scale. They include white supremacists, anarchists and animal rights groups, such as Animal Liberation Front.
___
On the Net:
The estimate's key judgments: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

[UCFGavin]

it really isn't surprising. the sad thing is...so many people are against *this* war yet still support an interventionist foreign policy. its mind boggling.

[UCFGavin]

poopie, might i ask who you're supporting in the upcoming election?

[domelogic]

if you think pulling completely out of iraq is the thing to do and let the iraqi people sort it out, then you are completely insane. like the war or not, if we pull out completely this will be the new afghanistan with the taliban

wrong or right we need to have some type of military there at this point


gavin, in this thread you are going to find way more bush haters and democrats than republicans.