Report: Iraq War Made Terror Worse

[iron81]

1. The impression is not blatantly false and there was no misinformation. It is in fact true and something liberals have been saying since before the war. If it turns out that the report did not draw that conclusion, then the report itself is biased and incomplete.

2. If sensitive parts can be redacted, why weren't they before Bush needed this report for political purposes? Freedom abhors secret government.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush said today that he would declassify the NIE in a press conference. In the clip that I heard, he slammed the leakers for being politically motivated, then he announces that he is leaking the whole darn thing to quell the storm!!! The irony is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]Your argument is silly on its face.

There certainly could be an order of preference such as the following:
1) Keep secret
2) Reveal the whole thing
3) Have only small distorted parts be revealed

I still find it fascinating that you draw such strong conclusions and inferences from something you havent even seen.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The impression is not blatantly false and there was no misinformation. It is in fact true and something liberals have been saying since before the war. If it turns out that the report did not draw that conclusion, then the report itself is biased and incomplete.

2. If sensitive parts can be redacted, why weren't they before Bush needed this report for political purposes? Freedom abhors secret government.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It is your opininion that it is true and something the anti-Bush crowd has been spewing without any possible verification. Which at least is a pleasant change, because usually the crap they/you spew is so obviously and demonstrably wrong. It is NOT what the report concludes and it was a report outside the control of politicians, so your claim of bias is actually noting more than preparation for what you already know is going to destroy your argument.

2. Because there was no need to until the misinformation was leaked! Representative government abhors stupidity.

[iron81]

Since both of you seem to believe that it is ok to release the report now that the information about the Iraq War's effect on terrorism, ask youselves why its ok. What national security interest is compromised by the leak? The answer is none: the national security of America was not harmed by the leak. So what possible national security reason could there be to release the report that was changed by the leak? The answer is none, there is no national security reason to release the report. So why was the report released? The answer is politics, pure and simple. The need to release the information was to secure a GOP Congress in 2007.

Also concerning whether we terrorism has increased, that most certainly is something we can study, and people are studying it. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, 86% of the experts surveyed by that magazine said the world is becoming somewhat or much more dangerous. 77% of respondants who identify themselves as conservatives disagree with the Administration assertion that we are winning the War on Terror. If you want something more concrete, we can look at the fact that terrorist incidents have gone up since the invasion.

[Copernicus]

1. Misinformation that further shakes the publics confidence in their safety is a compromise to national security.

2. No one disputes that the world has become more dangerous. The issue is whether it is more dangerous than it would have been absent the action in Iraq. You cant answer that, 16 spy agencies cant answer that and a billion dollars worth of studies cant answer that, and you damn well know it.

You are being intentionally obtuse today. Youre on my own 24 hour ban list.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Since both of you seem to believe that it is ok to release the report now that the information about the Iraq War's effect on terrorism, ask youselves why its ok. What national security interest is compromised by the leak? The answer is none: the national security of America was not harmed by the leak. So what possible national security reason could there be to release the report that was changed by the leak? The answer is none, there is no national security reason to release the report. So why was the report released? The answer is politics, pure and simple. The need to release the information was to secure a GOP Congress in 2007.

Also concerning whether we terrorism has increased, that most certainly is something we can study, and people are studying it. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, 86% of the experts surveyed by that magazine said the world is becoming somewhat or much more dangerous. 77% of respondants who identify themselves as conservatives disagree with the Administration assertion that we are winning the War on Terror. If you want something more concrete, we can look at the fact that terrorist incidents have gone up since the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not sure if you are referring to me or not. However, I am making no comments about terrorism, the report, etc. I am simply making the point that it is really a bad idea to pass such sweeping judgements on things you have never seen or read. That is all. Maybe the report is super damning to Bush. Maybe not. I have no slant on the report itself.

[iron81]

Good point Utah (and I was referring to you). While I trust the NYT report, it will be interesting to see what the rest of the report says. Should make for good bedtime reading.

Oh and Coprenicus, its not misinformation if its true, as I've proven in my point 2 above. And even if it weren't true, if the public believes it is in danger, maybe it will demand the Administration to do something about it. Besides, isn't the whole rationale for Conservative rule nowadays that people are in danger?

Edit: Maybe I am being intentional obtuse. It is kind of stupid to be arguing with people who have you on ignore.

[steve9789]

[ QUOTE ]
Since both of you seem to believe that it is ok to release the report now that the information about the Iraq War's effect on terrorism, ask youselves why its ok. What national security interest is compromised by the leak? The answer is none: the national security of America was not harmed by the leak. So what possible national security reason could there be to release the report that was changed by the leak? The answer is none, there is no national security reason to release the report. So why was the report released? The answer is politics, pure and simple. The need to release the information was to secure a GOP Congress in 2007.

Isn't it reasonable to agree that the leak was an effort to help democrats? Do you feel the President shouldn't defend himself?

Also concerning whether we terrorism has increased, that most certainly is something we can study, and people are studying it. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, 86% of the experts surveyed by that magazine said the world is becoming somewhat or much more dangerous. 77% of respondants who identify themselves as conservatives disagree with the Administration assertion that we are winning the War on Terror. If you want something more concrete, we can look at the fact that terrorist incidents have gone up since the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly no intelligence expert, but after reading the article, I have some problems with it.

More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if it didn't happen. However, IMO one attack doesn't equate to losing the war.

Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America has yet to experience another attack. It sucks they were attacked, but why haven't we been attacked again?

In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government’s ability to wage the war successfully and to protect them from the terrorists’ next volley. I don't understand where the respondents heads are. America hasn't been attacked again.

“We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause,” says index participant Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. A quick wiki search of the highly esteemed dean reveals that she posts at a liberal blog and then there's this from wiki:
In 2003, she was involved in a controversy when she defended an art exhibit at the Wilson School that desecrated Christian symbols as "educational", but said she would not allow an exhibit if it desecrated the symbols of religions such as Islam I don't see a need to go any further on this one.

Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran Well no [censored] Sherlock, who do we have to fear of using them? Terrorists, duh...

[steve9789]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since both of you seem to believe that it is ok to release the report now that the information about the Iraq War's effect on terrorism, ask youselves why its ok. What national security interest is compromised by the leak? The answer is none: the national security of America was not harmed by the leak. So what possible national security reason could there be to release the report that was changed by the leak? The answer is none, there is no national security reason to release the report. So why was the report released? The answer is politics, pure and simple. The need to release the information was to secure a GOP Congress in 2007.

Also concerning whether we terrorism has increased, that most certainly is something we can study, and people are studying it. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, 86% of the experts surveyed by that magazine said the world is becoming somewhat or much more dangerous. 77% of respondants who identify themselves as conservatives disagree with the Administration assertion that we are winning the War on Terror. If you want something more concrete, we can look at the fact that terrorist incidents have gone up since the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not sure if you are referring to me or not. However, I am making no comments about terrorism, the report, etc. I am simply making the point that it is really a bad idea to pass such sweeping judgements on things you have never seen or read. That is all. Maybe the report is super damning to Bush. Maybe not. I have no slant on the report itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. It is wise to give things 48 hours or so before "blowing them out of proportion". Having to eat crow really sucks.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
You are being intentionally obtuse today. Youre on my own 24 hour ban list.

[/ QUOTE ]

This nut constantly bans/ignores people with whom he disagrees. He's like an Ostrich.

Its also 'cute' how information he doesn't like is misinformation.

And how he dismisses the 16 spy agencies when it is convenient to his rathar obvious partisan biases... certainly all the studies in the worlds and conclusions of the experts in this area are irrelevent when compared to the his powerful expertise and strong biases.