And turn from your wicked, wicked ways?
From the New York Times today:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The complete story from CNN.
This report, the National Intelligence Estimate, is the most comprehensive assessment yet of the war in Iraq and is based upon analyses from all of the US intelligence agencies. In other words, this is not more of the same stuff that so-called "liberal" and otherwise sensible folk have been saying since 2003 (when, in fact, intelligence agencies were already saying that increased support for terrorism would result in Bush's planned invasion of Iraq). This is from Bush's own intelligence people.
For most of us, it was obvious that if you invade a country unprovoked and take actions that will result in the loss of thousands of innocent lives, that you would not do anything but throw gasoline on an existing fire.
Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back? Will the US citizenry finally say, "Ya know, this guy just doesn't know what he's doing? I'm sure he WANTS to stop terrorism - we all do - but his actions are just doing the opposite of that. He has failed miserably."?
Or will the hardcore supporters of the Bush administration write off this report from ALL of the US intelligence agencies as part of the Vast LW Conspiracy (TM)? And even if the hardcore supporters remain behind him (I don't really expect much else), will the rest of the nation finally say, No more.
Lord God, may it be so.
UPDATE:
On a sort of related note:
"What's human sacrifice," he asked, "if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"
-Mel Gibson on the Iraq War
I don't reckon Gibson will remain in the good favor of his Right-ish supporters with comments like this. The question now is, just how harsh a backlash will there be against Gibson from the Right now? I mean, he can make questionably anti-semitic comments and be forgiven, get drunk and be forgiven, but no way does he get a pass on criticizing the invasion.
25 comments:
...Or they may have written the National Intelligence Estimate show those results, rather than the more shameful possibility, that our involvement there has made the organizations involved in the NIE more aware of threat sources. How do they quantifiably know there are actually more sources, rather than just being aware of more sources?
To admit the latter would be shameful to them, and a report like this, that supports your pre-conceived notion, may be simply to prevent the intelligence community from getting egg on their collective faces for not having the intelligence on those sources before now.
Either way, we are being fed a pile of crap.
In other words, why trust the intelligence agencies now when folk of your agenda, Dan, have been so untrusting of the same intelligence agencies in the past?
When the intelligence agencies come up with evidence that totally disagrees with the current administration's policy, somebody's bound to notice, on either side.
I don't trust them any more than I trust any gov't organization (and that's not a slam on the individuals but on the nature of gov't to perform well).
But I don't trust them not to take actions that will lead us further into ill-advised wars. When they are saying that the evidence shows that our warring is making things worse - and when it's not just one agency but, what? 21 of them? - then I think they're in a position where they are having to admit what's obvious to most of us out here.
When gov't findings validate what we know intuitively about human nature, there's more support for the report.
In short, I believe the report because it validates what I already believe the evidence shows to be true.
Anonymous, why wouldn't you believe this report? These are Bush's people. These are in many cases Republicans. Read the article. Read related articles. These are people who support Bush who have been backed in to admitting what most of us know.
The Clintonistsas have done it again--put politics before national security by releasing PART of a comprehensive report.
There needs to be a political purge in our intelligence agencies. It seems as though there are leftovers from the previous administration purposefully placed there to leak bits and pieces that support their political goals.
Typical liberal tactics--ends justify the treacherous means and all that!
I notice that the head of the CIA, who was surely involved in the report, has now come out and said that Iraq has NOT increased terrorism. Hmm., sounds like the same kind of political pressure that was put on the CIA to say that Iraq had WMDs in 2002. Bush admin. people who do not stay "on message," lose their jobs quickly because "the Decider," cannot stand independent thought.
Now, Bush is being pressured to release the National Intelligence Estimate. But considering that his admin. has doctored reports on global warming by the EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc., what makes us think this won't be doctored to fit his propaganda and help the GOP retain Congress (like the artificial reduction of gas prices)?
Here's a prediction: $3/gallon gas will return by January.
And here's a certainty: $3/gallon gas will return soon. Followed by $4/gallon, $5...$10/Gallon gas.
"I notice that the head of the CIA, who was surely involved in the report, has now come out and said that Iraq has NOT increased terrorism. Hmm., sounds like the same kind of political pressure that was put on the CIA to say that Iraq had WMDs in 2002. Bush admin. people who do not stay "on message," lose their jobs quickly because "the Decider," cannot stand independent thought."
How utterly juvenile.
Daddio, I'll allow you to make your off-the-wall comments here and let them stand for what they're worth, but I'll ask you not to name-call my visitors.
I agree that this behavior is juvenile. But we've seen it happen repeatedly with this administration.
We go to kindergarten with the administration we have not the administration we might want.
Being neither a Bush supporter nor a war supporter (although I am certainly the only commenting here who is not except maybe Deb, don't know) I still have to put this into perspective.
First, of course we are more the target of terrorism after the invaisons .... you reckon? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we the declared war on them, were we more or less likely to be attacked by them again? If a person attacks you family and you stand between them and your family (bear with me you Uber-pacifists), is there more or less likelihood of further aggression from said attacker?
Although all don't agree with it, the administration's policy is to ferret out the terrorists, do so as far from our shores as possilbe, and deal with them pro-actively. Of course that is going to mean that in the process there is even more likelihood of mayhem.
The second thing is this: What was leaked is a carefully cropped soundbite from the full report. That's why the administration is declassifying the greater report in order to expose that.
But in one thing Dan is quite right, come soon or very soon, gas is going back up to $3 a gallon (for starters). The current gas prices are an undeclared and indirect campaign contribution to the republicans.
"Although all don't agree with it, the administration's policy is to ferret out the terrorists, do so as far from our shores as possilbe, and deal with them pro-actively."
Fair enough. But as it becomes clear that said policy is not only "ferreting out" terrorists, but encouraging and aiding in recruitment of terrorists - in short, strengthening the terrorists, then said policy is failing at its own goal.
And, as you say, attacking other sovereign nations IS only going to give them something to rally around (terrorism) and some entity to rally against (us). We need better solutions.
"but I'll ask you not to name-call my visitors."
Name-calling? I was critiquing a very immature statement by a very unthoughtful commenter.
Did I call your reader a name? Or did I just make an accurate critique?
You call people wackos then don't want others to critique your words?
How fair is that? False witness for all the world to see, Dan? How can you deny the innacuracies of your statement to me?
WWJD?
LOL!
Dan:"- in short, strengthening the terrorists, then said policy is failing at its own goal."
I am coming to think that in the end we will have very, very little to show for our effort.
But I can't help but wonder, Dan, if you and Michael (et al.) don't see the screaming parallel in your own efforts. It is true that the allied efforts in the middle east are likely creating terrorists that did not exist before. But protests, rallies, advocacy, and the idle like also create pro-war sentiment here that did not exist before. When you go to a protest with an anti-Bush sign, might as well paint a pro-Bush sign and take it along with you. It has the same effect.
D said:
"Name-calling? I was critiquing a very immature statement by a very unthoughtful commenter."
Then the way you do this is say, "To say that is juvenile because..." and make your case. Blurting out "juvenile" when there seems to be no context or reason to do so sounds like childish name calling.
Which I'll put up with (or more likely, just ignore) when it's directed towards me but don't want others subjected to it.
Fair enough?
"I can't help but wonder, Dan, if you and Michael (et al.) don't see the screaming parallel in your own efforts."
And what are our efforts? Merely going to protests (which we don't really do all that much)? Merely writing letters?
Merely reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels? Our patronage of large corporations with bad track records?
Merely asking for/demanding reasonable policy changes? Merely researching more reasonable/workable solutions?
Which of our actions are you thinking will have no tangible results? Which of your actions are you thinking are the more wise ones?
I'll guess (based on our previous conversations) reducing your dependence on fossil fuels and "the system" is your one solution. Which is fine, and I support that. But I prefer chasing more than one solution, as single solutions are rarely any complete solution.
I don't have to explain myself when the point I make is clear and obvious, Dan.
Just because you might SAY there was no reason for me to cry "juvenile" doesn't change the FACT that ALL can see!
Michael's was a juvenile, stupid statement--and as you said--NOT based on anything sound!
My statement which followed was accurate and to the point...and based upon the evidence here in these comments.
Daddio, you don't have to explain yourself at all. And you rarely do. So that works out well.
Just don't expect people to jump because you say "Jump." Most folk really aren't all that interested in every nutty unsubstantiated allegation that any Ozarks might have.
Unsubstantiated allegations are worth their weight in ..., well I was going to say manure, but manure has some actual value and baseless allegations have none.
Most folk really aren't all that interested in every nutty unsubstantiated allegation that any Ozarks might have.
What are you implying here?
Dan:"And what are our efforts?"
Indeed, what are your efforts? I don't know. You have not disclosed them on this blog. I've tried to be a faithful reader and the 'efforts' are all talked about in vague terms. So I can't say because I don't know.
I am merely pointing out the parallel in MO used by Bush on the one hand and you and Michael (et al.) on the other. 'Reduce dependency'. Fine. So does that mean you are patting Bush on the back for 'reducing' violence? After all he hasn't invaded Iran, isn't that a reduction in violence?
The parallel in this thread is that by its aggressive actions, the administration has created more opposition. By protesting, posturing, lecturing, and letter writing, the anti-war activist is creating pro-war sentiment. Looks to this anti-consumerist that you, give or take a few inessentials, you are made from the same cloth.
Now, having established that I don't know what you and I accept that those details are part of these discussions by design, and I respect that, let me try to express yet another way what I mean:
It isn't enough to just use a little less plunder in our daily existence. At the end of the day we must have produced something substantial or tangible in the way of real goods and services for the folk. If we do not, it means that the goods and services we are consuming were wrested from someone in the world by force rather than free and equal exchange.
Without our military enforcing our economic interest (or threatening to) around the world, the surplus of our economy would vanish. This means that if we are not producing by our own right livelihood something of equal value to what we are consuming, the coins we put in our pocket for whatever we do are blood splattered.
Everyone who is living in this idle 21st century American fashion is a war supporter. It matters not a whit what they say, they might be solidly endorsing Bush or "earning" a living by denouncing him. Yet they are alike avid war supporters.
"Just don't expect people to jump because you say "Jump." Most folk really aren't all that interested in every nutty unsubstantiated allegation that any Ozarks might have."
Some ARE! You, for instance! LOL!
The thing is--my allegations are ALWAYS substantiated-I wouldn't make them if it were not so, My allegations are based on established fact that is obvious to anyone with the ability to analyze history and current events rationally.
When I make an allegation--I've already determined it is, indeed, FACT.
It's rather odd that this "report" constituting a slam against the Bush Administration, utterly devoid of statistics to support its view of Iraq, would be accidentally leaked (oops!) just before the election. I'm sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with political maneuvering of CIA officials.
Wow. Dad is so classically narcissistic that his comments could get mentioned in the footnote of a psych text. Might even rate a vignette.
Oh well. Jesus died for the loons, too. :-)
er: well consider the source.
John:
You suspect a vast CIA conspiracy between all 31(?) agencies reporting to unseat Republicans?
Post a Comment