NIE Terrorism Report Released

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

hmmmm.....lets see...from fox news:
The president, responding to a reporter's question about the report, said he was declassifying part of the NIE because he wanted the public to be able to read the conclusions without filters that "create confusion in the minds of the American people."


Even fox news reports that he was declassifying part fo the report...where is the source to your claims that the whole report was declassified?
also, the website itself says:
This document is the declassified Key Judgments from the larger, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States that was produced in April 2006.

Larger??? i wonder what that means..maybe u can enlighten us..
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It is comical, yet extremely sad, that so many of the Bush faithful turn to such dishonest arguments and diversions as a first resort. I assume that must be the best they can offer, that they have no legitimate points to support their feckless leader.
No straw man here. Just read through the "discussions" the last couple months and you can find plenty who imply quite clearly that if we just walked away everything would be so much better. Those terrorists would all go home!
Sorry Pabs, that's not what you two said. The exact quote is, "if were [sic] to do NOTHING terror would go away!" That is a straw man. I don't know anyone who's suggesting we not fight terrorism at all. The issue is how to fight terrorism effectively, and whether the Iraq debacle has helped reduce terrorism. According to the consensus of our intelligence agencies, it's made it worse. That's the fact you are so desperate to evade.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And I assume you'll show the integrity to come back, acknowledge your error, and apologize if it turns out you misinterpreted the Fox story (or perhaps based your claims on one of Limbaugh's lies)?
I didn't read anything on Fox News, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. So far you're 0/2.
Anyone else notice that Pabs is avoiding the point, that his claim Bush declassified the entire report appears to be wrong? Where's the link Pabsie?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And I assume you'll show the integrity to come back, acknowledge your error, and apologize if it turns out you misinterpreted the Fox story (or perhaps based your claims on one of Limbaugh's lies)?
I didn't read anything on Fox News, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. So far you're 0/2.
So where did you read it... why not cite it?
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
You know, I love it, how the JerkWads always talk about the terrorists attacking us. Yes, there have been attacks overseas, on the home territory of cultures completely alien to ours. But man, you didn't see the kind of flap (or one hundredth of it) after our local home grown nutcase blew up the government building in Oklahoma. This is a problem with a small group of crazed individuals. But, with George's help, we may be able to turn it into a war of civilizations.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
What is interesting and what no one here has talked about is the timing of the leak and the nature of the leak. This report was written WAY back in April, and now 6 weeks before an election we get leaks that are very damning to Bush and Co.

This isn?t the first time something like this has happened. The Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about this fact.
Declassify the Terrorism NIE
It's not as if NIEs usually contain sensitive raw intelligence. They're more like Council on Foreign Relations reports, full of consensus analysis and glorified by the mere fact of being "secret." To the extent that any passages might compromise sources and methods, those parts could be redacted or summarized. Meanwhile, disclosure would give the American public a valuable window into the thinking that goes on at places like the CIA. Since some of our spooks are leaking selectively to make the President look bad, Mr. Bush should return the favor by letting the public inspect the quality of analysis that their tax dollars are buying.

Releasing the NIE would also show that the White House has learned something since 2003, which is when the last pre-election bout of selective intelligence leaks began. That leak du jour claimed that an October 2002 NIE had contradicted Mr. Bush's claims in his State of the Union address about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. We happened to gain access to the complete NIE, however, and reported on July 17, 2003, that the leaked accounts were incomplete and misleading. The Senate Intelligence Committee vindicated our account a year later, but the Bush Administration could have reduced the political damage by declassifying that 2002 NIE immediately.

As for the substance of the 2006 NIE's alleged claims, does anyone doubt that many jihadis are rallying against the American presence in Iraq? The newspapers tell us that much every day. Whether the war in Iraq has produced more terrorist hatred than would otherwise exist, however, is a matter of opinion and strategic judgment.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
That Leaked N.I.E. on Iraq is a Flop
Just leaked, a copy of al Qaeda's Intelligence Estimate.

TOP SECRET: From the al Qaeda National Intelligence Council

Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for al Qaeda:

In the name of Allah, we judge the war in Iraq to be an unmitigated disaster.

Our reasons for this judgment go beyond a simple listing of the obvious pluses and minuses:

Obvious Pluses:

? We have killed more than 2,000 Americans in Iraq.

? The war has ignited a powerful ?anti-war? movement in the US, and in the West generally ? as we had predicted it would in our 2002 Estimate entitled ?The American and European Left Will Work for Us? ? that has weakened Bush and may, perhaps, bring the anti-war Democrats to power in Congress in November.

? The war has further separated the Great Satan from its European allies.

? It has aided our recruitment efforts worldwide.

Obvious Minuses:

? We have lost our brother Saddam and the invaluable support he gave us during the 1990s.

? Despite our continuing and highly successful destabilization campaign ?may our martyred brother al-Zarquari now enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins?Iraqis have voted in free elections, put in place a modern constitution, and begun the revival of a vibrant economy. By doing so they have set an appalling example for all other Arab states that we can never erase.

? The American invasion of Iraq ?flipped? Libya, and the treasonous pig Qadaffi has surrendered his nuclear weapons to the Great Satan.

? The American armed forces ? which cannot be defeated on the battlefield by us or by anyone else on earth ? are fully deployed throughout the Mideast.

Our judgment that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster rests on another logic entirely ? one that, praise be to Allah, our allies on the American left fail utterly to grasp. By dragging on for so long, and thus generating so much political controversy, this war has created the opportunity for those among the infidels who truly understand us to find their voice. Today in the American media once-obscure scholars such as Bernard Lewis, James Arlandson, and Andrew Bostom are reaching large and growing audiences with their accurate and deeply insightful analyses of Islam. And while it is one thing when the moron Bush stumbles onto the truth and calls us ?Islamofascists??it is quite another when the infidel leader Benedict visits a minor university in Germany, and there gives a scholarly speech about the nature of Islam that echoes across the globe and focuses worldwide attention on the central role of violence in our faith.

History teaches that when attacked, the infidel responds slowly ? and at first, clumsily. (Consider how many centuries went by before Christianity responded to our conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries with what they are pleased to call the Crusades.) And of all the infidels, none responds more clumsily than the Americans. They are too corrupt ? too distracted by their pornography and their shopping ? to see clearly or even to think clearly about the threats they face.

But history also teaches that, given enough time, the Americans always come to understand the true nature of their enemy. And history teaches that once they do, they win.

We judge that a great shift is now under way within the Great Satan. While the ?elites? in Washington continue to fight each other rather than us, the masses are becoming more resolute in their opposition to our jihad. Our agents report that throughout the Great Satan, in places like Birmingham, Alabama, and Raleigh, North Carolina, and Naperville, Illinois, and Fargo, North Dakota ? and even in the outlying districts of New York itself ? ordinary, working Americans are starting to wake up to who we truly are and what we mean to do. The people are moving ahead of their corrupt politicians.

For all the mistakes the Americans and their lackeys have made in Iraq ? may Allah continue to mislead them ? this war has been a disaster because it has triggered the one thing we were most determined to prevent: It has enabled the infidel to understand our true objective ? which is, of course, the destruction of Western civilization.

We report our final judgment with reluctance, but with a high level of confidence: If we cannot defeat the infidel soon, our opportunity for victory will evaporate.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Now that the document has come out we can see how the whole ?Iraq increases the threat of terror? is based on one line! Reading the whole paragraph instead of that one line and different view emerges.
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.
Or put another way, if they succeed in Iraq, we?ll have MORE fighters inspired to carry on the fight.
So the war has become a recruitment poster for jihadists. At the same time the NIE says that if the same jihadists are viewed as losing in Iraq ?we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.? Wow so if we win in Iraq there will be fewer terrorists. No wonder Bush so big on staying the course.

But wait there is 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.
Well if that isn?t proof that going into Iraq was the right thing to do then nothing is.
Read the ?underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement?
3. the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations
In Iraq we are combating that problem head on by creating a new government with greatly expanded economic, social and political rights for ALL citizens. In essence we are taking steps to eliminate one of the jihadist movement?s key recruitment tools, the unhappiness with their way of life under oppressive regimes.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
It appears only 3 or 4 pages of a 9 to 30 page document was released. That is no way 'completely declassified' How many links to the news stories do you want?



4 page summary from a 9 page document
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003277428_intel27.html

release of four pages of the classified report . . . . . . .The pages, drawn from the 30-page intelligence summary
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...sees_war_fueling_jihadists_1159338317/

Only four pages of text were released from the 30-page report
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4217398.html


Bush ordered declassification of the ``key judgments'' from the intelligence assessment
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a9f6LuTdwULw&refer=us

The excerpts ? just over three pages from a document said to be 30 pages
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washi...9502400&en=b72935aaf758334a&ei=5087%0A

he White House, under mounting pressure from Congress, released declassified portions of a government intelligence report
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html...3767775121.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

President Bush yesterday released a summary of the National Intelligence Estimatehttp://online.wsj.com/google_login.html...4523575019.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

Bush ordered excerpts of the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate to be made public
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/456238p-383848c.html

portions of a secret intelligence study the Bush administration released
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-iraq-report_x.htm

The president, responding to a reporter's question about the report, said he was declassifying part of the NIE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215920,00.html

At his news conference, Bush correctly noted that the leaks didn't reflect the full context of the report.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/09/post_29.html

 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
And once again the libbies are befuddled.

You guys claimed Bush was selectively "cherry picking" portions of this report to release. I proved you wrong, as usual, and now that the entire report has been declassified you've moved on to trying to tear it apart.

EDIT: Tear it apart = spinning it to your liberal agenda

WRONG. The gist of the report is, Terrorism and its spread and reach are worse after the Iraq war, not better. You are arguing that's a good thing. Fine. I disagree. Nobody is "befuddled" except you.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont know why everybody doesnt realize if were to do NOTHING terror would go away! Wake up people!

How about if we had aggressively stayed on Afghanistan and completed the task and not become mired in an untenable situation in Iraq? Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That's a flat out lie. Stop lying like your Republican hit squads. How about if we stop bleeding our military resources dry? How about if we stop throwing money out the fvcking window? What we want is to do the RIGHT things, not increase the terror threat like Bush and his cronies have done!

Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont know why everybody doesnt realize if were to do NOTHING terror would go away! Wake up people!

Got to get their tin foil hats off first :laugh:

It is comical yet extremely sad that some actually believe that. Many are right here.

Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It is comical, yet extremely sad, that so many of the Bush faithful turn to such dishonest arguments and diversions as a first resort. I assume that must be the best they can offer, that they have no legitimate points to support their feckless leader.

No straw man here. Just read through the "discussions" the last couple months and you can find plenty who imply quite clearly that if we just walked away everything would be so much better. Those terrorists would all go home!



The ME wanted us to stop interfering in their affairs.... therefore going into Iraq for no reason simply fueled the fire.. this is not intelligent...
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
[

The entire report has been declassified. I suggest you find a real news source besides CBS.

Like I said, find a new news source. Google News has a plethora of links for your perusal.

You sure make a lot af assinine assertions with no proof. If there are tons of links, please give one. It's all over the news, they released four pages.

FINEMAN: Well, they?re bailing water, the White House is. I know people who?ve read the thing in its entirety, and they can?t tell me the details, because it?s classified, but they say if you read the whole document, it?s just as damning, if not more so, and there are other things in there that are?the White House is not going to want to see.

But they had to do their best damage control here. They clearly felt that this hurt, because first, they put out statements, then they put out Condi Rice, then they have the president commenting on it here with Karzai today.

They clearly feel it?s damaging, because it goes to the very heart of their argument, which is that we are fighting them over there, so we don?t have to fight them here. This raises the possibility that even though we?re not fighting them here right this minute, George Bush may have purchased some temporary peace at home for long-time?long-term turmoil in the world, and I think the American people are focusing on that now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15029655/
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

No he did not. You are full of FUD. As usual. :laugh:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
so what are you suggesting we do instead? What are other Dems suggesting? If you still intend to fight terrorism, just not in Iraq, and not with our military, where will you do so instead, and how?

Even John Kerry stated this week that we do indeed need to fight terrorism... but he conveniently stopped short of saying how.

so how, who, when, and where do you suggest we fight terrorism instead of how, who, when, and where we're doing so now?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
so what are you suggesting we do instead? What are other Dems suggesting? If you still intend to fight terrorism, just not in Iraq, and not with our military, where will you do so instead, and how?

Even John Kerry stated this week that we do indeed need to fight terrorism... but he conveniently stopped short of saying how.

so how, who, when, and where do you suggest we fight terrorism instead of how, who, when, and where we're doing so now?

First thing that should be done is to lockup in Leavenworth
Cheney
bush
wolfowitz
pearle
powell
rice
rumsfeld
ashcroft
gonzalez
anyone listed as a contributing writer to the neocon doctrine

SEIZE ALL OF THEIR ASSETS because at least 50% of it is War Profits

then we install the greatest scholars we have to run the country

kick out all lobbyists from DC

start from within and strengthen our own nation and strengthen our borders and our ability to defend our borders

Use some of that $300,000,000,000 to educate poor people so we don't turn into a laughing stock of a nation

-------------------------
Don't you think the Iraq War and the senseless murder of 50,000+ Iraqi citizens has only made us look more and more and more and more like the Great Satan.. and henceforth INCREASING THE DESIRE TO INFLICT MORE DAMAGE ON THE USA and its interests?

 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
so what are you suggesting we do instead? What are other Dems suggesting? If you still intend to fight terrorism, just not in Iraq, and not with our military, where will you do so instead, and how?

Even John Kerry stated this week that we do indeed need to fight terrorism... but he conveniently stopped short of saying how.

so how, who, when, and where do you suggest we fight terrorism instead of how, who, when, and where we're doing so now?


Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,879
6,417
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
so what are you suggesting we do instead? What are other Dems suggesting? If you still intend to fight terrorism, just not in Iraq, and not with our military, where will you do so instead, and how?

Even John Kerry stated this week that we do indeed need to fight terrorism... but he conveniently stopped short of saying how.

so how, who, when, and where do you suggest we fight terrorism instead of how, who, when, and where we're doing so now?

Afghanistan
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Stop lying. Nobody is suggesting we do NOTHING. That is a lie. Is that you Wallace? *SLAP
Now go grow a brain.
so what are you suggesting we do instead? What are other Dems suggesting? If you still intend to fight terrorism, just not in Iraq, and not with our military, where will you do so instead, and how?

Even John Kerry stated this week that we do indeed need to fight terrorism... but he conveniently stopped short of saying how.

so how, who, when, and where do you suggest we fight terrorism instead of how, who, when, and where we're doing so now?

You kill me, lol. Pretend you are not a complete shill for the WH for a second, try hard. Have you listened to anything the Dems have said in the last year, or does Fox filter it out for you? Did you try their web site? They are about stronger homeland protection, they are for putting the right force in Afghanistan to finish the job. They are for building strong positive relationships worldwide for police actions - good intel, working relations with allies, etc. But I know you like the disaster in Iraq, you love an endless war killing Arabs, just like BF2!

BTW Pabbyboy - "White House refuses to release full terror report"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/nie.iraq.ap/index.html
 
Sep 14, 2005
110
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

Expecting you to admit when you're wrong would be expecting far too much wouldn't it?

I'm noticing a trend here amongst the right wing.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
lol, you still keep missing the main interogative, just as your party keeps missing the same: HOW?

We are currently fighting a war on terror in over 30 countries, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. So, again, HOW would change that?

It sounds as though you all wish to pull every US troop in the world back to our borders and just hope and pray everything beyond our own walls is ok...? no?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
lol, you still keep missing the main interogative, just as your party keeps missing the same: HOW?

We are currently fighting a war on terror in over 30 countries, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. So, again, HOW would change that?

It sounds as though you all wish to pull every US troop in the world back to our borders and just hope and pray everything beyond our own walls is ok...? no?


Ah, ignored my serious post. I'll just post it again then.

Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
lol, you still keep missing the main interogative, just as your party keeps missing the same: HOW?

We are currently fighting a war on terror in over 30 countries, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. So, again, HOW would change that?

It sounds as though you all wish to pull every US troop in the world back to our borders and just hope and pray everything beyond our own walls is ok...? no?

It did not sound that way to me. Maybe you should read them again. Read all the words this time. :roll: