Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No big surprise here. I've been saying the same thing since mid-2003.

No big suprise to Bushwhacko's dad, either. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

Good quote...

Why is it that fools like ProfJon stay away from threads like these? I just can't figure it out!

But were fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here.... happy now?

Besides it is the New York Times, can anyone say bias

So what is the solution? We have identified the problem, half the battle, now we need a solution.

I have said before that Bush has about another year to get this Iraq thing under control or the looming 2008 elections will force him to start a withdraw process, unless he wants to hand the Dems the White House. I think everyone is growing tired of this war, but we still need to find a way to win it.

Finally, we can say that the Iraq war has caused an increase in terrorism, but how much of that would have happened without the Iraq war? Had we not invaded Iraq would all these new terrorists be sitting at home watching the World Cup instead of trying to kill us? That we will never know.

NYT is biased, so therefore the reported story is false? Huh? The NYT isn't known for making things up.. and if a mistake is made, there are retractions... this isn't an opinion piece though...

"Finally, we can say that the Iraq war has caused an increase in terrorism, but how much of that would have happened without the Iraq war? Had we not invaded Iraq would all these new terrorists be sitting at home watching the World Cup instead of trying to kill us?"

As for this, the new terrorists are being created EVERY DAY because WE ARE OCCUPYING IRAQ! They now have a reason more than EVER to hate America... These new terrorists would not be watching the World Cup, they would be living their lives in Iraq without having to deal with an occupation! If America was invaded under false pretenses, would YOU sit back and enjoy yourself while 1000s of your fellow Americans died each month under occupying rule? Use brain.. please!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No big surprise here. I've been saying the same thing since mid-2003.

No big suprise to Bushwhacko's dad, either. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

(Edited for space. See quote above)

If only his idiot son could read!

Good quote...

Why is it that fools like ProfJon stay away from threads like these? I just can't figure it out!

But were fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here.... happy now?

Besides it is the New York Times, can anyone say bias

Hey, ProfJohn -- It's obvious you're not a professor of any English language skills. The quote in my post is from Bush Sr.'s memoir, written with Brent Scowcroft. Can anyone say < Idiot Alert!!!>

The solution is to start by electing a majority of Democrats in both houses. Then, they'll have subpoena power to start drawing enough facts out of the shadows to impeach all of the Bushwhacko traitors.

I think tossing all their sorry asses in the lovely Guantanamo Hilton for a few years would go a long way toward showing the rest of the world this sad piece of our history doesn't represent who we are as a nation. Of course, we'll allow them plenty of access to recreational activities like the waterboard courts, and they can dance the night away to endless hours of loud music. I'd suggest including lots of repeats of my song. :music: :music:

 

[shadow9d9]

Oh, and btw, .. yahoo news reports:

"Their criticisms came in a collection of statements sent to reporters Sunday amid the disclosure of a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence official. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity on Sunday because the report is classified."

This is NOT A NYT OP PIECE... you cannot attack the source of the New York Times because the spy services CONFIRMED the accuracy of these reports... pathetic attempts to attack the source here need not apply!

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No big surprise here. I've been saying the same thing since mid-2003.

No big suprise to Bushwhacko's dad, either. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

Bush himself said that he listens to his "higher father." Or something like that. I think he was talking about God. I'm guessing at the time God said: Don't get me involved, asshole.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No big surprise here. I've been saying the same thing since mid-2003.

No big suprise to Bushwhacko's dad, either. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

Bush himself said that he listens to his "higher father." Or something like that. I think he was talking about God. I'm guessing at the time God said: Don't get me involved, asshole.

I'm convinced that Shrub thinks God is the little man in the toilet tank (in the rowboat). It would explain why he prays over the bowl so much

 

[Balt]

But were fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here.... happy now?

Besides it is the New York Times, can anyone say bias

Yes, obviously the New York Times completely fabricated the report. Try harder. :roll:

So what is the solution? We have identified the problem, half the battle, now we need a solution.

Yeah, the problem has been indentified. We caused the problem.

I have said before that Bush has about another year to get this Iraq thing under control or the looming 2008 elections will force him to start a withdraw process, unless he wants to hand the Dems the White House. I think everyone is growing tired of this war, but we still need to find a way to win it.

Finally, we can say that the Iraq war has caused an increase in terrorism, but how much of that would have happened without the Iraq war? Had we not invaded Iraq would all these new terrorists be sitting at home watching the World Cup instead of trying to kill us? That we will never know.

You are either truly unintelligent or truly blind. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but that is as nicely as I can put it. The entire point is that many of these new terrorists were created because of the war in Iraq. It has given them the motivation to take up arms. If there had been no cause there would have been no effect.

 

[conjur]

So, this is the NIE that Cheney and Frist have stated they haven't read (despite it being 5 months old)?

Freakin' LIARS!


They've read it but they just don't care. They'll continue following Goebbel's methods and repeating lie after lie in the hopes it will become truth in the sheep's eyes.

 

[ProfJohn]

Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

After you admit that there's a problem, you move to resolve it. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq has become a failed state. The best thing to do now is to minimize AMERICAN deaths and hope that a decisive leadership comes about. In what form (democratic or dictatorship) is up to nature, but seeing that our plans didn't work out, there's absolutely nothing we can say or do.

in other words, head for the exit door.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

After you admit that there's a problem, you move to resolve it. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq has become a failed state. The best thing to do now is to minimize AMERICAN deaths and hope that a decisive leadership comes about. In what form (democratic or dictatorship) is up to nature, but seeing that our plans didn't work out, there's absolutely nothing we can say or do.

in other words, head for the exit door.

So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

After you admit that there's a problem, you move to resolve it. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq has become a failed state. The best thing to do now is to minimize AMERICAN deaths and hope that a decisive leadership comes about. In what form (democratic or dictatorship) is up to nature, but seeing that our plans didn't work out, there's absolutely nothing we can say or do.

in other words, head for the exit door.

So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

Vietnam might not be the best example, leaving that mess was the smartest thing we've done in a long time...it's almost criminal we didn't do it earlier. And what sort of tragedy befell the world when we did? Well, Vietnam went communist and the dominos stayed upright...and now travel to Vietnam is a semi-popular passtime among American adventure seekers. Was THIS the outcome we spent all those lives trying to prevent? The idea that we have to win wars just to win wars is silly, and dangerous.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

After you admit that there's a problem, you move to resolve it. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq has become a failed state. The best thing to do now is to minimize AMERICAN deaths and hope that a decisive leadership comes about. In what form (democratic or dictatorship) is up to nature, but seeing that our plans didn't work out, there's absolutely nothing we can say or do.

in other words, head for the exit door.

So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

Talking point repeating does us nothingl...

We CAN'T win.. There is NO way to win something like Iraq now.. the only time we could have changed that was right when we invaded.. we messed everything up though and now we continue to lose the hearts of the Iraqi people EVERY DAY... The Iraqis lose around 30 lives a day and it gets worse year after year... We need to acknowledge our mistakes and move on. You can't say "we have to win" when nothing has changed in 3.5 years and things are only getting worse.. at what point will we wake up? Well, it'll take years and years JUST LIKE VIETNAM! Good thing we learned from that one!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

It's not the "terrorists" we're mostly fighting in Iraq. It's IRAQIS. Our troops are playing whack-a-mole with insurgents and essentially stuck in the middle of a Sunni/Shiite civil war. The "terrorists" (foreign fighters) are a miniscule percentage of the "enemy"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

Always engage in logical fallacies such as that?

I suppose ol' Ronnie's and Poppy's involvements in Middle East affairs (esp. Poppy's 1991 Gulf War where US troops were placed on Saudi soil, inciting bin Laden to start focusing on attacking the US) had nothing to do with it, eh?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Stopping the spread of terror can only best be done by removing a major thorn (US troops in Iraq). Getting to the root cause of terrorism and getting Muslim nations to crack down on radical Islamists and break up madrassas is where we need to focus (much like Kerry was proposing). Dropping cluster bombs, murdering innocent families, and torturing people is going to have the exact opposite desired result.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

And this has exactly what to do with anything?

 

[dahunan]

Iraq is proof that the US is a terrorist nation

 

[dahunan]

How in the hell do we say we are sorry for killing 50,000 Iraqis and throwing away $300,000,000,000 in the process of doing so?

We will be hurting in the future because of the neocons

 

[ajf3]

Please... NYT cherry picked the pieces that cast the admin in a bad light. Other parts of the report validated the fact that we need to stay there and engage them in Iraq because if we didn't they would be engaging us here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Please... NYT cherry picked the pieces that cast the admin in a bad light. Other parts of the report validated the fact that we need to stay there and engage them in Iraq because if we didn't they would be engaging us here.

You've seen the NIE? Then surely you can quote those relevant parts, yes?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

There is no "win" anymore, or are you too dense to understand that?

 

[ajf3]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ajf3
Please... NYT cherry picked the pieces that cast the admin in a bad light. Other parts of the report validated the fact that we need to stay there and engage them in Iraq because if we didn't they would be engaging us here.

You've seen the NIE? Then surely you can quote those relevant parts, yes?

Nope, but the director of National Intelligence has:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/24/224255.shtml?s=lh

Negroponte released a statement in which he said the overall conclusions of the the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism were distorted by reports that focused on a few opinions

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

There is no "win" anymore, or are you too dense to understand that?

They won't be satisfied until every Muslim/non-Christian on the planet is exterminated. Then of course, they'll go after the "real" problem (Democrats and everyone else who doesn't agree with them)

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you guys not understand the meaning of sarcasm????

Go read page one, I was just reinforcing what you all expected me to say
"butbut... we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over... erm... crap. you forgot poland? " loki8481

And how can I pass up the chance to say the NY Times is biased? You should understand that by now.

Anyway... There were more terrorists in 2000 than there were in 1992, so what did Bill Clinton do to cause such a drastic increase in terrorism during his 8 years?

One thing that 100% certain, under Bush and Clinton both the number of terrorists has gone up, so what can we do to stop this trend?

Iraq is a mess, I have admitted that many times. What is the solution though? What evidence is there that suggests that getting out of Iraq tomorrow will stop the spread of terror? Show me a report that says that and then we can start making plans.

Edit:woohoo post #600, only 57,292 more to catch up to conjur.. at 10 a day... some time in 2021?

After you admit that there's a problem, you move to resolve it. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq has become a failed state. The best thing to do now is to minimize AMERICAN deaths and hope that a decisive leadership comes about. In what form (democratic or dictatorship) is up to nature, but seeing that our plans didn't work out, there's absolutely nothing we can say or do.

in other words, head for the exit door.

So we should pull a Vietnam and hand the terrorists a victory and then cross our fingers and hope that some how Iraq can solve its own problems and the terrorists don't take over or Iran doesn't take over... hmmmm not sure I agree

To bad we can't go back in time and just not invade Iraq in the first place, but since we are there we have to win.

You do realize that Iraq is almost entirely in chaos because of nationalists/tribal fighters and not foreign terrorists, right? I remember seeing a figure of it being less than 10% being foreign. Conjur probably has it lying around somewhere.

 

[ajf3]

If there's a will there's a way... if the libs stop undercutting our efforts. They'll get with the program eventually... it's just a matter of whether or not we have to absorb a nuke first.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ajf3

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ajf3
Please... NYT cherry picked the pieces that cast the admin in a bad light. Other parts of the report validated the fact that we need to stay there and engage them in Iraq because if we didn't they would be engaging us here.

You've seen the NIE? Then surely you can quote those relevant parts, yes?

Nope, but the director of National Intelligence has:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/24/224255.shtml?s=lh

Negroponte released a statement in which he said the overall conclusions of the the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism were distorted by reports that focused on a few opinions

That's interesting - so he puts his own opinion out there in lieu of producing actual text from the NIE that supports his opinion. Of course Negroponte isn't going to agree with the assessment that Iraq has increased the terror threat, but I don't want his opinion on the matter, I want the opinion of the intel orgs that allegedly agree with him.

So let's hear it. Where in the NIE does it specifically agree with Negroponte?

 

[ajf3]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ajf3

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ajf3
Please... NYT cherry picked the pieces that cast the admin in a bad light. Other parts of the report validated the fact that we need to stay there and engage them in Iraq because if we didn't they would be engaging us here.

You've seen the NIE? Then surely you can quote those relevant parts, yes?

Nope, but the director of National Intelligence has:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/24/224255.shtml?s=lh

Negroponte released a statement in which he said the overall conclusions of the the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism were distorted by reports that focused on a few opinions

That's interesting - so he puts his own opinion out there in lieu of producing actual text from the NIE that supports his opinion. Of course Negroponte isn't going to agree with the assessment that Iraq has increased the terror threat, but I don't want his opinion on the matter, I want the opinion of the intel orgs that allegedly agree with him.

So let's hear it. Where in the NIE does it specifically agree with Negroponte?

Sorry - classified.

However, he's out there putting his name and rep on what summary he is allowed to release v. other unnamed sources that broke the law by releasing the pieces they wanted published.

I'd say this is as close to the horses mouth as we're going to get on this one. It's close enough for me.