book says: US 'losing fight against terror'

BBC | June 23. 2004 | BBC

[bunkerhill7]

John Paul Jones' immortal reply, "I have not yet begun to fight!"

[trebb]

Yep, nothing like refusing to buckle under to the enemy, making him afraid to show his face, and killing his followers, to play right into his hands. What on Earth were we thinking? </sarcasm

[RobbyS]

Well, a good reason for Bush to put his own man into the CIA. Obviously the Agency hhas "lost it."

[End Times Sentinel]

the battle against al-Qaeda is being lost.

 

Could this be why I'm wearing a burhka?

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

[cricket]

"John Paul Jones' immortal reply, "I have not yet begun to fight!"

Obviously, John Paul would be Republican today.

The only solution to terror in our country is to first rid all elective ranks of Democrats.

[Straight Vermonter]

Wow, in 2 1/2 years we haven't yet won a war against a worldwide enemy that Bush said would last for at least 10 years. I'm shocked!

[dirtboy]

So first the author says this:

"We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency - not criminality or terrorism - and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

And then he says this:

The paper says Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam

Just what we need - an intelligence analyst who can't make up his mind.

The fact that the authorities allowed the book's publication

Memo to the nitwits at the Guardian: The president of the United States does not have the power of censorship that your government has. Please try to do a bit of research before issuing pap such as this.

[thoughtomator]

Anonymous? Why bother? Why not just put "Ted Kennedy" and give credit where it is due?

[Numbers Guy]

Lots has happened since the Church Committee emasculated the CIA in the mid 1970's.

The post-Church CIA was wrong about the USSR's collapse.

The post-Church CIA long argued for "stability" over democracy in Latin America, the Arab world, and the USSR. This was particularly true in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In fact, the CIA tried to embarrass anti-Communists in the USSR and Eastern Europe, preferring the "stability" of Gorbachev.

The geniuses at the CIA did little to stop bin Laden prior to 9/11.

I don't think any serious person would take the advice of a CIA individual, particularly a CIA individual too gutless to step forward and speak out publicly.

It's akin to taking advice on how to build an NBA champion from the owner of the Clippers.

[CaptainK]

"The New York Times, which has obtained a copy of the book, says the author is a senior Central Intelligence Agency officer, who led a special unit to track Osama Bin Laden and his associates"

And what a fine job he did.

[45Auto]

In a truly "all out" confrontation with Islam, the result would be very brutal, very costly, but very predictable.

[Russ]

If we are losing the fight it's mainly because we are losing the will to fight. Thank the leftist media for that.

[KJacob]

"The author, identified as Anonymous"


Didn't he write Primary Colors?

[hermgem]

There are opposite versions available of what would happen should another attack be launched against the U.S. prior to the elections.
One version has it that we would react exactly as Spaniards did, namely putting the left in charge and then run away.
This second version has it that Bush would be strengthened by an attack and defend the U.S even more.
Conclusion: This second version is a preemptive strike by a U.S. liberal to pre-prepare the electorate for an eventual attack.
Should anything take place it's to Bush's advantage and therefore Bush's machination. Consequently take such advantage into account when stepping into the voting booth and vote against Bush as otherwise he would be a winner by an attack on the U.S.

[Wyatt's Torch]

That is exactly the fdirection this is heading. My fear is that we don't have the stomach to fight that (holy) war.

[tefis]

Anonymous? Of course...it's another cowardly thug hiding behind a mask while attempting to sway public opinion and lessen America's resolve in fighting the war on terror. Just like the masked men who beheaded Berg/ Johnson/ Song-il.

[richardtavor]

I actually agree with a lot of this. Bush has painted himself into a corner by saying that it is not a battle against Islam, but just radical Islam. By mis- identifying the enemy, he really doesn't know who the enemy is. He will never get to the head by cutting off the fingers of Al Queda. Thefore, he is correct in the sense that that is where Bin Laden wanted it all along--a battle against the West versus Islam, or the so called 3rd Caliphate. 1st was the eventual destruction of the power of Roman Empire (achieved in 1126 a.d.) 2nd, the Turkish Ottoman Empire 1500's to 1900's total destruction of all of the remaining elements of the Roman Empire, and the 3rd, final destruction of the entire non-moslem world..Did Bush make a mistake? Most assuredly, but the same mistake that 99.99% of non-Muslims make--surely they can't all feel that way. Non radical muslims have the same desires as the Wahabi's, just not the same guts to do it. When is the last time that you saw or read where one muslim said he thought terrorism was wrong (and meant it, without personal gain.) I am a staunch supporter of the President, but on this issue has been blindsided, and still doesn't truly understand what he is up against.

[BushisTheMan]

Anonymous? Probably Bill or Hillary wrote it.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The fact that the authorities allowed the book's publication could reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken . . . "

What absolute idiocy, yet liberals always tell me what high standards the BBC has, how it is so superior to the "corporate media" in America. I was at Barnes & Noble last week and in the "current events" section there were at least 50 books that were anti-Bush, anti-(Iraq)war, or anti-Republican. (Laughably, one of the books claimed that the Bush administration is censoring criticism and dissent.) Criticism of Bush and the war are rampant in the media, but these pimple-assed liberals keep saying that the press is giving Bush "a free-pass" and that Bush has somehow stifled dissent.