Posted on 09/24/2006 9:51:11 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The White House on Sunday sharply disagreed with a new U.S. intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq is encouraging global terrorism, as Bush administration officials stressed that anti-American fervor in the Muslim world began long before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Peter Watkins, a White House spokesman, declined to talk specifically about the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified analysis that represents a consensus perspective of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The highly classified report, delivered to policymakers in April, is the first of its kind since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003. In it, the agencies concluded that the war has only worsened the U.S. effort to defeat global terrorism. They said that the war is spreading radicalism from Iraq throughout the Middle East and that the longer it continues, the more likely it is that it will provide fresh training grounds for future terrorist plots.
But the White House view, according to Watkins, is that much of the radical fundamentalists' deep anger at the U.S. and Israel goes back generations and cannot be linked to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
He said the administration has sought in Iraq to root out hotbeds of terrorism before they grow. "Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back," Watkins said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I also hope that they are launching some serious investigation to find the leaker, who keeps leaking highly classified information to the media for clearly political reasons.
It's time to start some treason trials with the appropriate punishment of the guilty ones.
IN the meantime, Democrats are trying to politicize it:
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said in a statement that news reports about the intelligence estimate were “further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror.”
Her Senate Democratic counterpart, Harry Reid of Nevada, said that “no election-year White House P.R. campaign can hide this truth — it is crystal clear that America’s security demands we change course in Iraq.”
Study of Iraq War and Terror Stirs Strong Political Response
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/middleeast/25terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=0a9bfa250ffa107d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
"In a statement released Sunday, the White House said the characterization of the report in The New York Times “is not representative of the complete document.” The White House did not release any specifics about the report, citing the fact that it was classified. "
And it's time to frog march the scum editors of the New York Times out of their offices and into a federal lock-up for continuing to publish classified national security information.
The Philadelphia Inquirer puts this NYT story on the front page. If I'm not buying the NYT, why would I buy a paper with NYT stories?
So, the NYT is leaking classified doccuments again, coming from their mole.
Why is God's name isn't the whitehouse locking up so called "reporters" to find these sources? Why isn't the NYT editor locked up for printing them?
This B.S. has to stop. These are acts of treason.
The White House should stress that it is a Heads the terrorists win and tails, the U.S. looses, under the Democrat's leadership.
If we failed to take Saddam to task for all of his lies/obfuscation, Oil for Food (and Bribes and weapons), then the terrorists would be emboldened, just like after the U.S. cut and ran from Somalia (after the Blackhawk down fiasco in 1993.)
No matter what we do - there will be plenty of terrorist leaders who will recruit idiots to do thier bidding ... and the leaders will either cite our action - or lack of action as a rationale to attack Americans.
Ultimately, what comes out is that the Democrats are clearly in the surrender mode!
Mike
Experts See Lower Threat From al-Qaida ~ (So we must be doing good in Iraq....RIGHT?)
"If we failed to take Saddam to task for all of his lies/obfuscation, Oil for Food (and Bribes and weapons), then the terrorists would be emboldened, just like after the U.S. cut and ran from Somalia (after the Blackhawk down fiasco in 1993.)"
===
Exactly. Bin Laden mentioned that in his Declaration of War on the US in 1996:
"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
"...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..."
Well, guys, either the NYT is making things up again, or, yet another so-called 'official' is guilty of leaking classified data.
The NYT should have its' reporters and editors feet held to the fire, and I still wonder why it's not being done. They can't claim that they don't know the meaning of the word 'classified', so why not get the answers from them as to who the 'official' really is?
I keep hoping that the Bush Administration is selectively offering 'classified' tidbits to select individuals, to find out which ones make it to the NYT, thereby identifying the culprit.
Nah - too much to ask. Stay well.................FRegards
And you all might be interested in this, posted by stocktrader:
Democrats Plan Post-Election Change to Terrorist Alert Levels
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707669/posts
I agree we should go after both the government leaker and the NYT, they are all committing treason.
The Drive-By Media has no reason not to publish clasified information, because the Bush Justice Department has made it exceedingly clear that there is no penalty for doing so.
Yet anything we do which is effective in combatting Islamic radicalism, will "spread radicalism". Anything we do which is a victory will give radicals a "rallying cry". If we take an action which cannot be used as a "rallying cry" by radicals, that action probably didn't accomplish very much in the way of setting back Islamist goals, now did it?
My conclusion is that by this "logic", apparently the best way to win the terror war would be to surrender.
Either that or this whole idea that we measure how well we're doing by the #s the enemy is (supposedly) able to "recruit" is idiotic.
P.S. One more thing: even if "war in Iraq encourages terrorism", that is not a criticism of us, it is a criticism of the people actually waging war in Iraq. We are not the ones prolonging warfare in Iraq! So even if this report speaks the truth, it would be flawed logic to use it as a basis for removing the US military presence from Iraq. Removing the US military presence from Iraq would not end the war in Iraq.
"My conclusion is that by this "logic", apparently the best way to win the terror war would be to surrender."
===
You are absolutely right.
Then the terrorists would all come to the US and keep blowing us up, ntil we all convert to Islam and institute a TAliban style government.
That doesn't mean that the information leaked was wrong. The White House is clearly not denying it. They're just saying that it's been taken out of context.
Context is important. Unlike intelligence experts and people who study the terror problem, most Americans, and most FReepers, don't distinguish between terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. Nor do they distinguist between terrorists and insurgents. Most people think that terrorists are terrorists, and don't care to know more. So, when they hear things like what this report is saying, they extrapolate it too far.
In context, however, the leaked information is true. Our "crusader" presence in Iraq serves as a propaganda tool to recruit for jihad the world over, and is pushing Bin Laden's message into the mainstream. Several hundred suicide bombers have been recruited off of that message, and killed thousands for it. Those hundreds of guys were around before 2003, not blowing anything up. Iraq changed that, and gave them motivation to do so.
That said, fixing Iraq is a gamble that may solve our problems by transforming Arab politics, and cutting away support for al-Qa'ida where they need it most. Namely, the grass roots of 'status quo' modern Arab culture. It is a gamble, but the risks for doing nothing were also considerable. There's so many risks for anything that just throwing out a random jab like this is unfair to the overall debate we should be having.
It is logical, except that it only delays the inevitible. Arab and Islamic culture is dying. Western encroachment threatens to wipe out everything they believe in within the next two generations. Al-Qa'ida knows that. The Muslims that sit back and quietly cheer al-Qa'ida and other extremist groups knows that.
Our existance wears away at the purity of Islamic life. We cannot coexist. It's only news to us because we've been winning for so long, we haven't even noticed what we're wiping out until they starting flailing back.
Arab culture, while corrupt, vain, and ignorant, is sitting upon fantastic wealth. So long as that source of wealth remains, there will be rich Arabs willing to fund attacks against us, whether we do anything or not.
The War on Terror will not end until we stop using oil. That's the only thing enabling the repressive, backwards Islamic culture to keep pace with us. Once that final support is knocked out, they'll be vanquished as badly as they would be under a nuclear barrage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.