Some Say Bush Made Terror Worse (Are Democrats Politicizing The Leaked Intelligence?

ABC News ^ | Sept. 25, 2006 | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

As President Bush comes off a series of speeches designed to reassure the American people, a classifiesd report from the nation's 16 spy agencies tells a different story.

According to an estimate from the National Intelligence Council, the war in Iraq is making the threat of terrorism worse.

America is less safe today than it was after Sept. 11, 2001, because the conflict is creating more extremists...

The White House says the leaked portions of the report are incomplete and out of context.

One of the aides emphasized that they believed taking the fight to the terrorists was, in their words, the best way to win...

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Yeah, Democrats, and cutting-and-running from Iraq would create less terrorists?

Oh, and the first WTC attack didn't happen, and neither did the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, etc, etc - all before Bush came into office.

BTW, The portions of the leaked intel were leaked to the usual liberal suspects - the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It seems to me that Democrats are just politicizing the leaked intelligence.

Democrats say Republicans politicize 9/11. Looks like Democrats are politicizing the leaked intelligence.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Are Democrats politicizing the leaked intelligence?

[onyx]

Fighting terrorism recruits terrorists.

This is one sentence in a nine page document.

Release the document.

[phoenix0468]

Are Democrats Politicizing The Leaked Intelligence?

This is a question only one man can answer. We call on the help of ----

[MizSterious]

And I've even heard it suggested that Clinton "had no way of knowing" bin Laden was behind the Cole and the first WTC bombing. So which is it: is he lying through his teeth, or so utterly clueless that there's no way he should ever have occupied that office? (I would choose all of the above, but that's just me...)

[petercooper]

bttt

[T Lady]

Yeah, Democrats, and cutting-and-running from Iraq would create less terrorists?
Oh, and the first WTC attack didn't happen, and neither did the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, etc, etc - all before Bush came into office.

BTW, The portions of the leaked intel were leaked to the usual liberal suspects - the New York Times and the Washington Post.


*PING*

...Isn't it just wonderful how Democrats conveniently brush over these rather obvious and stubborn facts?

May the circulation of the Slimes and Compost continue to diminish to the point when they literally begin bribing people to read their trash.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Democrats accuse the Bush Administration of hyping the pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq.

Are Democrats now doing what they accuse the Bush Administration of - engaging in a some hyping of their own by hyping this leaked intelligence?

[martywake]

Ironically, the Demo-commie-rats, the ones supposedly respectful of other cultures, are totally ignorant abut the culture of the middle east, and current history, or everything else for that matter.

We have been at war with Hadji for many years now, we just didn't know it. They really need no reason to attack us and will continue to do so until they are stopped.

Bush may not have the right plan (although I think that he does) but at least he is doing something. If the RATS were still in charge, we would be sending these guys Christmas cards and still be trying to figure out why they hate us.

[MikeA]

The divisiveness and angry rhetoric of Democratic partisans and left wing extremists does more to fuel and embolden terrorists than anything we've done or are doing in Iraq.

[Laverne]

Yup; they are working against the US in this WOT, and they know it and they don't care.

[Michael.SF.]

America is less safe today than it was after Sept. 11, 2001, because the conflict is creating more extremists...

I am not certain that "more extremists" equates to making us 'less safe'.

Does more but less competent people make us less safe?

I don't think so.

When we take into consideration the disruptions of their cash flow, training capabilities, deaths and/or captures of leaders and key members and the fact the the world over is much more aware of their various modus operandi, could we not say that despite the possibility that new recruits have come forward, that we are in fact safer?

[NutCrackerBoy]

MSM eagerly running with this meme. It's just about all the Democrats have to counter the Republican dominance in national security -- it does have some political potency and the MSM has tremendous power to further it. Since it wants to help Democrats, expect it is here to stay through the elections.

Here's my answer: When the West acts forcefully against terrorism and terror states like Iraq, there is going to be a response. When you attack snakes, they fight back harder than they were when you weren't attacking them. That's not an argument for appeasing snakes. Keep killing them and they will weaken.

[andy58-in-nh]

[AFreeBird]

Are Democrats politicizing the leaked intelligence?

The Dems would politicize anything and everything, no matter what, if it would score them points and win votes.

No subject is taboo, and gentility decorum - national security - are of no consideration.

They're scum!

[bert]

All this disinformation assumes the 9/11 event was the last planned event and that the elimination of Saddam changed the terrorist plans. It assumes the terrorists were some how turned from a passive to active state.

That is a dangerous and untenable position to take. It is an argument of a weak and totally ineffective Rat leadership.

[Treader]

Yes, they leaked one sentence- regardless of the costs. When will the upside for these miscreants end?

[onyx]

That's a GOOD question.
My guess: never.
MSM are on their side.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Two things have kept the United States free of terror attacks since 9-11. The first is Afghanistan, and the second is Iraq.

[slowhand520]

That play book is sure getting old. Right before an election a "devastating" leak or memo. It didn't work with Rather's forged documents, it didn't work with NY times report on the ammunition dump left unguarded in Iraq, it didn't work with the whole Plame, Niger, 16 words kerfuffle and it won't work with this either.