Posted on 09/27/2006 10:26:19 AM PDT by LM_Guy
YOU WOULD think that a consensus report from all 16 U.S. intelligence services concluding that he has blown the "war on terror" would be a really big deal to the president. But that assumes that George W. Bush values intelligence.
Clearly, he does not. So the news that a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concludes the threat of terror against the United States has increased since 9/11, largely thanks to his irrational invasion of Iraq, has not disturbed Bush's branded "what, me worry'' countenance.
Instead, predictably, the administration's response to the leaked conclusions of the shared assessments of both civilian and military intelligence agencies was the same old historically ignorant claptrap that leaves U.S. policies completely out of the equation.
"Their hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins. "Those seeds were planted decades ago."
What seeds are those? It was "decades ago" that the CIA encouraged Muslim fanatics worldwide to go to Afghanistan to fight a holy war against a secular regime backed by the Russians. The end result of that engagement was -- after the Russian troop withdrawal and the consequent U.S. attention deficit -- a devolution into civil war, warlordism, and, eventually, the takeover of the country by Osama bin Laden's friends, the religiously extreme and oppressive Taliban. Seem familiar?
It should: The same deadly process has been taking place under Bush's watch in Iraq since our idiotic 2003 invasion.
If the Bush administration were serious about protecting us from terrorist attacks, it would end the ineffectual "war on terror" model and instead treat terrorism as a pathology that needs to be clinically and relentlessly excised. If terror groups such as al Qaeda are a cancer in the world's body politic, as the intelligence estimate suggests, then the goal should be....
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I think that "they" really believe that a guy named Akmed was deciding what he wanted to do with his life. He was thinking it was a toss up between goat herder and jihadist. But that DAMN Bush, by invading Iraq just pushed poor Akmed over the edge and pushed him into becoming a terrorist.
Scheer merde. The NIE says exactly the opposite of what this Cryptofascistmarxist says it says. Fool.
By the way, Scheer is the fool. LM Guy is a stand up Guy!
Robert Sneer, er, Scheer is a stooge of the internationalist America-hating left that still believes that North Korea and Cuba are the vanguard of the "revolution" -- these clowns long for Islamo-fascists to weaken the west enough so that the glorious left can sweep in and take over. Of course, they would be among the first to be rounded up and exterminated if the Islamo-fascists take over a country.
Nothing Scheer writes is actually aimed at strengthening US security, he just hopes that undermining the Bush administration will advance the agenda of the depraved and psychotic left.
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement, which includes al-Qaida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups and emerging networks and cells, is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
It is good news that al-Qa'ida is on the ropes. Their leadership is on the run, and scattered. Unfortunately, it appears that the hydra has more than one head.
-- Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
When you hear talk about the 'global jihad' as an organization, it's wrong. It's more like a constellation of like minded persons spread throughout the world. There's no way to tally them overall, since there's no 'global jihad' ID card or criteria for qualifying. They're considered part of the same threat only in that they have the potential and possibly inclination to turn violent for the same root causes.
-- If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Keeping tabs on that type of problem is a staggering task, from both a law enforcement and intelligence perspective. The 'good guys needed to track bad guys' ratio is huge, and will quickly outpace our available resources. This is already happening in the U.K.
-- Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim-majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qaida, could erode support for the jihadists.
Translation: All politics is local. The way to win the GWOT is to fix the problems, real or perceived, in the Mulsim communities. Those communities will then be far less inclined to incubate jihadist philosophy.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
The real threat of AQ inspired homegrown terrorists is that they come out of nowhere, but have access to expertise and tactics, via the internet, that let's them coalesce quickly and quietly. Intelligence agencies try to find pieces of certain puzzles, not new puzzles entirely. Law enforcement can deter crime, but it can't prevent it, so they're basically stuck in a reactive posture until they have good reason to believe a crime happened, or is about to.
-- We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the homeland.
Translation: The more practice we give them against our CT efforts, the more sophisticated they'll become, in an evolutionary "survival of the fittest" manner.
The reason that analogy fails is that it's a misnomer. We call it a global war on terror, but it's actually a global counterinsurgency. Comparing the GWOT to a conventional war is as apt as comparing it to golf. The metaphor only stretches so far.
Always amazes me that Americans, who blithely accept such grotesque levels of incompetence in their politicians, their "news media", their Government Agencies etc etc etc seem to think a War can be run efficiently and effortless.
Now the Democrats are trying to make arguments based on the OPINIONS of the various security services (the same ones that have been roundly castigated for not even getting basic FACTS correct, let alone predictions of the future).
I find it very odd that a paper of OPINION is being addressed as though it "PROVES" this or that. The NIE, in the part that's being debated, is nothing but an OPINION piece, and offers no proof other than the CONJECTURES of various analysts.
I cannot reconcile the Democrats' (once again strained) logic that the NIE proves anything. Democrats seem to have a problem confusing opinion and fact.
It's time that someone told the Democrats to take their retarded ideas and stop bothering the adults.
Didn't this commie get fired recently?
The context of the leak? I don't really care about political games, I care about the war on terror. If the Administration was serious about plugging leaks, they'd propose legislation to force reporters to reveal their classified sources. They don't run a tight ship, so they can deal with the leaks until such time as they care to plug them.
That's a problem, but the content of the report, read neutrally and in context, is the real problem. Despite who you care to blame for it, it's pretty grim stuff.
Always amazes me that Americans, who blithely accept such grotesque levels of incompetence in their politicians, their "news media", their Government Agencies etc etc etc seem to think a War can be run efficiently and effortless.
Speak for yourself. If I see things not going right, I'm going to point it out. I don't pay taxes or vote in order to blithely accept failure.
Me Too. Off with their heads!
"Didn't this commie get fired recently?"
Wow! You can fire these people? Cool
Has Sheer even read the full report? I understand it hasn't yet been released.
Everybody knows what drives recruitment among the Islamic savages: Signs of weakness from non-muslims.
Savage Islam is gaining popularity because:
1) Bush did not nuke anyone.
2) Bush refuses to bring the rules of engagement to a proper set - such as the rules used by the Allies in WWII
3) Bush goes out of his way to not kill civilians.
Muslims look at these actions (or inactions) and realize that they (the general muslim population) have nothing to fear from war with the US, since the US refuses to firebomb cities, kill families of terrorists, ...
Just like the population in Lebanon, which realized that Israel was not going after them - they understood that they had nothing to fear from war with Israel.
The general world muslim population feels the same way about the US - they do NOT fear being attacked by the US, and if they are, the civilians do not fear being targeted.
All of this weakness, and our refusal to bring MASSIVE PAIN to the CIVILIANS who support the terrorists, brings more poeple into the fold of savage, enemy-to-progress Islam.
No one needs any intelligence agency to understand this simple truth.
P.S. Bush's resistance to fighting this war with the appropriate rules of engagement is certainly a fault of his, but those to the left of Bush would be FAR, FAR worse.
McCain's notion of how war is fought would certainly doom the West, while the Democrats ideas of burying their heads in the sand would be even worse.
Bush's main problem is that he does not understand that giving gifts is a cultural-specific exercise (Bush gave Arabs the gift of Iraq - which they seem to be refusing).
While gift-giving may engender good will in the West, it does not have the same effect in the Muslim world. Israel's 60 years of giving gifts to Arabs, and being attacked for it, should have proven this to all people with IQ's north of 86.
Would those be the same intelligence services that assured the President that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction? (I see to recall the phrase "slam dunk" in this connection.)
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.