White House: New Iraq NIE Won’t Be Released Until After Elections
White House: New Iraq NIE Won’t Be Released Until After Elections
Yesterday, Jane Harman revealed the existence of a second National Intelligence Estimate, focusing exclusively on Iraq. TPM Muckraker reports:
At an event this morning, Harman disclosed the existence of a classified intelligence community report that gives a grim assessment of the situation in Iraq, and called for it to be shared with the American public — before the November elections.
…Dr. Lawrence Korb, a former senior Defense Department official now with the liberal-progressive Center for American Progress, hasn’t seen the report but has discussed it with those who have. “It’s a very bleak picture of what’s going on in Iraq,” he said.
In a conference call with reporters last night, White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend acknowledged the existence of the report, but said it wouldn’t be available until January 2007:
My understanding is the planned release date, given the work that must be done to have it be comprehensive and complete, is January of ‘07. But I will tell you, that’s still quicker than most NIEs get done. The timing has got nothing to do with the election.
Very convenient.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If it turns out anything like Pat Roberts 2nd phase of the 911 commission reports we are still waiting for likely the planet will burn up and then freeze before that happens.
Wake up folks, this government doesn’t plan on doing anything that in some way does not benefit those at the top and hurts those at the bottom.
Katrina should have been enough of a flag for you to get it. They mean business and you are just in the way.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:44 amAnybody with eyes, ears and a modicum of common sense knows that with hundreds being killed weekly…
…things aren’t going swimmingly in Iraq…
…the ONLY people who need an NIE to tell them that…
…are the die hard 30%’ers…
…who would worship the criminal Bushite junta no matter what…
…and believe everything the treasonous, war profiteering, mass murdering liars-Cheney and Bushiva- say anyway…
…so the Bushites can hide that NIE ’til hell freezes over, they’ll need fur coats anyway…
September 27th, 2006 at 9:50 amIt’s in the interest of all Americans for the government to withhold documents before an election that would reveal how incompetent and dishonest they are, and might cause you to want to replace them. It’s for your own good, and if you criticize your government or demand that they release those documents, then you hate America and want the terrorists to win.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:53 amMy coment to…”The timing has nothing to do with the election”….Bull shit….Timing is everything with these evil war mongers……Blessings, we realy need them now.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:53 amCommence eye-rolling in 3… 2…
September 27th, 2006 at 9:59 amSo the national intelligence estimate is . . . we’re incredibly stupid.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:08 amdeja vu
‘They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom’
September 27th, 2006 at 10:13 amhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/1129freedom.htm
The Republican and Bush line on the NIE that was released is that it supports their claims and that Iraq is central and must be won for America to be safe. They insist that the part about Iraq being the “cause celebre” for terrorism is taken out of context and misleading.
The Republicans and the media and the Bush admis all know the people mainly prefer to be ignorant. They won’t bother to read these reports anyway. So personally, I have doubts these things will influence any election.
I could be wrong, but if the media is still supporting the “we are safer thanks to the Iraq war” line, despite what the NIE says, then I doubt this second version will make much impact on what we are sold.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:15 amI agree #6. Things are very very bad now. Americans that cannot wake up at this point are dysfunctional and incredibly stupid. But the fact that those who can think, and are fair, have let this happen to our country doesn’t speak too well for them either. It’s just crushingly depressing. America as envisioned by superior moral men, the founding fathers…….is gone.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:16 amIncompetent and dishonest, these are words that Bush has heard since he was a child and expressed mainly from his mother. Her distain for him then is now being brought into our world. What a terrible thing Barbara Bush has done to the world as she lives “high and mighty” seaside villa. Now the whole world is saying the same thing of him “Incompetent and Dishonest.”
Bush has already bankrupt several businesses and he is doing the same to our country. What an amazing jerk!
September 27th, 2006 at 10:28 amLeak it !!! However, I’m pretty sure the elections are decided. If people are still wondering if they should elect a Republican or anyone who supports GWB then nothing is going to change thier minds. GWB could come out of the closet and admit he went to war with the wrong country and the “trick the stupid” crowd would still support him along with the idiots that go along with GWB’s warp view of reality. So it wouldn’t change a thing if a new NIE came out. Must can already figure out GWB has created a giant mess.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:29 amMy coment to…â€The timing has nothing to do with the electionâ€â€¦.Bull shit….Timing is everything with these evil war mongers……Blessings, we realy need them now.
Comment by Sharon Cox
Great minds….
Good morning, Sharon. Really, if the timing has nothing to do with the election, why bring it up? The tide is turning. Now if we can only get the Dems to pull their heads out…
I think that cedar you have needs a hug from Zooey. And the pup needs a scratch on the ears.
Have a great day!
September 27th, 2006 at 10:30 amWhat are you people worried about? We have montenegro on our side!
http://icestationtango.blogspot.com/2006/09/rummy-reels-in-powerful-new-ally-in.html
September 27th, 2006 at 10:33 amYah, let’s give the American public half of the truth (like always) so we can get their votes and then we can screw them to the wall (as usual)
September 27th, 2006 at 10:36 amFran Townsend: “The timing has got nothing to do with the election.” – - Townsend earns extra income in her spare time selling ice to Eskimos.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:45 amNIE’s DO take months to complete; it isn’t something that’s done overnight.
And why the hell should it be released anyway? An NIE is an intelligence tool; *not* something that should be released to the general public.
I’ve got an idea; why not do away with the intelligence services completely? Let’s just rely on NYT and WAPO for all of our intelligence.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:53 am“I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?”
–George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
September 27th, 2006 at 10:53 am[...] As for the rest of the NIE, it won’t be declassified until 2007, after the mid-term elections. My understanding is the planned release date, given the work that must be done to have it be comprehensive and complete, is January of ‘07. But I will tell you, that’s still quicker than most NIEs get done. The timing has got nothing to do with the election. [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 10:57 amyeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhhttttt. Nothing to do with the elections, of course. Lies, lies and more lies. Than excuses. Then whining. But never, never the truth. If GWBushit is going to heaven than jesus is a liar.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:59 amGood Morning to you Zooey, hug’s and scratches are done…..I’m going to truck all over town and do errand’s, spread the bumper sticker new’s and incite the right to riot..LOL…..”Diffrent war, same shit” is another one on the top of the tail gate winner’s and “I’ll hug you’re elephant if you kiss my ass” is an old stand by…..Blessings All
September 27th, 2006 at 11:01 am“The timing has got nothing to do with the election.”?
Riiiiiiiiigggggggtttttt….
“We don’t play politics”
September 27th, 2006 at 11:06 amThing is, it shouldn’t take declassifying an NIE to get through to the American public how bad things are in Iraq. Do we really not have enough information to reach this conclusion yet? (excluding those on the right who cling to fictions for lack of intellectual and moral honesty)
Or is it our elected officials who are having more trouble getting it? Maybe that’s why an NIE is so important, it’s something they institutionally are supposed to respond to. Even some Republicans are starting to come around- maybe it’s a question of what creates the tipping point. I don’t know if the NIE is it, but it couldn’t come soon enough.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:11 amCheck out the house Dem’s screaming for us right now…..They are kicking ass in our behalf on C-Span all issues…..Blessings
September 27th, 2006 at 11:12 am#19 and #21. Does it mean anything to you that publicly releasing an NIE could very well get American citizens killed? I’m not talking just about soldiers, but the intelligence offices who gathered and processed this information. Releasing an NIE can expose our methods and procedures for gathering intelligence. And if you know those methods and procedures, it becomes easier to pinpoint the persons executing them.
Does this mean anything to you?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:18 amAnd why the hell should it be released anyway? An NIE is an intelligence tool; *not* something that should be released to the general public.
Simple – because BushCo has been cooking up his own receipe with the intelligence and trying to feed his false information to the American public while they get fat on war profiteering. Plus, they all work for us, not the other way around! Democracy requires transparency, truth, and an honestly informed electorate.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am#25
Your “BushCo” are not the only ones with access to the NIE’s; the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committee (a bi-partisan committee) has access to the same reports.
Nice sentiment, but not practical in the real world. Not all intelligence gained can be disseminated to the public; otherwise your giving your enemy an advantage. Should we have let the Germans know that we were going to land at Normandy? Should we have told them we cracked their Enigma code? Should we have let the Japanese know that we cracked their codes? Please PLC, answer these questions and don’t ignore them. And if the answer is No, then tell me what the difference is.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:30 am24
September 27th, 2006 at 11:31 amSo, redact very sensitive material, gives the American people the summaries of the TRUTH. I am a psychologist who gathers information about clients through evaluations and I don’t reveal the specific responses of the test items when I make a report, in order to protect the test. Our government can do something similar with intelligence information and still keep the American public HONESTLY informed. Or, doesn’t this mean anything to you?
If Fran says it, there’s a pretty good chance it’s bullshit. But that doesn’t matter, you know, because “she’s a hottie”.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:34 am#27
And do you have the report ready for your clients as soon as your done? Or does it take time. Do you make assumptions about your clients without any basis in fact? Or do you gather the facts, and include in your report ONLY those items that you can verify.
In 25 you made a number of popular talking points:
“BushCo has been cooking up his own receipe with the intelligence”
“trying to feed his false information to the American public”
“while they get fat on war profiteering”
You wouldn’t happen to have any facts to back up those statements would you? Or are you content with just parroting popular statements and basing your opinions on those?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am26
September 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amSee 27. Of course, those operational tactics should not have been revealed! But that’s a typical apologist’s strawman argument. I could just as easily have asked whether the U.S. public should have been informed that Pearl Harbor was bombed, the WWII fighting forces were in need of particular supplies (like rubber, gas) so Americans need to sacrifice and restrict their consumption of those supplies, that Hitler was pounding London with bombs, that there were concentration camps run by the Nazis, and so on. Americans required information about the status of foreign relations and about the war effort in order to respond intelligently and in a united fashion. That need has not changed. Besides, do you think the terrorist don’t know much of the information in the NIE report? Shouldn’t the American public know at least as much?
Where I grew up in northern Wisconsin, an obvious lie like this is usually accompanied with the phrase “what a crock of shit.”
September 27th, 2006 at 11:56 am#30
PLC, you’re right, after re-reading my former post those arguments were pretty nonsensical.
However, no, I don’t think that NIE’s should automatically be released to the public, even with redacting. And that is what you’re proposing. The argument “the terrorist don’t know much of the information” doesn’t hold water. As it turns out, the first NIE was more of an analytical document rather than a true intelligence doc. However, depending on the specific doc, it *could* show the terrorists how much we know of their cell structures, etc. Knowing that could cause them to change the structures, making things more difficult for us.
One point not mentioned in these comments is that of the leakers… whether any given NIE should or should not be released, the person(s) who leaked portions of *this* particular NIE should be prosecuted… it’s certainly not *their* decision to declassify the NIE.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amIt got delayed … Dubya needed his vacations.
Cheers,
September 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amin any event, PLC, I must run. Thanks for the intelligent discourse. Much more enjoyable than the usual name-calling and venom-spouting there usually is (from both the right and the left).
September 27th, 2006 at 11:58 amNo one here seems to have actually critically read the NEI report (here). Except for Rosencratz, who at least appears to have scanned (without reading glasses, I fear) comments from people who actually read the report.
The NEI report is quite clear in saying to win the War on Terrorism, we must win the War in Iraq.
In a nutshell, vis a vis Iraq, jihadists are exploiting already existing volatile demographic situation in post-Saddam Iraq to champion their own cause and establish a base of operations in Iraq. Winning the War in Iraq, shutting down and defeating the terrorists in Iraq, (as opposed to “declaring” victory and withdrawing) is the only real effective solution to defeat terrorists, IF that is our goal. Iraq is not a distraction on the War on Terrorism, it is the Main Event. Increased vigilance, not flag-waving surrenders to the difficulty of the task nor domestic political opportunism, is what is being called for.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:59 am#16 Dale:
And why the hell should it be released anyway? An NIE is an intelligence tool; *not* something that should be released to the general public.
“Siddown and shaddup. We’ll do your thinking for you.”
May I point out that this is what got us 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and bin Laden still on the loose (not to mention a country whose military is almost completely trashed and overextended, a national debt totally out of control, and not a whit safer — or richer — than 2000)?
Cheers,
September 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#24 Dale:
#19 and #21. Does it mean anything to you that publicly releasing an NIE could very well get American citizens killed?
Typo. Let me fix that: “Does it mean anything to you that publicly outing a CIA NOC working on nuclear nonproliferation could very well get American citizens killed?”
Much better. No need to thank me.
Cheers,
September 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#26 #29
Dale
#1 This report does not reveal any planned offensives against any insurgents.
#2 The “method and procedure” used to put together the info in this report was objective observation and communicating with the boots on the ground, their commanders and the locals. If you think someone had to go “deep undercover” to put this info together – you are a bit naive. And I say that without any “belligerence” – I am not trying to pick a fight with you.
#3 These assessments have been available to the public since 2003.
I will leave it to you to find the conclusions of the U.S. Army War College’s Feb. 2003 assessment.
There are other sources as well. But GW’s admin opted not to discuss them.
#4 I admire your reverence for keeping intelligence close to the vest – but this is not the type of intelligence you are worried about.
Unless you saw something that I didn’t see that outlined planned or proposed operational strategies or offensives – this is no more than saying a baseball pitcher has a good “cut fastball” and will throw it when he is “behind in the count” ( close to “walking” the batter for non-baseball fans ). Well, the pitcher already knows this. And he assumes you know this. It is the batter that needs the education.
#5 Given your reverence for intelligence – you have to reconcile yourself with the fact that there is evidence that key parts of the NIE report prepeared prior to the Iraq invasion were either ignored or not read.
If that one had been leaked prior to the war – more questions would have been asked prior to the invasion.
If your angst is tied to your reverence for intelligence – that should piss you off.
If your agnst is about how abuse of intelligence can get soldiers killed – that should piss you off.
If, however, your angst is simply about Bush getting a hard time about this because his words contradict the report – that’s another thing.
Ideally, the administration should seriously consider the info in these reports and incorporate them into the decision making process – as opposed to “ash canning” or ignoring the parts they don’t like. This would eliminate the motivation for leaking. People would be like “well, we already know that – we can tell that this was part of the administration’s though process …”
When the report says one thing and the prez says another … well – the motivation to leak is created.
Apparently someone else in the NIE chain feels the same way and wants to make sure the stuff sees the light of day via the media this time – since GW has been “very reliable” when it comes to stuff like this.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pmAll you gotta ask yourself is:
If the NIE was favorable to Pres. Bush, how quickly do you think he’d release it?
It’s ALL about politics. If you don’t believe that, you’re not paying attention.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pmWe wouldn’t NEED a frickin’ NIE if we could trust this administration to tell us the truth. But we know they won’t level with us ever, about anything.
These documents aren’t kept secret for national security reasons (we’ve already seen that national security means nothing to them except a campaign issue). They’re kept secret because what they contain is embarrassing for these incompetents.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pmIsn’t interesting how there is always a “troll of the day”? The same progressives show up here regularly under the same names. There are a few determined Bush lovers, too, like Exley, Hendler, Mighty
September 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pmA, Chase etc. Though I harshly criticize what these regular right wingers write, at least I think they are authentic in the sense that they are posting a consistent ideological line (confused and misguided though it be). But I am talking about trolls showing up out of nowhere, just for a day, under an identity I haven’t seen here before. These trolls don’t just post a few things during breaks at their work. Instead they get onto a few threads and release a relentless barrage of pure RNC/Karl Rove/Fox News talking points, taking on all comers, repeating the blatant lies over and over. Straw man arguments, false dichotomies, and projection are their stock in trade. Last night it was Piper and Greg G Dawg. Now we have Dale doing the same thing today. The content of their posts inevitably adds up to saying that anyone who doesn’t blindly back Bush is a traitor and is getting Americans killed.
The new NIE needs precise definition only for operational concerns. The basic situation and likely policies will be known within days of starting the study. No amount of lipstick on this pig will make it pretty, which is all that Fran Townsend and his ilk are concerned with.
What they have available now could be released to the public for their evaluation on how the nation should proceed. We don’t need the details – we need an good description of current situation and broad outlines of policies, without the minutiae of subalternatives. Dubya and the posse need to produce that document today, not the day before the election and certainly not three months after the election.
They work for us. We need that information to make a judgement on how our contract with them is going and whether it should be extended. Either produce the document or find your writ terminated. It’s that simple and that’s what they should be told at every turn.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#35
Jay Cline
If you are interested in “critical reading” on this matter – your reading needs to start with things published in 2003.
Start with the conclusions reached by the U.S. Army War College – February of 2003
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf
And then google
“Preparing for War, Stumbling to Peace – U.S. is Paying the Price for Missteps Made on Iraq”
Published on Friday, July 18, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times – by Mark Fineman, Robin Wright and Doyle McManus
It is archived on many progressive sites. If you are really partisan and don’t want to visit such sites – you can wrestle with the LA Times archive search engine.
As I wrote to Dale – the NIE included input from locals. There was input from people born and raised in Iraq and tormented by Saddam prior to the invasion.
The input was ignored.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/resistance_2-25.html
Less than a year into the invasion – the US Army War College issued an unflattering assessment of the Bush admin. decision to fight terror via invading Iraq.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207
Here is a summary:
The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration’s postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism–as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda–lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.
This current NIE is just an extension of a torrent of advice that warned against this misadventure. You are focusing Powell’s “well we broke the egg – so let’s try to make an omelette” aspect of the report. This is a minor point, however, if you are really reading “critically.” Powell also said, prior to this misadventure, “if you break it- you own it.” In other words – it would be wise not to break it. All of the 2003 assessments said the same thing.
Keeping with Powell’s egg and omelettes analogy -
The current NIE is saying – “This is really busted. But since we are here (against all good advice) maybe, somehow, we can get an omlette out of this. If we can do that – it would be a really good thing. ”
You seem to be inferring that the report says “this is a really great way to make an omelette.”
That is “critically” disingenuous – Jay.
In their own words:
Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
and
Al-Qa’da, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
That situation in Iraq is the situation that many in 2003 told this administration not to create. This is pretty clear, if you are reading “critically”
September 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pmJay Cline #35
If the U.S. military and corporate special interests were NOT occupying portions of the Middle East…
…would there be terrorism?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#41
Real Scientist.
Maybe “Dale” is really Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
:-)
Check out the latest post by Amanda (2:00 pm EST)
Seriously, I have noticed what you have observed about these “one or two time posters” as well.
Strange.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pmYou want the fascists in charge to actually cough up the evidence that shows them to be negligent and criminal? The fact they won’t release it should be enough to vote them out of office.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pmTriumph,
Please do not put words in my mouth. If you wish to make an “omelet” metaphor, please do so. But, take ownership. I am not making that argument. You are.
It was broke before we took out Saddam. If you look closely (ie critically) you will note that I am quite clear in my assertion that the “jihadists are exploiting (an) already existing volatile demographic situation”, as is the NIE. The conclusion, “it would be wise not to break it”, is a logical consequence of your premise, not mine.
Again, from my own words, the situation is that the sectarianism that plagues Iraq was there all along. Taking out Saddam lifted the brutal thumb that kept that pot from boiling over. Are you suggesting that we should just have ignored Saddam? If so, I would certainly agree we could have, possibly, just maybe, kept Saddam under our thumb sufficiently to deny Iraq as an alternate home for al-Qaeda after they lost Afghanistan.
Maybe.
More likely, they would have just hidden under another rock, called Iraq, just as Abu Nidal of the 1980s did, until just before we went into Iraq. Just as the Taliban and al-Qaeda are now hiding in the Northwest Territories of Pakistan.
Denying the enemy a rear echelon is a tried and true military strategy that goes back thousands of years. How is that not strategic clarity?
In the NIE’s own words,
Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
and
Al-Qa’da, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
Exactly.
Please explain to this “troll” how a policy of withdrawal and retreat is an effective anti-terrorist policy. How will that extricate al-Qaeda from Iraq?
They are there. Now. So are we.
Where would you like to fight them?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pmIt may not be published, but there’s great chance that it will be leaked, at least partially.
I wouldn’t be surprise if we would learn (in 20 years) that leaks had actually come from the defense administration itself. Both the “intelligence community” and the armed forces are obviously starting to be quite upset at the way this administration has manipulated them and/or sent them to be butchered
Partial, selective and timed leak seems the most likely, with only the ‘meaty’ pieces, not the real ’secret’ part. Deep Throat anyone ?
September 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 4:54 pmWhere are you Daniel Ellsberg? Your country needs you.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pm[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 5:37 pmIf we allow the Federal Criminal System to continue to play games with not allowing the Public to learn the truth, we need to then take action!
I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Organized Crime, but this wasn’t any ordinary Crime System. They are linked to the Federal Corruption Scandals we’ve been reading about in the news as well as many other crimes that haven’t yet surfaced. They work differently than other crime systems in that they depend upon corruption as one of their means of stealing. Corruption only works when we spend our tax money and wars present a great way to support corruption. If you look closely at how the Iraq war went, starting from how it started and to where it is now, you’ll see waist and mismanagement and lost money leaving the Iraqi people at a great loss. This isn’t by accident! This is by design!
Wait till you learn where your tax dollars ended up! Wait till you learn how they police their criminal empire and deal with threatening people! Wait till you learn who else is involved! The corruption you’ve been reading about is only the tip of a very huge iceberg that has yet to surface. If you feel angry now, wait till later when the rest of this comes out.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:28 pmLook, Anyone who is worried about sources and methods being divulged is kidding themselves. I think the organized terrorists know more about the methods than Americans do. Its like thinking the Times commited treason by telling them we were following the money. GWB said it in a speach in ‘01. They know we are after the money.
This report is for consumers of intelligence. It is about what we know, not how we figured it out. GWB is not even interested in what we know, he would never read anything long enough to tell how we know it.
A week ago Cheney said he hadn’t seen it on meet the press. It’s been out since april. I feel so safe. Iv’e got republicans loking out for me. I feel just like an oil company.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:28 pm#47
First of all, Jay, I did not call you a “troll.”
The lead off sentence of your #35 post was a bit snide and condescending – so you got a little of that back.
But you were not called a “troll.”
If you want to get into that type of fight – we can get get into that type of fight. But it will be your call and your decision to set it off.
Okay – enough of that. On to your #47 post:
Are you suggesting that we should just have ignored Saddam?
I would change your word “ignore” to contain
Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=paper&item_id=361
Alternatively – even key Iraqi’s who were part of the anti-Saddam crowd advised the U.S. not to remove Saddam in the way they planned to. I am assuming that you read the comments made by Ayatollah Bakr al Hakim via the link in the previous post:
—————————-
(from Feb. 2003)
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH (of PBS):
What is your view of what you’ve heard about the Bush administration plans for a post-invasion Iraq?
AYATOLLAH MUHAMMAD BAKR AL HAKIM (Translated):
I’ve heard that the Americans want to occupy Iraq and impose a military governor to administer and run affairs inside Iraq as they like, without getting the opinions of the Iraqi people or having the opinions of the political forces inside Iraq. This is very dangerous.
Still, I believe we do have issues in common with the Americans. The first is democracy, because we believe that democracy should be established in Iraq. The second is fighting terrorism, because we also have suffered from terrorism, and we believe that Iraq should be a safe country. The third is weapons of mass destruction. We also want to disarm the Iraqi regime because it used these arms against the Iraqi people and against the people — of the region.
But there are other very dangerous subjects. The United States is taking an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim position. And this, in fact, creates very sensitive feelings against the United States.
The U.S. is thinking of dominating and occupying Iraq, which will create nationalist and religious sensitivities inside Iraq, and this will lead to violence and bad consequences for the Iraqis and the Americans. And these subjects need to be discussed to reach a mutual understanding about them.
But unfortunately, the Americans, until now, do now allow such a thing to happen.
———–
You cannot say, Jay, that the turmoil in Iraq is just an increase in “the sectarianism that was there all along” because Saddam is gone. Bakr al Hakim correctly assessed what the the U.S. plan would be and the resulting impact as a result of that plan. Much of the choas is a direct result of how the US went about things.
His prescient view of how things would unfold should not be a shock – Bakr al Hakim is Iraqi and he understood the nation and the Iraqi people. In the interview – he says he wasn’t consulted by the administration. Despite having a 10,000 man militia under his command. How can you justify not talking to this guy?
???? !!!!
Regarding the Al Qaeda into Iraq thing.
With all due respect, you take great liberties. First – given that there was no urgent, imminent threat in Iraq brewing – we could have kept resources in Afghanistan and kept Al Qaeda in check. It was the big shift in resources to Iraq that eased their ability to go and hide. What if the resources that are currently in Afghanistan plus the resources are in Iraq were in Afghanistan? Do you really think Al qaeda could just waltz around and easily pick where to hide?
It is best to deny the enemy a rear echelon by putting lethal pressure on them when they are are retreating and are in a state of disarray. In the fall of 2001 – Al Qaeda was retreating and in a state of disarray. This is preferable to allowing them to regroup and then hoping that they decide to show up to fight somewhere in Iraq.
If you pull out of Afghanistan and wait for them to show up in Iraq – how do you effectively “deny the enemy a rear echelon” when some of them may opt not to go to Iraq. Like you mentioned – they may go elsewhere. Like Pakistan. Or almost anywhere in that region.
Your suggestion allows them to decide how effective that attempt to deny the rear echelon will be. Denying the enemy a rear echelon is a tried and true military strategy. Unfortunately – that’s not what happened by going into Iraq.
And who says that the Iraqi’s would be all that hospitable to Al Qaeda anyway? At the leadership level – much has been (finally) revealed that Saddam and Bin Ladin where not fond of each other.
Earlier this year – there where reports that Iraqi’s in Anbar were fighting against Al Qaeda. Maybe the Iraqi’s – like the Vietmanese – are not too fond of anyone trying to call the shots over them. This would be consistent with Hakim al Bakr’s assessment of the Iraqi’s.
They are there. Now. So are we. Where would you like to fight them?
First of all – who are they?
If you are saying that most of the violence in Iraq is caused by foreign insurgents – you are incorrect. In July of 2005 the Boston Globe quoted US military and intelligence officials saying that the foreign insurgents represented just 10% of the insurgents.
.
10%
So who are the other 90% – Jay? Maybe it is the people Bakr al Hakim spoke of. The Iraqi’s.
Sosome of them of there now. Where are the rest? The extremists in the U.K. who are charged with trying to bring down the 10 planes were not in Iraq. They were in London. The group that attempted to purchase the large amount of ammonium nitrate in Canada were not in Iraq. They were in Toronto. How are we going to fight them there when they aren’t em>there?
That is what is so important about this NIE report and the December 2003 US Army war College report. The notion that every f#cking terrorist will go to Iraq to so we can kill them is absurd.
Jay – I want America safe. And I feel that is what you want, too. But putting a bunch of US soldiers in the middle of a bunch of pissed off (or – as some would say – “unappreciative”) Iraqi’s is not making us safe.
I suspect that you voted for the current administration. Think like a coach. And apologies if you are not a football fan.
You have a quarterback who calls an audible and throws an interception that loses the game. And you know that any quarterback that had astutely listened to his coaches and really read his playbook and really studied the game films would never have called that audible. But your quarterback didn’t do his homework, ignores his coaches and tosses the ball away unnecessarily.
You can’t reward that type of behavior, Jay. You gotta be critical of a quarterback like that. In this case, the quarterback is not just one person – but the Bush administration. Bush’s audible has cost our team a lot of lives and billions of dollars.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pmI’d sure like to read it. But, really, does anyone NOT know that this “administration” has dropped the ball on EVERYTHING it has tried to do?
Are there any Americans left who can’t see that the (R)eptiles greed, ignorance, arrogance, and thirst for blood is ruining the country, it’s future, and it’s reputation?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:25 amThat’s not a new trick, they did the same with the 9/11-commission’s report.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:34 amTriumph,
First of all, I did not say you called me a troll. That was “self-inflicted” sarcasm. Don’t be so sensitive, so trivial, so anal.
Ok, enough of that.
Second, the increase in the amount of sectarianism, as you must admit I have already opined on, is the result of jihadists exploiting the situation in Iraq. As others have noted in the wake of this NIE “expose”, Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists, but a dumping ground.
Third, “who are they”??
The jihadists may in fact be only 10% of those fighting in Iraq, yet they are responsible for a far larger (nay, majority even) share of the violence than all of the militant Iraqis, and those foreign jihadists in Iraq have committed the most egregious violence specifically to foment the insurrection. The Iraqi Sunnis and Shia don’t want their country up in flames; they just disagree who should run it. They were close to an (American-brokered) understanding, until somebody started blowing up mosques and holy shrines. With Iranian explosives.
The presence of the US military has not inflamed the situation in Iraq; it has been the provocations of the foreign terrorists and their Iranian and al-Qaeda sponsors, as the NIE pointedly, well, points out.
Fourth, would Iraq have been as much a hospitable terrorist haven as Afghanistan was in providing a rear area to plan, train and provide logistic support? No. Never said that. Again, you infer your argument in my mouth.
Yet, Saddam had shown a willingness to work with, and host, Islamic militants when their purposes converged. To imply Iraqi support would have, could have, should have been worthless to jihadist operations flies in the face of common sense, and history. As I (again) have already indicated, Saddam was more than willing to provide succor and protection to the bin Laden of the 1980s, Abu Nidal. Saddam also hosted other terrorist organizations in his foreign policy against Iran.
That al-Qaeda is rebuilding their rear echelon in Pakistan is not surprising. After all, that is the home ground to their founding ideologists. After Afghanistan, they had Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, and Indonesia to fall back on. And Iraq. Oops. Not anymore, huh? Two down and counting. Anyone see Bush with Karzai and Musharraf recently? Wonder what they be talking ’bout? I bet al-Qaeda/Talibanis be wonderin’ too.
Fifth, in the past five years, how many major attacks have there been on American soil, or for that matter, against American-controlled assets throughout the world, excluding Iraq? None that come to mind.
How many in the five years preceding 9/11? Simultaneous US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 killing over 200; USS Cole in 2000 killing 17 sailors; a 1996 truck bomb in Dhahran, killing 19 serviceman and injuring hundreds others.
Oh, and let us not allow 9/11 to get lost as our point of inflection in history. How many? 3,000? So, how has the conduct of the War on Terror NOT been effective?
That the only two major terrorist attacks in the past five years that you could site have been on European soil is more indicative of European waffling with their own defense and preparedness, and lack of commitment to defeating terrorists in favor of procuring, well, favors with the sponsors of terrorism, Saddam and Iran, than it says anything about the effectiveness of America’s War on Terrorism.
Again, assuming we are talking about jihadists as the enemy, where would you like to fight them? Shall we just pick up and leave, and wait for them at our own shores?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:22 amJay Cline #35
So you say the war on terror can only be won if the war in Iraq is won. OK.. then WHY won’t the administration do what ALL the generals say… “SEND MORE TROOPS!”
It couldn’t be because there is an election coming, and the voters wouldn’t like it – could it?
The Reptiles are putting politics above the lives of our troops in Iraq. What a bunch of snakes.
Remember: Friends don’t let friends vote Reptilian
September 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pmNo Mo(R)e
#57
Jay ( & other readers following the exchange )
Responded to your post ( or at least I thought I did ) – but it didn’t take.
I’ll try again tomorrow.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:06 pmSending in more troops now would be like trying to chase a stock after it started to climb. The problem is the Sunnis and Shia don’t like each other, the problem is they have both invited vipers into their den (Sunnis-al-Qaeda, Shia-Iran), the problem is those vipers have agendas that don’t match what the Iraqis want.
Deal with the vipers; start playing hardball with Iraqi politics.
The Kurdish area to the north has been fairly calm; give ‘em what they want, an independent country. That’ll scare the pants of the Sunnis, fearful of being left out in the cold. If anyone can stop the Sunni insurrgency, and the cover it gives al-Qaeda, they can. They just haven’t been given a good incentive.
Musharraf’s “surrender” in the North Territories offers another opportunity. We haven’t been able to pursue al-Qaeda and the Taliban as they cross back into Pakistan after attacks for fear of engaging the Pakistani military and putting Musharraf between a rock and hard place, as if he isn’t there already. But he got kicked out, and the people in the Territories can’t blame Musharraf anymore if we start making incursions into the Territories.
Remember, this is a democracy. Friends let friends vote. Whether you agree with them or not.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:50 amThis is a test:
[A witness to Exley's dishonest smear, dlet issues a clarification - before Exley attempts to also twist his words]
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:45 am#9 was sarcastic. Just to be clear.
Do you mean to tell me that Saddam was actually a evil and murderous tyrant???? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Comment by Exley
First I don’t know who here liked Saddam or even shook hands with him. And as for the situation being worse now in Iraq than it was under ASaddam how do you think the Iraqi people like there freedom given to them by bushie. Think they have a good feeling towards the US yet. Its hard for me to take that someone as horrible as Saddam is a lesser evil to the Iraqis that the President of the US. Sad. Comment by dlet — September 22, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
[...] THIS seems odd. Wonder why they won’t release it till after the election. Admit you fucked up already so we can vote your collective asses out of office! [...]
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pmI guess you don’t remember what happened the last time someone leaked “confidential” information, huh? I’ll give you a clue. Plame.
No, that can’t be it. How dangerous could it really be to release classified information? Besides, isn’t it an axiom in conspiracy theories that everything that isn’t known must be true?
October 4th, 2006 at 11:40 amFeatured on BuzzTracker…
…
October 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm[...] The long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is still not complete, a National Intelligence Council official told senators last week. The official said the intel community has been too busy “dealing with the many demands placed upon it by the Bush Administration to help prepare the new military strategy on Iraq.” Senate hearing attendees “now believe that senior intelligence officials are stalling because an NIE will be bleak enough to present a significant political liability.” 11:01 am | Comment (0) [...]
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 amhere’s the gig:
1.) U.S. provokes Iran to retaliate against any number of air strikes, cruise missile attacks not published or known by the U.S., and ’sinks’ or
otherwise renders one or both aircraft carriers we have in the Persian Gulf ‘damaged or sinking’ with any number of anti-ship cruise missiles (silkworms).
2.) Bush crime cabal lies thru it’s teeth and declares, due to the Iranian
retaliation for missile and bomb strikes by the U.S. that he won’t tell us about, that “by my inherent powers invested in my be Alberto ‘V05′ Torquemada Gonzales, I am already nuking them into prehistoric times with our military” in a speech.
3.) Martial Law declaration by Bush to quell the unrest in U.S. cities due to the Congress and Senate having not stopped him from illegally attacking yet one more country that did not harm us till we provoked them or goaded them into it.
4.) world wide depression due to Persian Gulf oil not being able to make it out of the Straits of Hormuz.
5.) Bush, under attack by millions of pissed off Americans, demanding his head, flees to Paraguay, to the ranch the bobsey twins bought for him, the 100,000 acre ranch, bought with stolen Treasury money.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:34 am[...] Think Progress » White House: New Iraq NIE Won’t Be Released Until After Elections [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:33 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pmBusiness Plans For Pubs
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:24 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 amShae
Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment
March 26th, 2008 at 6:19 amCosta Rica Vacation Villa
Recently I took a trip to the Bahamas and used some of your advice. Cheers.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:14 pmRalph
Wow! This was a really enlightening article.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 2:25 am