Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about articles (and speeches) based on inaccurate, exaggerated and blatantly falsified information?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

What about articles (and speeches) based on inaccurate, exaggerated and blatantly falsified information?

nice try though

[Heracles 417]

Well as I said its not new. And neither is the media publishing information that it considers to be in the public interest.

The difference seems to be that I actually read article, but I suppose you'll have a smart comeback for that too.

In essence, what is an article?

Keep in mind that the article represents the journalists opinion and most likely limited knowledge on the topic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well as I said its not new. And neither is the media publishing information that it considers to be in the public interest.

The difference seems to be that I actually read article, but I suppose you'll have a smart comeback for that too.

In essence, what is an article?

Keep in mind that the article represents the journalists opinion and most likely limited knowledge on the topic.

Which is why they often quote "experts"

[Marc and Olga 0]

What about articles (and speeches) based on inaccurate, exaggerated and blatantly falsified information?

nice try though

How about this little bit, PART of the NIE IS UNCLASSIFIED by the act that brought it into existance.

The National Intelligence Estimate is to be submitted to Congress in a classified form, except that, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, an unclassified summary of key judgments shall also be submitted.

source

In other words, Charles, the part being commented about and printed is most likely based on the UNCLASSIFIED portion of the NIE, unless the officials that were used for the article did not follow through on their end keeping the classified portion...classified.

EDIT: IF that is the case then it is not the NYTs fault, is it?

Edited September 25, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about articles (and speeches) based on inaccurate, exaggerated and blatantly falsified information?

nice try though

How about this little bit, PART of the NIE IS UNCLASSIFIED by the act that brought it into existance.

The National Intelligence Estimate is to be submitted to Congress in a classified form, except that, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, an unclassified summary of key judgments shall also be submitted.

source

In other words, Charles, the part being commented about and printed is most likely based on the UNCLASSIFIED portion of the NIE, unless the officials that were used for the article did not follow through on their end keeping the classified portion...classified.

EDIT: IF that is the case then it is not the NYTs fault, is it?

Doubtless. This is why there will be no charges filed. After all, most major newspapers DO have a legal team.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about this little bit, PART of the NIE IS UNCLASSIFIED by the act that brought it into existance.

The National Intelligence Estimate is to be submitted to Congress in a classified form, except that, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, an unclassified summary of key judgments shall also be submitted.

source

In other words, Charles, the part being commented about and printed is most likely based on the UNCLASSIFIED portion of the NIE, unless the officials that were used for the article did not follow through on their end keeping the classified portion...classified.

EDIT: IF that is the case then it is not the NYTs fault, is it?

Doubtless. This is why there will be no charges filed. After all, most major newspapers DO have a legal team.

Exactly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How about this little bit, PART of the NIE IS UNCLASSIFIED by the act that brought it into existance.

The National Intelligence Estimate is to be submitted to Congress in a classified form, except that, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, an unclassified summary of key judgments shall also be submitted.

source

In other words, Charles, the part being commented about and printed is most likely based on the UNCLASSIFIED portion of the NIE, unless the officials that were used for the article did not follow through on their end keeping the classified portion...classified.

EDIT: IF that is the case then it is not the NYTs fault, is it?

Doubtless. This is why there will be no charges filed. After all, most major newspapers DO have a legal team.

Exactly.

I should say - EVERY newspaper has a legal team

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

a follow up to this topic from yahoo news - bold part by me

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday said it is naive and a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, as a key portion of a national intelligence assessment by his own administration suggests. He said he was declassifying part of the report.

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Bush announced that he had instructed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don't compromise national security or intelligence-gathering methods.

Portions of the document that have been leaked suggest that the threat of terrorism has grown worse since the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the war in Afghanistan, due in part to the war in Iraq.

Democrats have used the report — written by analysts from a range of U.S. intelligence branches — to bolster their criticism of Bush's Iraq policy.

The administration does not dispute the findings, but claims only part of the report was leaked — and does not tell the full story.

Negroponte "is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible — declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself," Bush told reporters in the East Room. "And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods...that our intelligence community uses."

Using a portion of the report to attack his Iraq policy and suggest it has fanned more terrorism is "naive," Bush asserted

Bush said the full report shows "that, because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaida, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent."

Both the chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee had urged the White House to release the material.

"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.

He complained that "somebody leaked classified information for political purposes" and criticized both the news media and people in government who talked to them about classified material.

On Wednesday Bush and Karzai will be joined by Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for dinner at the White House.

The two central Asian presidents have been at odds recently over each country's efforts to hunt terrorists and to stop them from crossing their shared border, especially in tribal areas.

"You know, it'll be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are," Bush said.

"I'll be good," Karzai said.

"We will back any move, any deal, that will deny terrorism a sanctuary" along the border, the Afghan leader added.

Bush said that it was in the interests of both President Karzai and Musharraf, as well as in the interests of the United States, to see Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders brought to justice.

"Our interests coincide," Bush said.

In addition to the war on terrorism, Bush and Karzai said they talked about a range of issues that concerned both countries — including rising Taliban violence and an unprecedented narcotics trade.

"I'm very grateful, Mr. President, to you and the American people for all that you have done for Afghanistan for the last four and a half years," Karzai said.

During his visit to Washington, Karzai also called on Pakistan to close extremist schools.

Karzai has engaged in some sniping with Musharraf on countering terrorism. Musharraf has complained Karzai had not done enough.

Here last week to see Bush, Musharraf said extremist schools accounted for only about 5 percent of the schools in Pakistan. He acknowledged that "we are moving slowly" against them.

Karzai said ahead of his visit here that his country would be "heaven in less than a year" if it received the $300 billion the United States had spent in Iraq.

As it is, Karzai said at a news conference Monday that Afghanistan has $1.9 billion in reserves, up from $180 million in 2002.

Afghanistan has been suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since the Taliban regime was toppled in late 2001 in a U.S.-led war.

link

Edited September 26, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

No surprise there - he would say that of course. With elections coming up "everything" is political, including that surprisingly political "non-political" speech he gave on 9/11.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

No surprise there - he would say that of course. With elections coming up "everything" is political, including that surprisingly political "non-political" speech he gave on 9/11.

why not? do you doubt it (the classified report being leaked) was not for political purposes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

No surprise there - he would say that of course. With elections coming up "everything" is political, including that surprisingly political "non-political" speech he gave on 9/11.

why not? do you doubt it (the classified report being leaked) was not for political purposes?

Certainly - why else would it be released?

Just because there poltical motivations behind it (the same as are behind every white house speech and press conference), it doesn't mean that the report itself can't be viewed separately to those motivations. Of course, Bush will have to either declassify this report as far as is possible to prove that the allegations aren't true, but even then as he ultimately defines what is "in the national interest" anything less than the full report will likely be treated with suspicion. Unfair perhaps but certainly not indistinguishable from the Administrations own twisting of legalities, and economy with the truth.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

why not? do you doubt it (the classified report being leaked) was not for political purposes?

Certainly - why else would it be released?

Just because there poltical motivations behind it (the same as are behind every white house speech and press conference), it doesn't mean that the report itself can't be viewed separately to those motivations. Of course, Bush will have to either declassify this report as far as is possible to prove that the allegations aren't true, but even then as he ultimately defines what is "in the national interest" anything less than the full report will likely be treated with suspicion. Unfair perhaps but certainly not indistinguishable from the Administrations own twisting of legalities, and economy with the truth.

exactly what i thought was going on to begin with - it's more political games played in washington.

as for declassifying the report, that won't be bush doing so. reference the below:

Negroponte "is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible — declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself," Bush told reporters in the East Room. "And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods...that our intelligence community uses."

i know it's a bitter pill for you to swallow, but not everything is done by bush, nor is there any plausible reason for everything to be declassified to sate every curious american.

Edited September 26, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Marc and Olga 0]

Sorry, it is still my understanding that the "key judgements" Bush is going to "declassify" were, by the act of congress that initiated the NIE, to be declassified from their onset...

In other words he is going to declassify that which is suppose to be already declassified info?!?

But then again, "everything is political"...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

He disagrees with the intelligence agencies? He actually disagrees with reality. I remember that from back in 02/03. He disagreed there, too. Which is why we're in Iraq today.

He said he was declassifying part of the report.

OMG, the President will compromise our National Security.