Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Heracles 417]

Funny. I've said for years now that illegally and illegitemately invading Iraq is not going to do us any good in terms of making this country safer from Islamic terrorism. Bush supporters always claimed that I am just not seeing the bigger picture or whatnot. So, here are the intelligence agencies essentially confirming what I've been thinking and saying all along - Bush's policy is ####### and the Iraq war is not only a disaster but it actually makes this country less safe. The POTUS keeps lying to the public about this - he knows this report and he knows that what he publicly claims is not true. So yeah, more ####### on Bush. Thing is, he crapped on himself - it wasn't me crapping on him.

Fact: The US has not been attacked since 9/11... Period...

Didn't know there were two Intelligence Estimates out there with different conclusions.

Ain't anything 'intelligent' about the NYT let alone the rubbish they publish.. They should just team up with iran and venezuela..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Democracy depends on the circulation of this information; the Fund makes that circulation possible."

Democracy or hypocrisy. True journalism is fair and balanced, aka not biased based on one's political affiliation.

It is also illegal in numerous 1st world countries for journalist to reveal national secrets, especially in a time of war, to the rest of the world. Which in essence is what the NYT is doing.

Example: Advising the terrorists that the US government is monitoring their calls. Therefore one should ask, which side is the NYT really on??

For starters show me an example of unbiased journalism. It'll be a short list.

Secondly, the difference between this country and countries like Afghanistan and North Korea is that there is a national discourse on issues of government policy. Revealing that we are listening to terrorists phone calls is hardly a 'national secret', the issue is to what extent the governments policy impacts everyone else.

I'm not sure exactly how this endangers national security - unless someone can present an actual example whereby someone was 'tipped off' on the basis of a general network news story...? Kinda underestimates the ingenuity of the terrorists does it not - to assume the guy is so stupid he's going to say:

"Hey Achmed, which plane do you want me to hijack?"

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, I don't think people are used to the American media doing their jobs anymore. They've been so cowardly and reluctant to report the truth since Bush took office. Could it be because most major newspapers are now owned by large corporations and are now run like businesses, purely for profit?

A bit off the original topic, Alex, but I think this is worth reading in response to what you've just said. It gives me hope anyway.

That article is hopeful, but, for example, the last Seymour Herch piece I read was in The New Yorker. I want more effort made to take back what a newspaper is really supposed to be. I think it's saddening that there is a NEED for the FIJ.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune now prints only "happy news" on the front page (actual company policy) and has replaced their reader advocate with someone who just explains to the public why the newspaper did what it did. Le sigh.

[Cassie 8]

Funny. I've said for years now that illegally and illegitemately invading Iraq is not going to do us any good in terms of making this country safer from Islamic terrorism. Bush supporters always claimed that I am just not seeing the bigger picture or whatnot. So, here are the intelligence agencies essentially confirming what I've been thinking and saying all along - Bush's policy is ####### and the Iraq war is not only a disaster but it actually makes this country less safe. The POTUS keeps lying to the public about this - he knows this report and he knows that what he publicly claims is not true. So yeah, more ####### on Bush. Thing is, he crapped on himself - it wasn't me crapping on him.

Fact: The US has not been attacked since 9/11... Period...

Yeah, but it's not like people haven't tried....... and let's talk about Spain and England for starters instead, shall we?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fact: The US has not been attacked since 9/11... Period...

The US hadn't really been attacked on its own soil BEFORE 9/11 either - unless you count the embassy bombings in Africa, the likes of which are actually still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny. I've said for years now that illegally and illegitemately invading Iraq is not going to do us any good in terms of making this country safer from Islamic terrorism. Bush supporters always claimed that I am just not seeing the bigger picture or whatnot. So, here are the intelligence agencies essentially confirming what I've been thinking and saying all along - Bush's policy is ####### and the Iraq war is not only a disaster but it actually makes this country less safe. The POTUS keeps lying to the public about this - he knows this report and he knows that what he publicly claims is not true. So yeah, more ####### on Bush. Thing is, he crapped on himself - it wasn't me crapping on him.

Fact: The US has not been attacked since 9/11... Period...

Nonsense. US interests are attacked daily since we invaded Iraq. No direct attack on US soil in 5 years? Be cognizant of the fact there were 8+ years between the last two (2/93 and 9/01). Don't break out the champaign just yet.

Didn't know there were two Intelligence Estimates out there with different conclusions.

Ain't anything 'intelligent' about the NYT let alone the rubbish they publish.. They should just team up with iran and venezuela..

Do you even know what an intelligence estimate is? Hint: It's nothing the NYT comes up with.

[Heracles 417]

Nonsense. US interests are attacked daily since we invaded Iraq. No direct attack on US soil in 5 years? Be cognizant of the fact there were 8+ years between the last two (2/93 and 9/01). Don't break out the champaign just yet.

If the US was attacked again I am quite sure that so many left wing liberals would cheer and of course blame the president.

Nonetheless, I seriously want democrats to win the next election. This way you can show us how it is done..

Do you even know what an intelligence estimate is? Hint: It's nothing the NYT comes up with.

No I am dumb remember. Not as smart as these reporters at the NYT...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nonsense. US interests are attacked daily since we invaded Iraq. No direct attack on US soil in 5 years? Be cognizant of the fact there were 8+ years between the last two (2/93 and 9/01). Don't break out the champaign just yet.

If the US was attacked again I am quite sure that so many left wing liberals would cheer and of course blame the president.

Nobody would cheer. What are you talking about? Blame Bush? To the extend warranted, certainly. He quite obviously isn't doing much good in terms of improving our safety and security situation. It's about time that we focus on the task at hand instead of living a fool's wet-dream.

Do you even know what an intelligence estimate is? Hint: It's nothing the NYT comes up with.

No I am dumb remember. Not as smart as these reporters at the NYT...

Maybe Google can help you out a bit. If you know how to operate it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nonsense. US interests are attacked daily since we invaded Iraq. No direct attack on US soil in 5 years? Be cognizant of the fact there were 8+ years between the last two (2/93 and 9/01). Don't break out the champaign just yet.

If the US was attacked again I am quite sure that so many left wing liberals would cheer and of course blame the president.

Because only the president and his supporters can have a valid, non partisan concern for national security? Sorry but that's cr@p, but not untypical of the propagandistic rubbish they've been spouting over the last few years.

Bush has said Iraq is part of the war on terror, he has said on public record that "the world is a safer place as a result of the actions of my administration" - as I said he used this year's 9/11 anniversary to plug a "non-political" election speech.

This report suggests what a lot of people think and have said - that in a number of areas the presidents decisions have had an opposite effect - it has nothing to do with WANTING the president to fail as it has with his duplicity over the justifications for Iraq. The fact is many people were never convinced that Iraq was an "essential" goal, so much as an "easy and lucrative" one. Dressing it up as part of the war on terror, puts the whole thing into a great big "don't question me" package.

Regardless, when you frame your argument in terms of a stereotype, its really hard to take seriously

[Heracles 417]

Nobody would cheer. What are you talking about? Blame Bush? To the extend warranted, certainly. He quite obviously isn't doing much good in terms of improving our safety and security situation. It's about time that we focus on the task at hand instead of living a fool's wet-dream.

That's BS. Hard line liberals are waiting for Bush to fail. I guess that is the difference between myself and a liberal. If Gore or Kerry was in office I would want them to get the job done, even if I totally disagreed with them.

Yet, so many hard line liberals have shown time and time again that there is no limit to any measure they will take to have George Bush fail and for him to be thrown out of office. That man could rid the world of disease and poverty and liberals would still 'want him dead', as stated by numerous liberals..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nobody would cheer. What are you talking about? Blame Bush? To the extend warranted, certainly. He quite obviously isn't doing much good in terms of improving our safety and security situation. It's about time that we focus on the task at hand instead of living a fool's wet-dream.

That's BS. Hard line liberals are waiting for Bush to fail. I guess that is the difference between myself and a liberal. If Gore or Kerry was in office I would want them to get the job done, even if I totally disagreed with them.

Yet, so many hard line liberals have shown time and time again that there is no limit to any measure they will take to have George Bush fail and for him to be thrown out of office. That man could rid the world of disease and poverty and liberals would still 'want him dead', as stated by numerous liberals..

Who is a

hard line liberal

, as separate from a

hard left liberal

.

5 liberals in that post BTW - that must be some sort of record.

[Heracles 417]

Regardless, when you frame your argument in terms of a stereotype, its really hard to take seriously

The so-called sterotype is a reality. Lets look at the following two who both have like-minded views and want the president dead:

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hard line liberals are waiting for Bush to fail.

Wake up, man. The wait is over. He failed already!

[Alex+R 0]

Nobody would cheer. What are you talking about? Blame Bush? To the extend warranted, certainly. He quite obviously isn't doing much good in terms of improving our safety and security situation. It's about time that we focus on the task at hand instead of living a fool's wet-dream.

That's BS. Hard line liberals are waiting for Bush to fail. I guess that is the difference between myself and a liberal. If Gore or Kerry was in office I would want them to get the job done, even if I totally disagreed with them.

Yet, so many hard line liberals have shown time and time again that there is no limit to any measure they will take to have George Bush fail and for him to be thrown out of office. That man could rid the world of disease and poverty and liberals would still 'want him dead', as stated by numerous liberals..

Who's waiting for him to fail? Looks like he already has.

And get what job done? Make the world a more dangerous place?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regardless, when you frame your argument in terms of a stereotype, its really hard to take seriously

The so-called sterotype is a reality. Lets look at the following two who both have like-minded views and want the president dead:

Those are liberals are they?