'Today': Terrorists Attempting To Influence US Elections With Current Violence Wave

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

FYI, this does not mean cut & run. Many other options available. i am sure our military folks are plenty capable of figuring out the best course of action.

However, the direction must come from their civilian leadership. Jim Baker has some interesting thoughts on this, including the partition of Iraq (effectively isolating the Sunni triangle).

It is possible that the Dems once back in power will attempt to be smarter/tougher than the current admin on the terrist. Imagine that.

ya right

FWIW, I think a President Hillary would be tough on terror. She just seems like such a b1tch.

[Alex+R 0]

It has drawn the terrorists to Iraq instead of them being spread all over the ME. It's much easier to kill them there. If we leave then they are free to plot and plan to hit us again. The war in Iraq isn't making terrorists, only drawing them like flies to sh!t.

Hmm... that doesn't seem to be the latest intelligence from all of the country's spy agencies. Remember that report, you know, the one the New York Times committed treason by releasing? Where do you get the idea that the terrorism threat has not increased?

And honestly, do you really think any American leadership would actually suggest forgetting about the terrorism threat, whether we are still occupying Iraq or not? Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Teach those terrorists a lesson and vote Republican! That'll show them.

Maybe if their actions get the opposite result, they'll stop.

(Just wishful thinking)

[Alex+R 0]

If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not.

That is simply the wrong test to apply to any situation. Bear in mind I am not saying the situation is improving in Iraq... all I am saying that is the wrong test. It is not uncommon for things to get much worse before they turn for the better. WW2 is full of such examples.

Now, getting into Iraq... will us leaving Iraq leave it better off or worse off? And more importantly, and selfishly, will it leave us better off or worse off?

I have no idea how Iraq will end up if we leave, but I have no doubt at all that it will do more harm than good to US interests if we are even percieved as cutting and running by our enemies. The appearance of strength must be withheld, especially during times of weakness... times like now. (btw that last sentence is a mangling of a line from Gangs of New York).

Hahaha Gangs of New York, eh? Where do you get the impression that if we left Iraq, the rset of the world would view us as weak? How do we contrast that to how they see us now? And isn't the real concern whether or not we ARE weak, and aren't we weaker with most of our military occupying Iraq? Just wonderin'

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

stop, you're gonna send me to the hospital with hysterical laughter

[GaryC 7]

It has drawn the terrorists to Iraq instead of them being spread all over the ME. It's much easier to kill them there. If we leave then they are free to plot and plan to hit us again. The war in Iraq isn't making terrorists, only drawing them like flies to sh!t.

Hmm... that doesn't seem to be the latest intelligence from all of the country's spy agencies. Remember that report, you know, the one the New York Times committed treason by releasing? Where do you get the idea that the terrorism threat has not increased?

And honestly, do you really think any American leadership would actually suggest forgetting about the terrorism threat, whether we are still occupying Iraq or not? Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

Oh good God! That is so laughable!! Clinton did NOTHING to fight terrorism in the 8 years he was in there. Show me ANYTHING he did that did any good at all!

[Alex+R 0]

Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

stop, you're gonna send me to the hospital with hysterical laughter

Why? Check the facts, Charles.

And let me add that I'm not a Clinton fan nor a Democrat. Just callin it like it is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And isn't the real concern whether or not we ARE weak, and aren't we weaker with most of our military occupying Iraq? Just wonderin'

Yes, that is the real concern. The military-budget-slashing years during the Clinton era are why we are so weak. To be fair though, that isn't his fault, the prevailing wisdom of the time dictated a "leaner" military... Rumsfeld came to office with the same garbage in his head about a lighter fighting force. They all thought that since the USSR is gone, we don't need armies and tanks any more.

So yes, you're right. But tell me... if the troops came home, do you actually think the Democrats would support more money to the military so we could be strong again? Ha!

[GaryC 7]

Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

stop, you're gonna send me to the hospital with hysterical laughter

Why? Check the facts, Charles.

And let me add that I'm not a Clinton fan nor a Democrat. Just callin it like it is.

You check the facts. Clinton did nothing at all. I challeng you to show me anything of substance he did. It was all hype and nothing real.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Our last Dem president, Clinton, did more to try to fight off the terror threat than the Bush administration ever planned to do before 9/11. There's a Democrat putting more of a priority on terrorism than the Republicans intended to.

stop, you're gonna send me to the hospital with hysterical laughter

Why? Check the facts, Charles.

And let me add that I'm not a Clinton fan nor a Democrat. Just callin it like it is.

does it really need to be pointed out to you that clinton had 8 years vice less than 8 months for bush? that is what i'm laughing about - how ludicrous your statement!

And isn't the real concern whether or not we ARE weak, and aren't we weaker with most of our military occupying Iraq? Just wonderin'

Yes, that is the real concern. The military-budget-slashing years during the Clinton era are why we are so weak. To be fair though, that isn't his fault, the prevailing wisdom of the time dictated a "leaner" military... Rumsfeld came to office with the same garbage in his head about a lighter fighting force. They all thought that since the USSR is gone, we don't need armies and tanks any more.

So yes, you're right. But tell me... if the troops came home, do you actually think the Democrats would support more money to the military so we could be strong again? Ha!

also of note - carter did lots to gut the military.

[Alex+R 0]

And isn't the real concern whether or not we ARE weak, and aren't we weaker with most of our military occupying Iraq? Just wonderin'

Yes, that is the real concern. The military-budget-slashing years during the Clinton era are why we are so weak. To be fair though, that isn't his fault, the prevailing wisdom of the time dictated a "leaner" military... Rumsfeld came to office with the same garbage in his head about a lighter fighting force. They all thought that since the USSR is gone, we don't need armies and tanks any more.

So yes, you're right. But tell me... if the troops came home, do you actually think the Democrats would support more money to the military so we could be strong again? Ha!

You were right about how the Democrats are now mostly defined by social issues, so aren't they sort of a mixed bag in terms of priorities? Who knows if we would be willing to elect a military Dem?

You know, our primary concern seems to be terror, and so far military force hasn't been the key to preventing acts of terror. Probably our primary concern should be certain dictators claiming to have done nuclear tests, but em...apparently it isn't. Either way, the American public will probably demand money for military spending since the sense of security we had before 9/11 is gone.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

ok, so far I see zero examples of Dems actually cuttin & runnin.

all I see is exagerated claims of what might happen.

ergo, bunch of hot air.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

Able Danger's Hidden Hand

By Jack Kelly

Washington Times | August 16, 2005

The report of the September 11 Commission, once a best seller and hailed by the news media as the definitive word on the subject, must now be moved to the fiction shelves.

The commission concluded, you'll recall, that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon couldn't have been prevented, and that if there was negligence, it was as much the fault of the Bush administration (for moving slowly on the recommendations of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke) than of the Clinton administration.

Able Danger has changed all of that.

Able Danger was a military intelligence unit set up by Special Operations Command in 1999. A year before the September 11 attacks, Able Danger identified hijack leader Mohamed Atta and the other members of his cell. But Clinton administration officials stopped them -- three times -- from sharing this information with the FBI.

The problem was the order Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick made forbidding intelligence operatives from sharing information with criminal investigators.

"They were stopped because the lawyers at that time in 2000 told them Mohamed Atta had a green card (he didn't) and they could not go after someone with a green card," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, who brought the existence of Able Danger to light.

The military spooks knew only that Atta and his confederates had links to al Qaeda. They hadn't unearthed their mission. But if the FBI had kept tabs on them (a big if, given the nature of the FBI at the time), September 11 almost certainly could have been prevented.

What may be a bigger scandal is that the staff of the September 11 Commission knew of Able Danger and what it had found, but made no mention of it in its report. This is as if the commission that investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor had written its final report without mentioning the Japanese.

Mr. Weldon unveiled Able Danger in a speech on the House floor June 27, but his remarks didn't attract attention until the New York Times reported on them Tuesday.

When the story broke, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, at first denied the commission had ever been informed of what Able Danger had found, and took a swipe at Mr. Weldon's credibility:

"The September 11 Commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of the surveillance of Mohamed Atta or his cell," Mr. Hamilton said. "Had we learned of it, obviously it would have been a major focus of our investigation."

Mr. Hamilton changed his tune after the New York Times reported Thursday, and the Associated Press confirmed, that commission staff had been briefed on Able Danger in October of 2003 and again in July of 2004.

t was in October of 2003 that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives and destroyed some. Mr. Berger allegedly was studying documents in the archives to help prepare Clinton officials to testify before the September 11 Commission. Was he removing references to Able Danger? Someone should ask him before he is sentenced next month.

After having first denied that staff had been briefed on Able Danger, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said no reference was made to it in the final report because "it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks," the AP reported.

The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer.

Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.

The CIA, and the September 11 Commission, say Atta wasn't in Prague April 9, because his cell phone was used in Florida that day. But there is no evidence of who used the phone. Atta could have lent it to a confederate. (It wouldn't have worked in Europe anyway.)

But acknowledging that possibility would leave open the likelihood that Saddam's regime was involved in, or at least had foreknowledge of, the September 11 attacks. And that would have been as uncomfortable for Democrats as the revelation that September 11 could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration's wall of separation.

The September 11 Commission wrote history as it wanted it to be, not as it was. The real history of what happened that terrible September day has yet to be written.

Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=19146

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You were right about how the Democrats are now mostly defined by social issues, so aren't they sort of a mixed bag in terms of priorities? Who knows if we would be willing to elect a military Dem?

It is possible with a Democratic President. But for 2006 through 2008, there will not be one but there might be a Democratic Congress and/or Senate. At that level, individual inclinations recede into the background and the leaders of the party tend to have more sway. Do you actually see Pelosi and Rangel going along with more money for the military? Not a chance.

You know, our primary concern seems to be terror, and so far military force hasn't been the key to preventing acts of terror.

There is no key to preventing terror. That is the big lie being fed to us all from both parties. It takes a bit of everything to make it happen, including the threat of military deterrence. There isn't really a single thing you can point out as key nor is there a single thing you can point out as unneeded and stop doing it.

ok, so far I see zero examples of Dems actually cuttin & runnin.

Dems encouraging a Republican president to cut and run isn't bad enough?

[GaryC 7]

This is from Murthas own words. Pay attention to the last few paragraphs. Tell me this isn't cutting and running. He is a disgrace to the Marines.

The Honorable John P. Murtha

War in Iraq

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_...051117iraq.html