U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda

[waggy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html

I never know what to believe coming out of Washington. I hope this CIA report is accurate and it continues, but who knows? The mid-east has had problems forever, and I just don't see that changing. Matter of fact, I think I like it better when they are pissed off - at least I know.

[PM Thor]

Isn't this the same intelligency agency (or agencies) that said there were WMDs in Iraq?

Yeah, I don't really count the US intelligence community as a very reliable source right now. But that's just me.

[Snipe]

I will agree with Thor on the point that the CIA has no credibility whatever it says.

[Snipe]

At some point we need to tell the American people that we have won the war.

It is all over but the crying.

SUCCESS IN IRAQ: A MEDIA BLACKOUT (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/success_in_iraq__a_media_blackout_111606.htm?page= 2)

Nothing to look at here!

As Bad News Dries Up In Iraq, Media Search For It Elsewhere (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=279849152204170)

Whatever Happened to Iraq? (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4515)


The decline in coverage of Iraq has been staggering.

During the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the newshole fornetwork TV news. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.


A daily tracking of 65 newspapers by the Associated Press confirms a dip in page-one play throughout the country. In September 2007, the AP found 457 Iraq-related stories (154 by the AP) on front pages, many related to a progress report delivered to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Over the succeeding months, that number fell to as low as 49.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

Ever since we started winning Iraq has become a non-story.

Washington Post: The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html)

Uh Oh! They are telling Barrack H. Obama that he better have a new plan that deals with success.

Funny on Sunday:

Iraq hits milestones on U.S. troop deaths and oil (http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/06/01/news/OUKWD-UK-IRAQ.php)

You would think that a new milestone for troop deaths would be another grim reminder, but it isn't.


BAGHDAD: U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high

Everything is coming up roses. Terrorists are pushing up daisies.

The Unraveling
The jihadist revolt against bin Laden (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1)

Even The New Republic can see that Al Qaeda is coming apart at the seams. We took them on in the heart of the arab/Muslim world. With Arabic Muslims from Iraq (The Iraqi Army) by our side we have kicked their asses. And lately the Iraqi Army is leading the charge. It is Miller time.

At some point we need to break it to the American people that we have won. We should have a celebration of sorts. It is great news for our troops who have fought so bravely.

It is a great day to be an American.

[Stonebreaker]

There were WMD's in Iraq, just nothing earth-shattering. Hell, I still remember seeing the gas canisters found/shown on tv (which were not declared, as was requested by the U.N.). It just wasn't the smoking gun the media wanted (or didn't).
Intelligence gathering/opinion is akin to the weather guy in the sense that sometimes you're right, often times you just miss. It is a difficult and unappreciated endeavor. I do believe that we don't hear about the successes, only the failures.
As far as how terrorism has been affected in Iraq...one only needs to look at the few casualties taken by the military, contrasted with how the Iraqi army has taken more control. Iraq is finally turning itself around. This is not because Al-qaeda is making gains, but the opposite.
What the endgame is: I have no idea, but at some point, we gotta bring the bulk of our guys home.

[Snipe]

It is a difficult and unappreciated endeavor. I do believe that we don't hear about the successes, only the failures.

As far as how terrorism has been affected in Iraq...one only needs to look at the few casualties taken by the military, contrasted with how the Iraqi army has taken more control. Iraq is finally turning itself around. This is not because Al-qaeda is making gains, but the opposite.



As soon as we started winning the media became mute. They had no idea how to report it. Coverage is down around 90%. That says something. If things were bleak it would be wall to wall coverage. It is sad.

Al-Qaeda has had their ass kicked over the last year and they are in shambles. Guess that isn't news.

[Stonebreaker]

Of course not. The news these days don't make Bush or republicans look bad. It's pretty sad really.

[waggy]

It's not the county fair over there either, and there were other reports over the weekend besides the below that I don't have the time to search out again. Iran is still causing problems. al Qaida still all over the place, obviously. I have no doubt Muslim leaders are still preaching hatred and violence.

My nephew is there.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080607/D915A66G0.html

[MADXSTER]

Waggy, I sure do like your Avatar.

[DC Muskie]

At some point we need to tell the American people that we have won the war.

We did that, like five years ago.

DUH! Americans know, despite the media's constant struggle to tell us otherwise that we have prevailed.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

[Snipe]

It is all over but the crying.

[Fred Garvin]

Isn't this the same intelligency agency (or agencies) that said there were WMDs in Iraq?

Yeah, I don't really count the US intelligence community as a very reliable source right now. But that's just me.

They also didn't envision the fall of the Soviet empire. Probably had to do with ridding the intelligence community of human intelligence during the Church witchhunts. Liberals love to tie the intelligence community's hands behind its back and then yell "look, they suck."

Of course they do the opposite with education. Look, crappy performance! Let's throw more money at what doesn't work.

[PM Thor]

Non sequitor Fred.

It doesn't matter the reason why the intelligence agencies fail. It's the fact that a certain administration used and relied on that intelligence, while very nearly every reliable ally voiced concerns about the reasoning behind it, and going to war over it. When Colin Powell has to go the UN and make a very shaky presentation trying to "sell" the WMD aspect of Iraq, that doesn't really make a strong case. Which was pretty obvious, but people were swept up in the moment I guess.

[Fred Garvin]

Non sequitor Fred.

It doesn't matter the reason why the intelligence agencies fail. It's the fact that a certain administration used and relied on that intelligence, while very nearly every reliable ally voiced concerns about the reasoning behind it, and going to war over it. When Colin Powell has to go the UN and make a very shaky presentation trying to "sell" the WMD aspect of Iraq, that doesn't really make a strong case. Which was pretty obvious, but people were swept up in the moment I guess.


First off, it's non sequitur. You are a moron nonpareil.

Thor, if you were concerned about the WMD then maybe you and your UN buddies could have actually enforced one of those resolutions against Saddam.

[PM Thor]

Ok, here we go Fred. If the intelligence agencies were so hamstrung by the dems, then why would a republican led administration rely on those agencies one year after coming into office?

It seems pretty dumb to me. I mean, if you know that someone is unreliable and you can't really expect their answers to be correct (sure, blame the dems under Clinton, fine) then wouldn't you want and need other areas to come forth and help you out with your position?

Sure, maybe the intelligence agencies were undercut by the Clinton years. Do you really think that the Bush administration had enough time to overhaul the CIA/NSA in the time in office that they had before they went to war? I don't.

As for the UN. It's again irrelevant what their position was. Meaning, if the US is going to go to the UN to make a case for going to war, and the UN repudiates them, shouldn't the US respect their decision? What were we looking for, a rubber stamp? Since we didn't get it, we discount their position and still do what we want? Why even go to the UN at all?

Sounds like something a renegade country would do.

[Fred Garvin]

Who said anything about Clinton? The Church Commission dates back to 75' and 76'. Our dearth of "humants" has long ailed the intelligence community.

Such a handicap might lead to unsatisfactory performance. I pointed this out and you said it was a non sequitur. Your comment is nonsensical.

[Fred Garvin]

As for the UN. It's again irrelevant what their position was. Meaning, if the US is going to go to the UN to make a case for going to war, and the UN repudiates them, shouldn't the US respect their decision? What were we looking for, a rubber stamp? Since we didn't get it, we discount their position and still do what we want? Why even go to the UN at all?

Sounds like something a renegade country would do.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

Are you actually saying the UN should dictate US foreign policy? Ha! Try to wrap your little mind around a concept called sovereignty.

[PM Thor]

As for the UN. It's again irrelevant what their position was. Meaning, if the US is going to go to the UN to make a case for going to war, and the UN repudiates them, shouldn't the US respect their decision? What were we looking for, a rubber stamp? Since we didn't get it, we discount their position and still do what we want? Why even go to the UN at all?

Sounds like something a renegade country would do.[/COLOR][/B]

Are you actually saying the UN should dictate US foreign policy? Ha! Try to wrap your little mind around a concept called sovereignty.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Never said that. I said that if the US goes to the UN with an issue, and gets an answer that they don't want, then why even go to the UN in the first place?

It's as if this administration was looking for validation. When the US didn't get that validation, and very well knew that such validation might not happen, then why go to the UN at all?

The UN is a paper tiger, everyone knows it. It's not about sovereignty at all. It's about going to a larger group, trying to make a case, getting utterly shot down, and still doing what you want. It's completely a joke. On one hand, complaining about the UN not doing anything about Iraq, yet, going to the UN to validate going to war in Iraq. If the administration didn't respect the UN for not enforcing the mandates, then why go to the UN to get justification for going into Iraq? Don't you see a double standard there?

[PM Thor]

Who said anything about Clinton? The Church Commission dates back to 75' and 76'. Our dearth of "humants" has long ailed the intelligence community.

Such a handicap might lead to unsatisfactory performance. I pointed this out and you said it was a non sequitur. Your comment is nonsensical.

It is a non sequitur because the why and wherefor have no relevance as to why the Bush administration relied on such intelligence. It doesn't matter why the intelligence sucks, it matters why the administration relied on it.

[Fred Garvin]

Thor, is there a way you could amend the first quote? It looks I'm saying what you said in the blue quote portion.

As to the rest, I must say that I'm disturbed that you think it is irrelevant that U.S. intelligence sucks do to policies that were made in the post Watergate hysteria.

And spare me the revisionist horseshit that says it was only the adminstration that believed those estimates. Maybe you have heard of John Kerry and the rest of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Or are you pretending that they received different information?

[PM Thor]

[QUOTE=Fred Garvin;42322]Thor, is there a way you could amend the first quote? It looks I'm saying what you said in the blue quote portion.

As to the rest, I must say that I'm disturbed that you think it is irrelevant that U.S. intelligence sucks do to policies that were made in the post Watergate hysteria.

And spare me the revisionist horseshit that says it was only the adminstration that believed those estimates. Maybe you have heard of John Kerry and the rest of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Or are you pretending that they received different information?[/[QUOTE]

Uhh, where did I say that it was only the administration? I said that it was the administration that took it to the UN. I also am willing to throw Congress under the bus for believing the tripe coming from the intelligence agencies. I like how you keep trying to pigeonhole me as if I blame only the administration for the Iraq debacle. I blame them all. I blame the Bush administration for accepting such crap as "intelligence". I blame the Congress (led by democrats at the time) for buying into the euphoric "Lets go to War" BS.

As for the US intelligence post Watergate. Last I checked, it looks like the Republicans have had the top spot 23 out of 35 years. You would think in all those years, the Republicans could "fix" intelligence.

[blobfan]

We did that, like five years ago.

DUH! Americans know, despite the media's constant struggle to tell us otherwise that we have prevailed.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

No they don't, DC. They really don't know. They believe what the media feeds them. They hear the negatives and don't bother to look for the positives. I'm constantly shocked by the vehement, knee-jerk reactions people give when Bush or Iraq come up. Otherwise intelligent people begin spewing irrelevant crap.

I have my issues with this administration but I'm still glad we avoided Presidents Gore and Kerry.

[DAllen15]

<<Hell, I still remember seeing the gas canisters found/shown on tv (which were not declared, as was requested by the U.N.). >>

We weren't told we were invading a country over "gas canisters". What were they going to do, put them in a massive slingshot and lob them over here? That's like the police kicking in someone's door because they have steak knives in the house.

We were fed a bill of goods from start to finish (if you can call years from being done the "finish").

Others disagree about the extent of the "victory"-http://http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2008/06/alqaeda_defeat_coincides_with.html

And as to what the report has to say about the presence of WMD's in Iraq, among other things-http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/06/BL2008060602283.html

[MADXSTER]

What I think is truely sad is that in the political conversation concerning who to blame....we tend to forget 911 and the 4,000 people who died in one day and those who have suffered ever since, both physically and mentally.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans. Blame Bush, Clinton, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. The only reason everyone stopped blaming Bin Laden is because there wasn't anything to be polically gained, so we started blaming ourselves.

911 is what started the ball rolling. Lets not forget that. Republicans and Democrats didn't start this crap. 4,000 dead Americans is a good enough reason for a reaction, knee jerk or not. To do nothing only invites the bully to do more 911's.

IMO everyone did the best they could with the resources that they had at the time. Maybe it's part of my faith/belief system I was born with.

If 911 didn't happen this thread probably wouldn't exist.

[Snipe]

We were fed a bill of good from start to finish



'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment.

[Snipe]

What I think is truely sad is that in the political conversation concerning who to blame....we tend to forget 911 and the 4,000 people who died in one day and those who have suffered ever since, both physically and mentally.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans. Blame Bush, Clinton, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. The only reason everyone stopped blaming Bin Laden is because there wasn't anything to be polically gained, so we started blaming ourselves.

911 is what started the ball rolling. Lets not forget that. Republicans and Democrats didn't start this crap. 4,000 dead Americans is a good enough reason for a reaction, knee jerk or not. To do nothing only invites the bully to do more 911's.

IMO everyone did the best they could with the resources that they had at the time. Maybe it's part of my faith/belief system I was born with.

If 911 didn't happen this thread probably wouldn't exist.


I agree with with you on major points.

That still doesn't excuse the CIA though.

[DAllen15]

Writes Feingold: "Even the deeply flawed October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) did not support the claims made by the President and the Vice President regarding an Iraqi nuclear program. That NIE assessed that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one, and that without sufficient fissile material acquired from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 or 2009. Yet the President made the following statements: '[Saddam] possesses the world's most dangerous weapons' ( March 22, 2002); '[w]e don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon' ( December 31, 2002); and, of course, '[f]acing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud' ( October 7, 2002). Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney insisted that assessments related to Iraq's nuclear program that were disputed within the Intelligence Community were known 'with absolute certainty' ( September 8, 2002) and through 'irrefutable evidence' (September 20, 2002). And, on the eve of war, after the IAEA had reported that its inspectors had found 'no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq,' the Vice President asserted, '[w]e believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons' ( March 16, 2003).

"Administration officials' claims of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda were even more outlandish. Before the war, the Central Intelligence Agency assessed that 'Saddam has viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat,' that 'Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden are far from being natural partners,' and that assessments about Iraqi links to al Qaeda rested on 'a body of fragmented, conflicting reporting from sources of varying reliability.' Moreover, the Intelligence Community consistently assessed that Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States rested on his being 'sufficiently desperate' in the face of a U. S. attack and his possible desire for a 'last chance at vengeance.' Yet the President not only repeatedly suggested an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, but asserted that Saddam would provide weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda for an unprovoked attack against the United States: 'you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror' ( September 25, 2002); '[e]ach passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX - nerve gas - or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally' ( September 26, 2002); '[Saddam] is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army' ( October 14, 2002); '[Saddam] is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint' ( November 7, 2002); and '[t]he danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other' ( March 17, 2003)."

[DC Muskie]

I have my issues with this administration but I'm still glad we avoided Presidents Gore and Kerry.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAA...

Wait...Wait.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAA!

Yes, I completely agree. Thank God we got Eight Years of Monkey Brain.

I can only imagine what "issues" you have with this administration. An administration that will probably go down as one of the worst in history. It will make Hardings administration look like George Washington's.