de-classified version Version VERSION

what's that, something like a "story" isn't it....

Bush gets to control the "VERSION"

And if it's one thing we know this administration is LESS than truthful...not to mention incompetent, devious, and immoral...

Bush also had a version of the "threat" Iraq posed the US, and that turned out to be complete bullshit.

Raygun's old addage "Trust, but verify" doesn't apply to Bush because he simply cannot be trusted.

With anything.

Ever.

Since the first two posters did not understand what the word "version" meant in this editiorial. Let me explain.

The term "version" is used in the editorial to denote the difference between the summary of the conclusions (which was de-classified) and the body of the report (which remains classified because it contains material that would aid and abet the eneamy)

It was the "cherry-picked" summary of the conclusions which was leaked to the Press in order to harm Bush and portray the entire NIE report as one condemning Bush over Iraq.

Bush then de-classified the entire summary of the conclusions in order to prove his detractors were lying about the report.

You mean what doesn't make Himself look bad now don't You Lokisfur. WHat an utter disgrace

Larry

What a joke. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on YOU.

Where's my coffee!
I am sounding like. . .

I can't even say it.

I better not post any more for a bit!

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME.

From The Guardian (UK), 9/28/06:

Intelligent observation

Intelligence services are undergoing something of a renaissance in these dangerous times, recovering from the battering they took because their own careful work was "spun" too often by unscrupulous politicians. Few have forgotten the UK government's notoriously dodgy 45-minute warning of Saddam Hussein's ability to attack with weapons of mass destruction he turned out not to possess, or the spurious accounts from Washington of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaida's 9/11 onslaught on the US. So it is encouraging to hear that it is now the considered view of the 16 different agencies that make up the enormous US intelligence community that the war in Iraq has helped produce a new generation of fanatical jihadists and increased the threat of global terrorism.

Not only does this American finding have the ring of truth about it, but millions of ordinary people in Britain, Europe, the US and far beyond have reached the same bleak conclusion from a daily torrent of news, analysis and information that is freely available to all. It needs neither spy satellites, informers, nor highly trained analysts to observe the rage and fury that has been generated by Iraq: we have heard it in native Yorkshire accents from the young men who brought mayhem to the London underground on 7/7; from public opinion polls; from countless demonstrations across the Arab and Muslim worlds; from Iraqis, Shia as well as Sunnis, who hated the Ba'athist tyrant but who have paid an intolerable price for their liberation from his odious regime. Events in Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon, mixed in with Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and heavily spiced by anger and resentment at perceived double standards, have added to this poisonous brew.

Obvious though it may be to state that Iraq has become a "cause celebre for jihadists", the importance of this part of the US National Intelligence Estimate is that it flatly contradicts George Bush's upbeat version of the state of play just weeks before the midterm congressional elections, in which Iraq is playing a central role: thus the president's distinctly peevish tone when he was forced, under Democratic pressure, to declassify part of the report in response to a timely leak in the New York Times.

(more)

the invasion of Iraq has indeed made the world a far more dangerous place.

By what measure?

Has the US been attacked again since 9/11?

Most certainly the # of terrorists has increased in those areas where they are fighting for their survival. They are trying to destroy us. And we are trying to destroy them. That's why it is called a war.

So the revelation that the Iraq war has increased recrutiment of terrorists is no revelation at all.

Before Iraq, Afghansitan was the primary recruitment tool. And amny years before that it was Somalia.

The Jihadists will use any reason at hand to drum up support.

According to the NIE report, one of the sure ways to hurt the terrorists and diminish thrie ability to recruit new terrorists is to hand the Jihadists a clear defeat in Iraq.

Which is what the Republicans and this President is trying to do.

The Democrats on the other hand, want to "cut-n-run" , surrender, withdraw, and hand the Jihadists a clear victory. Which the NIE report says will just further embolden the terrorists, give them a huge recruitment tool, and increase the terror threat throughout the world.

That is the real message of this NIE report. No matter how you liberals and Democrats want to sp9in it.

That is the real message of this NIE report.

The real message is how fucked up Iraq is.

Little subpoints are things like how ineffective Bush's little misAdventure really is, and how our actions in Iraq are fueling a worldwide jihadist movement.

"The Democrats on the other hand, want to "cut-n-run" , surrender, withdraw, and hand the Jihadists a clear victory."

Nah, Bush handed them what they wanted when he became president and did nothing about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda for the 234 days leading to 9/11.

Then he provided them with targets of opportunity to invading a country that had nothing to do with the planning and execution of 9/11.

Note that whatever it is Bush thinks is worth doing in Iraq---"stay and die" pretty well describes the "policy"--- is most definitely not worth sending any of his own children over to do.

I have yet to hear one Liberal on this site square the NIEs contention that to leave Iraq would increase the terror threat and to stay and achieve victory would reduce it.

If Dems and liberals on this site could argue that leaving Iraq woold reduce the terror threat to the US that would be one thing, but they can't.

According to the NIE report, the only thing that will reduce the terror threat is to 'stay the course" and hand the "jihadists" a clear defeat.

President Bush and the GOP is following that course.

The Democrats are trying to prevent him from handing the terrorists a defeat. In fact, many declare the Jihadists victorious already and want to compound that victory by withdrawing from Iraq.

Voters will be reminded of that over and over again between now and whenthey vote in November.

The Republicans are for protecting America, for defeating our enemies.

The Democrats are against defending america and for giving a victory to our enemies.

Rastaninja-
Good morning.

You write: "According to the NIE report, the only thing that will reduce the terror threat is to 'stay the course" and hand the "jihadists" a clear defeat."

We're losing. What is the Bush plan to "win"? Is it "stay the course", as you wrote, 'cause it doesn't seem to be working.

I have yet to hear one Liberal on this site square the NIEs contention that to leave Iraq would increase the terror threat and to stay and achieve victory would reduce it.

One pair still beats nothing, and that is what Bush and the Republicans are forwarding, NOTHING! Everyone realizes that if anarchy strikes Iraq, that most likely the situation will be worse. The problem with your illogic is that where does it say in the NIE that continuing to do exactly what we're doing now is going to create stable conditions? It doesn't say that either, it just makes the logical assumption that immediate withdrawal likely will be worse.

If the Republicans want to "win" in Iraq, then propose to take steps that will lead to this end, not continue the same policies that have led to the continuing violence impacting the lives of far too many innocent Iraqis.

I'm wondering if you watched the video from the Halliburton driver that was ambused, and then the recon video shot from a drone that showed numerous Iraqis, sans weapons, throwing rocks and kicking the corpse of one of the drivers? How are we to bring freedom to a people that want harm to come to our troops by a majority of over 60% of Iraqis? Where is their effort to help us? None of these realities were caused by Democrats, and the debates we have in this country don't fuel the resentment and hatred permeating through Iraq against America's occupation. If Iraqis say that our presence is fueling the violence, shouldn't their concerns be given consideration as well as our own?

An insurgent attack every 15 MINUTES 24/7...

Bush created an incubator for terrorists...

Osama bin Laden cooled his heels from 1993 and the first WTC attacks until 9-11, 2001...

If there is not another attack before 2009 I will begin to think we might be doing some good...

But it only takes a handful of souls with a handful of OBL's cash and we are going to be in for another tragedy of epoch proportions....

And while port security and border security are terrible risks , this administrations seems content to spend 1/2 a TRILLION on Iraq....

and the country is still a virtually wasteland....however, Haliburton, Parsons, Blackwaters etc ad nauseum, all Bush buddies and contributors SCREW the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS....

The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.

An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

That's not what the portions of the NI that have been released say.

Uhhh. Yes they do. Read it. The NIE reprot says two things about Iraq:

1) That the war has increased the terror threat and enhanced recrutiment. As the NIE report spcifically stated Iraq is, "breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement"

2) That a defeat for Jihadists there diminish their will to fight. As the NIE report sepcifically stated, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

Since we cannot change the past, there is no way to change #1.

Since we are still in Iraq and the outcome is not yet determined, we certainly can work towards making #2 a reality. Which is what we are doing.

Democrats are insanely and hatefully arguing that because they believe the Iraq war was wrong to begin with, and that #1 has happened then we have no right to even try and achieve victory and make #2 a reality regardless of whther it further increases the terror threat and increases the number of Jihadists determined to destroy us.

It's almost as if the democrats believe that we should surrender and go down in defeat because it will serve us right.

How hateful of America that position is.

FROM the NIE

"We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the time frame of this Estimate.

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:

(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;

(2) the Iraq jihad;--

(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and

(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims all of which jihadists exploit."

Addressing the underlying factors is the only route to a long-term solution.

The underlying factors are, as many of us have been saying for years, due primarily to nearly a century of Western domination and exploitation of the region.

Were the West to make a good faith effort backed by definitive actions to convince the region that they would no longer support dictators and corrupt governments in their pursuit of cheaper oil, give a timetable for leaving Iraq, make peace between Israel and the Palestinians a real priority, and propose sweeping changes in relationships between the peoples of the ME and the West....

perhaps a road to peace might be carved from the mountain of past economic and political domination of the region which has resulted in the "Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness".

Rastaninja-
Are you going?

Corky-
It's not Western domination, unless you include Russia and the former USSR as "Western". That area has been fought over for oil for over a hundred years. Both East and West have played their games and supported their favorite dictators and monarchs for quite some time.

Rastaninja-
So are you going?

Rastaninja-
Really. Would you go and serve in the clusterfuck otherwise known as Iraq under the current "leadership" of the US?

I am quite aware of the history, Badweek.

I start with the discovery of oil and the Balfour Declaration and move to Operation Ajax and all that followed.

The SU played a significant role, and Russia could certainly help the West now in such an undertaking as I have described.

After all, Shrubby looked deep into Putin's soul and.....

Corky-
Your main proposals make sense, but you must include the rest of the world in your analysis, as you now have done.I didn't mean to bust out on you, but...

Bad,

Considering the current limited involvement and capacity of Russia in the area, I didn't think it necessary to include their part in the history or the possible solution.

But as the Rethugs here make plain on a daily basis, it's much more fun to just try and kill them all, anyway.

Rastaninja-
The only reason I bring this up is that you write like a young man full of lightning and darkness. You don't seem to see the subtle shades between life and death, or appreciate the real sacrifices of the ordinary. You see a theoretical construct of simplicity worthy of a game of Risk, over beer and cigars perhaps, with college friends in a snug apartment or dormatory.

So are you going?

"The invasion of Iraq has indeed made the world a far more dangerous place."

By what measure?

Has the US been attacked again since 9/11?

Posted by Rastaninjja at 2006-09-29 09:18 AM

And we wonder why people hate us. Well here it is, spelled out in black & white.

The world IS safer because we've managed to create a situation where the people of ANOTHER country are being killed by 'Islamofascists' at the rate of hundreds per day, but that was part of the plan all along BECAUSE in 5 years not a single AMERICAN has lost their life to terrorism on UNITED STATES SOIL.

i.e., MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!

This is what the people around the world, particularly those from Islamic nations, hears every time someone from the Cheney/Bush administration defends our actions in Iraq based on the totally outrageous claim that we are WINNING the 'War on Terror' BECAUSE there have been no attacks on the US since 9/11.

OCU

Rasta...

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you continue with your incessant bleating about the false notion that Democrats don't want Iraq to be stabilizied when nothing is further from the truth. Let me break it down into something even you can understand.

1. The Bush Administration orchestrated and planned the invasion of Iraq and all subsequent activities and policies that have followed.

2. Five years after the fact, the nation of Iraq is immeshed in sectarian violence along with relentless attacks upon American personnel by insurgents and Iraqis alike.

3. The plans, leadership, and guidance, or lack of all three, have facillitated the destabilizing element within Iraq, and created an environment where terrorists can learn and ply their trade against US soldiers and Iraqi citizens with few repercussions and no overriding legal authority to stop them.

4. No one can blindly believe that the same people who allowed the present to manifest itself somehow now have the proficiency to bring about the desired outcome when they still can't talk honestly about the past, nor accept responsibility for their own failures and incompetence up to the present.

5. Because the situation within Iraq changes minute-by-minute, no one can put forth a sensible "plan" for altering the present without the input of US military strategists who are dutibound to the current elected leadership, not the Democratic opposition. So the argument of "no plans" is as disengenous as the denial that the current and former plans aren't achieiving their stated goals, which is continuously proffered as evidence of success, when it infact is the continued stagnant mess fostering the deaths of thousands on an ongoing basis.

"According to the NIE report, the only thing that will reduce the terror threat is to 'stay the course" and hand the "jihadists" a clear defeat.
Posted by Rastaninjja"

I replied, "That's not what the portions of the NI[E] that have been released say."

You answered, "Uhhh. Yes they do."

Nowhere do the portions of the NIE that was released say that the "the only thing that will reduce the terror threat is to 'stay the course" and hand the "jihadists" a clear defeat."

In fact, the portions released contain these statements:

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority
nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the
vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al Qa'ida,
could erode support for the jihadists....

We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in
importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland...

Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated
multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist
leaders. If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit....

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of
surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

What it also says, specifically with respect to Iraq, is that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

That would be "the fight" in Iraq.

There isn't a single word in what's been released that deals wtih "defeating" the Jihadists. In fact, the words "defeat," "defeating" or "stay the course" do not appear in the declassified section of the NIE.

There is no endorsement for the present "policy," to the extent that "stay and die" can be construed to be a policy.

How old are you, Rasta?

I ask, because the Army not long ago raised its age ceiling for enlistment and you might be able to take either Jenna's or Bab's place since they appear to have other priorities at the moment.

Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere...Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

Seems to be the exact opposite conclusion of "the war in Iraq has created more terrorists."

I wonder when I can expect to see the retraction and apology in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times?

One quick question. What do you think the Iraqis hear everytime a Bush apologist utters this timeless line:

"We're fighting them over there (Iraq) so we don't have to fight them over here (America)!"

Did the newly democratized Iraqis vote on this particular policy? Has anyone asked them if they mind that we "fight them there so we don't fight them here"? Or does the actual will of the Iraqis come second to the US' need to create a jihadist battleground outside of US territory? So we "liberated" them from Saddam and didn't secure the Iraq borders so that terrorists could infiltrate and commit violence amongst the Iraqi people so we could then fight them there?

Is there any question the Iraqis want our presence gone? Wouldn't we in the indentical situation?

I wonder when I can expect to see the retraction and apology in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times?

About the same time that Bush apologizes for his own incompetence in creating the conditions which foster extremism against this nation. The quote you posted is a supposition about a possible future, not a reality about the current present. It is a guess, where the statements about the rise in both the numbers and coordination of extremists is documented fact!

"their", "there"...phunetiks...blah!!!

Buckwheat-
Seems to be the exact opposite conclusion of "the war in Iraq has created more terrorists."

No. Even the selectively released conclusion of the NIE released by the Bush administration states that "the war in Iraq has created more terrorists". What was added by the selective release by the Bush administration is that we're fucked.

Badweek,

No. The NIE says..."Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere...Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

That is the exact opposite of what the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times contended that their anonymous source told them.

Buckwheat-
No. The full paragraph that you quote from reveals that the Iraq war has become a recruitment incentive for jihadists worldwide. It also states that if we were to "win" in Iraq it would dampen the spirit of the jihadists. BUT UNDER BUSH'S LEADERSHIP WE ARE LOSING!!!!

Spin that, "Buckwheat".

Buckwheat...

Its still a statement of probability, not fact. Repeating it ad nausem isn't going to change reality. Unless you can prove that the future withdrawal of troops will bolster jihadis, then your point is moot, or I'd like the numbers for tomorrow's Powerball drawing since you profess powers in this area. Hell, you can have this argument if you can offer the latter! Why don't we wait for these things to happen before asking for apologies?

Buckwheat-
I fail to see how 'if we continue to fuck it up under Bush's leadership of incompetence and failure' is the "exact opposite" of the conclusion that the Iraq war has metastasized the threat.

Please clue me in.

Badweek,

No. The NIE says..."Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq]" such as statements of perceived jihadist success on the internet like "UNDER BUSH'S LEADERSHIP WE ARE LOSING!!!! "would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere."

Badweek, do you work for the NY Times?

"The NIE says..."Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq]" such as statements of perceived jihadist success on the internet like "UNDER BUSH'S LEADERSHIP WE ARE LOSING!!!! "would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.""

No, Buckwheat, it doesn't say that.

Read the redacted report.

Tony Roma,

Is not the entire point of this story based upon the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times reporting that an anonymous source said that the NIE report states that "the war in Iraq has created more terrorists?"

These papers and you repeating that claim ad nausem isn't going to change reality. Unless you can prove that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, then your point and their's is moot, or I'd like the numbers for tomorrow's Powerball drawing since you profess powers in this area.

I believe I just succesfully used your own words against you.

Buckwheat-
It'd be nice if we were winning the assymetrical and political and religious clusterfuck in Iraq. We're not.

"I believe I just succesfully used your own words against you. Posted by buckwheat"

And the kid down the down believes in the Tooth Fairy.

But that doesn't make it so.

No, Doc Sarvis, the NIE report does not say that the war in Iraq has diminished the terrorist threat. It does clearly say however that jihadist failure (aka US victory) in Iraq would diminish the terrorist threat.

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

As for my question concerning a retraction and apology from the offending newspapers, it was a rhetorical question. I.e. a question I did not expect an answer to because I already knew what the answer was.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks...

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one American intelligence official.

What about this statement needs to be retracted Buck? What about it is false TODAY or in any way conflicts with appraisals of what might happen "if" sometime in the future, based on actions that haven't yet occured?

Buckwheat-

This is from the selectively declassified NIE:

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

It seems that you have the next sentence memorized, so I'll leave it at that.

In the bleak National Intelligence Estimate, the government's top analysts concluded Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach.

I believe I just succesfully used your own words against you.

Posted by buckwheat

No, you used your words against me, and they still don't speak to the reality of your illogical point. One does not compare the analysis of the past/present with the conjecture of the future, then say the future invalidates the past/present.

Buckwheat-
Unless you can prove that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, then your point and their's is moot.

You can argue with the declassified version of the NIE released by the Bush administration all you like.

"the NIE report does not say that the war in Iraq has diminished the terrorist threat"

That's correct: Bush's war of choice in Iraq hasn't diminished the terrorist threat.

"It does clearly say however that jihadist failure (aka US victory) in Iraq would diminish the terrorist threat."

Actually, it says that if Jihadists "leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight [in Iraq]."

There's a critical error here, and that's a reading that lumps all fighters in Iraq into the Jihadist column. My guess is that many of them aren't Jihadists, in the sense of being members of Al Qaeda, but, instead, perceive themselves as resisting what they would see as a US occupation force.

In any event, if you see any signs that people on the other side(s) have any reason to regard themselves as having failed, please pass on the glad tidings.

Thanks.

Tony,

We again agree to disagree.

I think any objective observer would agree that these papers should retract their stories. After the retraction, they should print the declassified report and let the reader make up their own mind.

And I did succesfully use your own words against you.

Buckwheat-
From the NIE:
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

You wrote:

Unless you can prove that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, then your point and their's is moot.

And I did succesfully use your own words against you.

No, you didn't.

The declassified NIE clearly states that the protracted Iraq war has enabled the cause of jihadists globally, which is what the NYT and the Post reported. The only issue raised by the release of the declassified portion of the report is what should be done with the clusterfuck of failure granted us by Bush's "leadership".

Buckwheat...

First and always, unless you quote exactly what I've said without editing, then you haven't "used my words against me", you're rearranged my words to fit your needs.

Secondly, rational people should be able to expand their minds to understand that a statement relating to a document doesn't mean that the entire document says what the synopsis says, nor that alternate interpretations might exist casting the synopsis into dispute. The NIE said exactly what the papers said it did. They never printed that the NIE DIDN'T SAY a premature withdrawal would help the jihadis, nor did it say that "winning" in Iraq wouldn't discourage the jihadis. Absence of your point does not negate the FACTS presented in opposition to your and the NIE's future predictions!

Hey Buckwheat, Rush is on..talking about the "resort" at "club Gitmo". Maybe he'll say something about the issue we are discussing so you can have an opinion, as your points have been exhausted and revealed for the empty crap that they are.

"Yes, the report says that the war in Iraq is one of four factors that have energized the jihadists"

Case Closed !!!

-Sarge

i'm just wondering where the outrage is about leaked info that was classified? i mean, the New York Times, and all you other Bush-haters about had an aneurysm over the Valery Plame leak. does this NIE leak not just send you all into a tailspin?!? should we have a special prosecutor? should we hold hearings!?! MAYBE THE DEVIL, DICK CHENEY IS BEHIND THIS!!! LETS TRY HIS EVIL ASS! (oh wait, the valery plame case was a dud. She was only a paper pusher. nobody even did anything illegal......) LETS BURN DICK ANYWAY!!!!!!!

typical hypocrites.

libsRmorons -

What did Bush do about OBL and Al Qaeda during the 234 days between the time he was sworn in as president and 9/11?

Thanks

LibsR,

Try looking at it from a point of view that is neither Republican nor Democrat:

I'm an American, and a war is currently being fought in my name. My President is telling me things are going well, that next year should be better, while the intelligence agencies paid for by my tax dollars are telling him something else entirely.

I, as an American---not a Lefty, not a Righty---want, need, and yes, have a right to know this.

again, i ask, where is the outrage that we saw over valery plame? the argument was, "one of our agents was leaked. that info was classified. its a national security risk." NOW! we have sensitive info leaked, that in all honesty, isn't really conclusive for either side, but it IS sensitive, and was classified! i want there to be the exact same outrage over this, that there was over valery plame. because, this is how it looks to me.

-classified info leak that hurts dems = you CAN'T LEAK THAT INFO
-classified info leak that hurts bush =
It's a good thing that we know THE TRUTH.

now. doc. you dodge my challenge, and give me more talking points. this whole thing over 8 months of bush as to 8 years of clinton failures, is really getting old. its obvious that mistakes were made by both presidents. thats NOT my challenge!

Dan, i do appreciate your comments, and i believe that you do have a right to know. i believe that you are a smart enough person to realize that we, by no means, no everything. we are in a difficult war, against a difficult enemy. this war IS different than past wars, and victory here will be different than WW1 and WW2. BUT, again, my challenge isn't over what the NIE reort says or doesn't say. i think that all that can be spun for either side of the argument. my challenge is simply, WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THOSE THAT WERE LIVID OVER THE VALERY PLAME LEAK!?! thats it! i think that we can agree that it would be very hypocritical if the people that called for hearings and all that garbage over the leak of a covert agent, in a time of war, didn't also show that same spirit over the leaking of Very sensitive intel. in a time of war.

please address my challenge.

There's a world of difference.

The Plame Leak was about an administration's underhanded political payback at someone stalling their drumbeat for war.

The NIE Leak informed the American people it's leadership was lying to them. I understand the need for secrecy in war and all, but not with the central core, that is, is it getting better or worse?

So now, please address mine: How do you feel about our President telling the American people things are going to get better next year, when all the reports are telling him it's going to get worse?

Sniff Sniff Sniffs the air Me smells the odor of a Tadowe. Whew what a smell.

Larry

dan. i understand that you want to talk about something else, and it's obvious to me and everyone else here, that its because there is serious hypocracy here.

let me get this staight, its the content of the the classified info that makes it ok or not to leak. is that what you're saying by noting the difference between the two things? please explain how the 'world of difference' makes it ok to leak some classified intel and not other.

hypocracy at its finest.

if you want to dicuss other things, then quit throwing softball excuses at this clear hypocracy in the media and on the left. i won't continue to dicuss more complicated things, if you won't even admit that there is a obvious double standard here. i want to make this point very, very clear to everyone reading this, before we go anywhere else with this discussion.

please quit trying to change the topic before we finish discussing this.

thanks.

also, larry,

you want in on this or are you just gonna throw out pointless comments.

either is fine with me....