Rug Burn Junky on 27/9/2006 at 21:36
(
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003272931_terrorintel24.html) Spy agencies say Iraq war worsened terror threat
Been a while since we've constructively pointed out "LOLZ BU$H SUKS" but I thought I'd take a moment for this report, if only because I (and plenty of others) pretty much called this one myself three years ago:
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky in March, 2003
By choosing a course of action likely to polarize Arab moderates, one certainly provides a far more willing audience to listen to extremist views and engage in terrorist acts.
The fact that some Arabs may engage in this activity whether there is a war or not, does not excuse the fact that many more may engage in it if there is a war (remember, one of Osama's key recruiting tools has been to harnass the outrage at the fact that Americans were on Saudi soil from the first Gulf War).
To entirely discount this effect as a possible side effect of the war is to be blind to reality and ignorant of the risks we face.
That doesn't mean that avoiding war will prevent any terrorist attacks, or that going to war won't possibly result in a more stable political situation. However, By choosing this course of action there are risks which are exacerbated by it, and one is that Arab outrage at the hubris of our actions will be heightened.
As such, those making this decision are responsible for the consequences of their actions and should be held accountable for it. Especially since he can hardly say it was unforeseeable: the simple fact that <i>this possibility is being debated right now</i> only serves to underscore the fact that he is, or reasonably should be, aware of this risk.
So, your initial point, that being 'he may be inadvertently blamed for terrorist attacks here as well' is patently wrong - he's been warned of the risk, if he goes ahead with this course of action, he's responsible for the result should it occur.
Of course, I can't really pat myself on the back too much, since by wildly overestimating the American public's ability to perceive the damage Bush had done domestically in that thread, I also predicted a loss in the 2004 election.
Still, 50/50 ain't bad.
jay pettitt on 27/9/2006 at 22:15
ban the terrist sympathizor.
Gingerbread Man on 27/9/2006 at 22:24
I'm still trying to understand what the hell's going on... First it gets leaked that the NIE contains information and opinions that the war in Iraq is creating a rallying point and a recruitment angle for terrorists in the Al Qaeda vein.
Then Bush says "That's not what it says at all, that was taken out of the larger context, and I'm going to declassify enough of it to allow you to SEE what the context is and what the report actually concludes"
And then he does and everyone says "wtf guy, that's exactly what it appears to say and all your hair-splitting and hedging doesn't change that"
There's got to be some fine distinction, real or imagined, that Bush sees and I don't. Far as I can make out, the only thing that even slightly works in that way is where it says that success in Iraq will greatly demoralise terrorists and make it difficult for them to recruit, whereas failure (which includes leaving before "the job is done") would have the opposite effect.
And why hasn't anyone been pointing out to this administration that as long as American troops are there the Iraqi military and police have absolutely zero incentive to get ready enough to take over so the US can leave?
This is getting beyond quagmire. This has strayed into the realm of quicksand.
Turtle on 27/9/2006 at 22:26
ban the terrible synthesizer.
TTK12G3 on 27/9/2006 at 22:35
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
There's got to be some fine distinction, real or imagined, that Bush sees and I don't.
He's a figurehead. He is told what he is to do and procedes to do so because he's been trained to believe that that is the right thing to do.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
And why hasn't anyone been pointing out to this administration that as long as American troops are there the Iraqi military and police have absolutely zero incentive to get ready enough to take over so the US can leave?
Because no one has an incentive to go ahead and do so.
Gingerbread Man on 27/9/2006 at 22:37
Thanks for clearing that up.
TTK12G3 on 27/9/2006 at 22:42
You know it, others won't believe it.
SD on 27/9/2006 at 22:49
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Of course, I can't really pat myself on the back too much, since by wildly overestimating the American public's ability to perceive the damage Bush had done domestically in that thread, I also predicted a loss in the 2004 election.
Still, 50/50 ain't bad.
Hey, that's better predictin' than the US government. In my (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64995) very first thread on these forums, I posted that the Pentagon was predicting 10,000 civilian deaths from war in Iraq. Well, Iraq Body Count is somewhere between 43,269 and 48,046 civilian deaths and rising, so they were way off!
Agent Monkeysee on 27/9/2006 at 23:00
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Then Bush says "That's not what it says at all, that was taken out of the larger context, and I'm going to declassify enough of it to allow you to SEE what the context is and what the report actually concludes"
What I don't understand is that apparently this document was OMG super secret classified but apparently not secret enough to
keep classified when he could score political points with its contents. That's not how national security works you fuckhead.
Rug Burn Junky on 27/9/2006 at 23:01
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Then Bush says "That's not what it says at all, that was taken out of the larger context, and I'm going to declassify enough of it to allow you to SEE what the context is and what the report actually concludes"
And then he does and everyone says "wtf guy, that's exactly what it appears to say and all your hair-splitting and hedging doesn't change that"
My cynical take?
It's spin, pure and simple. The attitude of "People won't bother to examine this themselves, whatever we say it means, it means and the press won't challenge us." has worked for them for a couple of years now, from the budget estimates to Medicare Drug coverage.
But, leaving aside the cheap cynicism, the parsing that they're doing is to focus on one small supposition in the NIE, the dichotomy you mention.
Which only works if "beating them" is actually a possibility. And of course, even that logic, when you boil it down, comes out to "We've got a 50/50 shot at having the same outcome as if we'd never left at all," but it works if you ignore those two facts and only focus on the future.
