Washington Post-

 

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

 

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. Rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, it concludes that the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

 

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

 

The NIE, whose contents were first reported by the New York Times, coincides with public statements by senior intelligence officials describing a different kind of conflict than the one outlined by President Bush in a series of recent speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

 

"Together with our coalition partners," Bush said in an address earlier this month to the Military Officers Association of America, "we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory."

 

But the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare.

 

Although intelligence officials agree that the United States has seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to plan and direct major operations, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.

 

Many of the new cells, the NIE concludes, have no connection to any central structure and arose independently. They communicate only among themselves and derive their inspiration, ideology and tactics from the more than 5,000 radical Islamic Web sites. They spread the message that the Iraq war is a Western attempt to conquer Islam by first occupying Iraq and establishing a permanent presence in the Middle East.

 

The April NIE, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," does not offer policy prescriptions.

 

"What these guys at NIC are supposed to do is to lay it out in very clear, understandable terms," said the intelligence official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's not the role of the NIC to offer recommendations." Rather, it "basically states the conditions" as the intelligence community sees them, he said.

 

The National Intelligence Council is tasked with providing long-term assessments of strategic issues for the president and senior policymakers in the form of National Intelligence Estimates. Composed of current and former senior intelligence and national security officials, it is currently chaired by Thomas Fingar, the former head of the State Department's intelligence bureau and now deputy for analysis to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.

 

An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false.

 

As part of the intelligence reforms enacted in 2004, control of the NIC was transferred from the CIA director to Negroponte's newly created office, with a mandate to cast a wider net for information throughout the 16-agency intelligence community and among nongovernmental experts.

 

Negroponte announced last month that the council would begin drafting a new NIE on Iraq in response to a request from the Senate intelligence committee. That estimate is still in the early planning stages, intelligence officials said yesterday. But though the April NIE does not deal specifically with conditions in Iraq, many of its judgments emphasize the influence of the Iraq war on the spread of global terrorism.

 

According to officials familiar with the document, it describes the situation in Iraq as promoting the spread of radical Islam by providing a focal point, with constant reinforcement of an anti-American message for disaffected Muslims. The Web sites provide a narrative of a war with frequent victories for the insurgents, and describe an occupation that they say regularly targets Islam and its adherents. They also distribute increasingly frequent and sophisticated messages from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, urging Muslims wherever they are to take up arms against the "Crusaders" on behalf of Iraq.

 

Both Bush and bin Laden now regularly describe the Iraq war as the "central front" of the global war, and both are depending on victory there to set the direction of future struggles far afield. Although intelligence officials believe bin Laden's ability to direct major terrorist operations has been greatly diminished, his status as the ideological leader of a global movement that appeals to disaffected Muslims has vastly increased.

 

The conclusions and tone of the NIE have been reflected in a number of public statements by senior intelligence officials this year. In a February speech at Georgetown University, Negroponte said: "My colleagues and I still view the global jihadist terrorist movement, which emerged from the Afghan-Soviet conflict in the 1980s but is today inspired and led by al Qaeda, as the preeminent threat to our citizens, homeland interests and friends."

 

In a sober and comprehensive address to an armed forces group in Texas in April, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then-deputy to Negroponte and now CIA director, drew heavily from the NIE judgments. If current trends continued, Hayden said, "threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide."

 

Before delivering the speech, an intelligence official said, Hayden spoke directly to the NIE authors, saying, "I want to make these points" to a public audience.

Doesnt matter. They have a irrebuttable presumption of being strong on terror. Facts and details go to the wayside.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

 

 

 

No kidding.

what a shocker...and not the 3 finger variety

An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false.

An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false.

Yeah, I noticed that part too...

 

I don't think they will make another mistake that big twice.

An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false.

Yeah, I noticed that part too...

 

I don't think they will make another mistake that big twice.

That was a pretty big mistake. How come we can believe them now?

The american people shouldnt believe them. But, as long as they have their football, beer, and are left to their reality TV, they wont notice as someone else's sons and daughters go off to war to die.

President Bush on Tuesday said it is naive and a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, disputing a national intelligence assessment by his own administration. He said he was declassifying part of the report.

 

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

 

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

 

Bush announced that he was ordering parts of the report declassified during a White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

 

Portions of the document that have been leaked suggest that the threat of terrorism has grown worse since the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the war in Afghanistan, due in part to the war in Iraq.

 

Democrats have used the report to bolster their criticism of Bush's Iraq policy. The administration has claimed only part of the report was leaked and does not tell the full story.

 

Both the chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee have urged the White House to release the material.

 

Using a portion of the report to attack his Iraq policy and suggest it has fanned more terrorism is "naive," Bush said.

 

"I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe," he said.

 

Bush said he had directed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don't compromise national security. The National Intelligence Estimate was written in April.

 

"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.

 

He complained that "somebody leaked classified information for political purposes," Bush said, criticizing both the news media and people in government who talked to them about classified material.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCL1PG0.html

basically declassify parts that support his own cause. Which is logical for him to do.

I don't see you up in arms about the leaking of classified information that helps your cause.

I don't see you up in arms about the leaking of classified information that helps your cause.

 

 

 

here I thought it would be the american people's cause

 

my mistake :blink:

 

My comment wasnt anywhere against what he is doing or for it if you notice. Please dont take a shot at me for no reason.

Leaking something for political gain before an election is definitely not America's cause.

 

I don't think you know the meaning of a 'shot' if that were one.

I have no doubt that this was done for political gain, but, at the same time, to assume that leaking classified information is always the wrong thing to do would be to assume that all classified information is classified for the right reasons. I think we can all agree that just as leaks are politically motivated, there can also be instances where the decision to classify information is politically motivated.

 

My guess is that in this case the reason for the classified status has more to do with the fear of methods being revealed, and not with the conclusions of the report. I can't see how the conclusion that the Iraq war is spreading terrorism would somehow help our enemies. To them, this conclusion is the truth with or without any NIE reports. They think they're winning. On the flip side, I can certainly see how keeping these conclusions from becoming public knowledge could hurt America. These are things that we, as public officials or as voters, really should know.

 

Leaking information for political gain may not be America's cause, but preventing the spread of terrorism certainly is.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006

 

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence, John D. Negroponte, in response to

news reports about the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism

 

"A National Intelligence Estimate is a comprehensive assessment comprised of a series of judgments which are based on the best intelligence our government develops. Characterizing only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing in this case, trends in global terrorism.

 

"Although the NIE on Global Terrorism is still a classified document, I and other senior intelligence officials have spoken publicly, and in a way consistent with the NIE?s comprehensive assessment, about the challenges and successes we have had in the Global War on Terror. What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat.

 

"We have eliminated much of the leadership that presided over al Qaeda -- our top global terror concern in 2001, and U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts continued to disrupt its operations, remove its leaders and deplete its cadre. The Estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism, judging that should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere.

 

"Those statements do nothing to undermine the assessment that we have an enormous and constantly mutating struggle before us in the long war on terror. They simply demonstrate that the conclusions of the Intelligence Community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."

 

The democrats only leaked the aspects of it which help their cause. Yes, i'm sure muslim radicals never hated us before 9/11 or anything.

 

The best defense is a good offense, this is an immutable law of war, whether that offense is in Europe, Afghanistan, Japan, Iraq, or Iran. They may have more of a rallying point than before but that most certainly doesn't mean our efforts haven't de-centralized their efforts. How many times did Al-Qaeda attack our homeland during the Clinton era versus the Bush era? Are our efforts paying off? Yes.

 

When Clinton pulled out troops out of Somalia because of one incident, it was a rallying cry for Al-Qaeda and muslim radicals the world over, Osama himself proclaimed that this was proof "the great satan" can be defeated. If Clinton had stayed in Somalia and shown some balls, that never would have happened.

I could just as easily say that Al-Qaeda is having a difficult time trying to top 9/11, finding something that would be even more "shock-and-awe". I'm sure that if that terror plot that originated in London would have originated here in the US, it would have gone off without a hitch.

It was the republican congress that was crying for us to pull out of Somalia and to not go into the balkens at all.

 

I find it rather amusing they keep turning all of this around now.

It was the republican congress that was crying for us to pull out of Somalia and to not go into the balkens at all.

 

I find it rather amusing they keep turning all of this around now.

 

Bingo. They were also the ones whining that Bill was 'too obsessed' with Osama and Al-Qaeda, and then started saying that it was all a diversion from MonicaGate.

 

The biggest irony is, most of the Neo-Cons now in the White House opposed rebuilding war-torn Yugoslavia, saying that they didn't believe in nation building. Oh, how times have changed...

It was the republican congress that was crying for us to pull out of Somalia and to not go into the balkens at all.

 

I find it rather amusing they keep turning all of this around now.

 

No it wasn't.

 

Republicans wanted to know if Clinton would honor the millitary's request to attack back, he denied that. It was a disagreement on whether or not they were going to attack again at all, or if we would be pulling out with no millitary action whatsoever.

They were also the ones whining that Bill was 'too obsessed' with Osama and Al-Qaeda

 

LOL, you need to stop believing everything that is spewed from Clinton's mouth. What he said was a blatant and fabricated lie.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/7869

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&...AN9G14ZwqqbpSJg

They were also the ones whining that Bill was 'too obsessed' with Osama and Al-Qaeda

 

LOL, you need to stop believing everything that is spewed from Clinton's mouth. What he said was a blatant and fabricated lie.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/7869

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&...AN9G14ZwqqbpSJg

 

LOL, you need to stop quoting incredibly biased sources when trying to debunk people's claims. I mean, if I pulled something out from Michael Moore's website, you'd laugh me off the site. It's the same thing.

LOL, quoting well known newspapers is a 'biased source'.

 

LOL, quoting well known newspapers is a 'biased source'.

 

 

If you're talking about what Accord just linked to, then you're crazy.

 

His first link was to the GOP's website, not exactly a middle-of-the-road source.

 

Then he linked to a conservative blogger who titled his page "exposing the liberal media bias".

 

You've got to be kidding me. He pretty much killed his argument the second it was made.

LOL, quoting well known newspapers is a 'biased source'.

 

 

If you're talking about what Accord just linked to, then you're crazy.

 

His first link was to the GOP's website, not exactly a middle-of-the-road source.

Which backed up all their statements with newspaper articles.

LOL, quoting well known newspapers is a 'biased source'.

 

 

If you're talking about what Accord just linked to, then you're crazy.

 

His first link was to the GOP's website, not exactly a middle-of-the-road source.

 

Then he linked to a conservative blogger who titled his page "exposing the liberal media bias".

 

You've got to be kidding me. He pretty much killed his argument the second it was made.

The Washington Post is INCREDIBLY biased!