Release the NIE on Iraq and Terrorism!

Reality intrudes again. President Bush and his allies keep insisting that the invasion of Iraq was essential to winning the fight against anti-American Islamic jihadists. The government's top experts on terrorism and Islamic extremism disagree. As The New York Times reported on Sunday, a National Intelligence Estimate produced earlier this year noted that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow. In other words, Bush's invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive. Or put this way: the ugly war in Iraq that has claimed the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians has placed the United States more at risk.

Times reporter Mark Mazzetti noted in his front-page article that he had spoken to "more than a dozen" U.S. government officials and outside experts who had either seen the NIE or who had participated in its creation. That's a lot of footwork. But he did not quote from the document itself, except to note that the NIE describes a radical Islamic movement of "self-generating" cells. (An NIE is the intelligence community's most definitive assessment of a major strategic issue and is supposed to represent the consensus view of the government's various intelligence agencies. This particular NIE is the first evaluation of global terrorism since the invasion of Iraq.)

The White House has claimed that the Times's account of the NIE did not represent the complete document. And Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has declared--in response to the news of this NIE--that the Bush administration has scored significant success against the "global jihadist threat."

Well, is the threat now worse because of Bush's war in Iraq? Does the NIE say the war has made the jihadist threat more dangerous? The White House could resolve this very quickly by declassifying the NIE. If the report contains nuances or success stories not conveyed by the Times report (and those of other newspapers), releasing the report will clear things up.

The report is classified. But an NIE of this sort is probably more of an analytical document than a run-down of secret intelligence. And, certainly, the real secrets in the report--particularly references to sources and methods--can be redacted.

There is precedent for a partial release of an NIE. Months into the war in Iraq, when no WMDs had been found and the Bush administration was being accused of having misrepresented the prewar intelligence to hype the Iraq threat, the White House did declassify portions of the NIE on Iraq's WMDs. The point was to show that the intelligence community had informed the White House that Saddam Hussein was sitting on stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. But that flawed NIE also contained dissents and conflicting information indicating there were serious questions about the WMD case. And before the White House released these slices of the NIE, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Scooter Libby to disclose potions of the NIE to friendly reporters--most notably, Judith Miller of The New York Times. Libby, though, made sure not to share the dissents and contradicting material. Libby's highly selective leak to Miller did not end up helping the White House, and Bush's press operation subsequently made public whole chunks of the NIE. That, too, didn't get Bush out of the where-are-the-WMDs jam, for these excerpts showed there had been questions about key parts of the WMD case. (For more on all this, see the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff: Hubris: the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.)

If the White House was able to release parts of that NIE on WMDs, it can do the same with the NIE on Iraq and terrorism. It may, though, not be motivated to do so.

INFO ON HUBRIS: Tom Brokaw says "Hubris is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For more information on Hubris, click here.

Comments (66)

1. David:

   I beat you, MASK.

   Interesting story. The last reason Bush & Cheney cited for the Iraq War is proven to be false -- we are NOT safer as a result. What's even more interesting is the NIE dates from last Spring, yet Bush & Cheney have continued to peddle the same nonsense that the Iraq War has somehow made us safer. What a dispicable bunch.

   Posted by trabaris at 09/25/2006 @ 12:32pm

2. Sorry, I'm late....had to re-read Mr Corn's piece.....

   believe it or not..."For more on all this, see the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff: Hubris: the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.)"....came in the NEXT TO LAST PARAGRAPH!

   I was shocked!

   Posted by Mask at 09/25/2006 @ 12:57pm

3. It's hard to imagine what kind of a story related to the administration's foreign policy will gain any traction at all. After years of this bullshit, people have pretty well dug in their heels--some of us have chosen to look where we step before digging in while others are happy to slather themselves from heel to eyebrows in the muck. I think it is hopeless at this point. The media is tepid and increasingly unimpactful in our daily lives. Congress has redefined itself as a group of kept men and women who will do anything to avoid real work. The president and his nursemaids have redefined "classified" to mean "that which does not please us".

   In all this, where is the hope for change?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 1:09pm

4. MASK:

   Yeah, I find David's constant selling of his book to be pretty funny also. I have to admit, however, that his "hard sell" strategy has paid off with a truly gullible consumer -- me. I bought it and have read about half of it. It's really well-researched and well-written, and provides excellent material on the run-up to the Iraq War. I recommend you read it, MASK.

   Posted by trabaris at 09/25/2006 @ 1:45pm

5. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/25/2006 @ 1:09pm

   I don't know TJ, I think this one is going to stick with the public no matter what the White House does about releasing it. The MSM has already picked it up in a big way and it's something most voters will actually pay attention to. Why? Because it's simple in concept, just like BushCo's usual pronouncements: "We're less safe because we invaded Iraq, the experts say so." It has that ring of simple truth and it comes out of the government itself. Sure, there will be the right-wing ideologues who will spin or ignore their way out of accepting or dealing with this NIE, but they vast middle and the left will be taking it to heart.

   Posted by Stwriley at 09/25/2006 @ 1:51pm

6. In 2004 information was classified 15.6 million times at a cost of $7.2 billion bucks. (It costs around $450 to classify something) The president or designated agency heads make requests to have something classified. Sounds like DC types spend a hell of a lot of time classifying stuff. Given the incredible volume in 2004, it also sounds like it can be done in minutes.

   Can there be THAT much information swimming inside the Belt Way which threatens our national security? I seriously doubt it.

   Posted by felicity at 09/25/2006 @ 1:52pm

7. Are there any legs left on the Bush Administration's justifications for the war and occupation in Iraq?

   Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 4:25pm

8. Posted by TRABARIS 09/25/2006 @ 1:45pm

   What may shock you is...I think Mr Corn and Mr Isikoff may be quite accurate in their portrayal of the run-up to Iraq.

   I simply think this INCESSANT self-promotion (I honestly think David Corn could do an article on the new "Survivor" series and find a link to "Hubris"...."The Aitu tribe tried to win the challenge, just like Bush tried to win the PR battle on Iraq...read more about it in *****")

   I also think he's suffering a bit from Post-"Plame-gate" Depression, since (spin or not) Armitage as the "first leaker" dispels the idea of a conspiracy by Karl Rove.

   Posted by Mask at 09/25/2006 @ 4:36pm

9. MASK:

   LOL!

   Posted by trabaris at 09/25/2006 @ 5:27pm

10. Rio had a "point" MBB?

    Speaking of "intelligence" would either you or Rio care to comment on the National Intelligence Estimate that is the subject of the post?

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 5:34pm

11. And MBB, when one begins a post with "retuning to . . . " it's usually done AFTER others ventures off-topic, not as a prelude to changing the subject.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 5:38pm

12. MBB & Rio Loco

    Islam believes itself to be the "true" religion, just like your own respective sects of Christendom do no doubt. Which IS right though? (And noted that arguably, most religions do so as well...)

    The main difference I see is that radical Christians no longer cut off heads, and shoot folks "in the name of God" only occasionally, while radical Islamics do both and more frequently. More a matter of scale than qualitative difference it would seem.

    and MBB.....I take it then that torture is OK by you? Do we need to rework that tired quip and ask "Whose fingernails would Jesus pull out?"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/25/2006 @ 5:59pm

13. Islam contends the American counter attacks in the "war on terrorism" in Afganistan and Iraq are a holy war!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 5:04pm

    Man, that Islam must be some kind of Nostradamus. But I guess my first reaction was why shouldn't "Islam" define this as a holy war? We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (one with a somewhat reasonable rationale), are threatening Iran, led the Western sandbagging on intervening in Lebanon, and have sent Muslims to secret prisons across the globe. Are you really sure this isn't a holy war?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 6:24pm

14. The NYTs has completely blown their credibility. They have absolutely no ability to change anyone's mind regarding the war.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 6:08pm

    Why do I assume you felt otherwise in the fall of 2002? This garbage from the man who posts a friggin' O'Reilly transcript. Give me a break. By the way, in case you're wondering what the feeling is, it's credibility slapping you in the face.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 6:27pm

15. After I wrote my piece above, I read this. I guess great minds think alike:

    The New York Times commonly sites the anger of our enemies and our increased casualties as evidence that we are losing...

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 6:25pm

    Hey! Great minds! It's "cites".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 6:29pm

16. After the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame lie-fest/debacle, the general public learned that the CIA is willing to comprise their own agents in their efforts to undermine the President. -MBB

    Your an idiot.-Crab

    If the NIE is from the CIA there's no telling whether it should be believed or not. You have better odds flipping a coin since a good deal of what the CIA does is to intentionally mislead people. Furthermore, the information contained in is speculative. -MBB

    I do believe the head of the CIA got an award.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 6:44pm

17. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 6:53pm

    "Every single person in the country knew that every single person on the NYT editorial board and executive board opposed the war."

    Why toss such stupid exaggerations into your defense? First of all, "every single person" in this country knows what an editorial board is? But, beyond that, during the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq

    The New York Times maintained a rigid consistency. Even as the paper called Powell's speech "the most powerful case to date" against Hussein, it also warned that the U.S. "cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support." The Times maintained this line throughout, applauding when the administration opted for "coercive diplomacy" -- a phrase the paper seemed proud of -- but also criticizing Bush's "destructive ‘with us or against us' approach." Though willing to support a war sanctioned by the UN, the Times challenged the notion that Hussein posed an "immediate danger" to the U.S. and devoted an entire editorial to debunking the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. "This page has never wavered in the belief that Mr. Hussein must be disarmed," it concluded on March 18. "Our problem is with the wrongheaded way this administration has gone about it."

    From the Columbia Journalism Review, http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/mooney-war.asp

    The NYTimes was not opposed to war against Saddam. It was opposed to war against Saddam without a broad international consensus to avoid it becoming our war. It also supported war against Saddam irrespective of all the delusions and deceptions tossed about by the administration. If you have a problem with thinking that a war without a stamp of approval from the rest of the world against a country that posed/s no imminent threat is good for the USA--and remember, the Times radical editorial board was writing this prior to the war--then it seems your prejudices against the liberal media have impacted your judgment in broader ways.

    I have mixed feelings about the Times and I think (and thought) that they were wrong to offer even conditional support for the war. Some of their writers are good, some are softminded, and some seem like corporate cutouts. But if you want to turn information that hurts your beliefs into an opportunity to attack the press, then perhaps your definition of freedom is not quite as expansive as that of the rest of us.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 7:20pm

18. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Thanks for the brevity, Bravo. Only a few quick scrolls required to get past your post.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 7:22pm

19. Who's Mask? Could he or she be someone I put on my Ignore list so long ago I forgot all about him or her? A contrarian, perhaps? All I know I read from the responses to Mask, who apparently commented on the fact that Corn is recommending his book (imagine that). Rather than address that perfectly appropriate behavior, I suggest Mask could make a better, more relevant point by arguing the substance of David's post.

    Oh. Now I get it.

    Posted by ash at 09/25/2006 @ 7:25pm

20. Who's Bravo? Do I see a pattern here?

    Posted by ash at 09/25/2006 @ 7:27pm

21. The American people chose war, consciously and deliberately. They were not tricked into it. They were not lied into it.

    I guess that is your opinion, but it really isn't supported by anything resembling facts. There are numerous resources you could look at (I even heard somewhere Corn wrote a book on the subject!). There is a nice summary at http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

    If you look at what the administration was telling the public as opposed to what the intelligence was really saying, most reasonable people now say it is hard to square. Only after released intelligence shows there was little behind anything in terms of an actual Iraqi threat, you all claim NOW that the CIA is inherently unreliable. What a joke - Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice weren't downplaying the CIA back in 2001 and 2002 when they were selling the war and neither were folks like you then or in the many months when the debate came up. Bush even gave George Tenet a nice medal for his efforts.

    So yeah, when the war started it, most people supported it. But, your 2003 polls are meaningless. They certainly give a skewed version considering all of the misrepresentations and omissions considering the so-called "facts" people were drawing their conclusions on. People were also buying Enron stock right up until it went belly-up. It doesn't mean the company was somehow doing well.

    The NYT "convinces" people who are already convinced. Nobody else trusts them.

    I think the many people who read Judy Miller's articles in 2001 and 2002 would disagree (as well as those that read other reports or watched TV news stories citing to Miller's "reporting").

    If the NIE is from the CIA there's no telling whether it should be believed or not.

    And I am sure you had nothing but skepticism for the NIE when it concerned aluminum tubes and uranium from Africa.

    Furthermore, the information contained in is speculative. Nobody can say whether there is more or less now that there would have been had history been completely different.

    Kind of like a "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud," huh? Or that Hussein may not have had WMD, but he an intention to revive "WMD-related program activities." So an intelligence report is not to be trusted because it is speculative, yet launching a multi-billion dollar preventative war based on mere speculation of what a leader may or may not do in the future is justifiable. That's rich.

    But rather than recognize the fact that you are seriously out of step with the vast majority of the country, you blame Bush for the country's decision to go along with him.

    You'd be wise to check some data on that one. You are the one out of step. Most are now against the war/occupation; think it was a lousy idea; and believe Bush misrepresented the nature of the threat.

    This country isn't pacifist. You would be wise to be honest with yourself regarding this.

    It may be true that most people in this country are not pacifists, but I wager most are very selective and discriminating in what they would perceive to be prudent use of our military force. And if you had any honesty yourself, you would admit that most now recognize that this engagement was not necessary to protect our security.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 7:44pm

22. A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11...

    ...I've always been skeptical of the "erroneously" claim. There's directly responsible and indirectly responsible or part of the problem responsible.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 7:29pm

    You seem to have formed a good number of opinions out of thin air today. I've not had a sufficiently good day to continue this stuff with you. Maybe someone else is willing to do community service. Sorry for the attitude, but if you still want to argue Iraq's involvement with 9/11 in any regard then...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 7:58pm

23. Those weren't leaked a few weeks before an election for political effect.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 7:59pm

    So the reliability of the intelligence depends on when it is released to the public. Like those that write it have any idea when THAT will happen.

    I'll be sure to check back with you on your timing theory once we hit a few orange or red alerts in the next few weeks.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:06pm

24. You you argue against vaccinations because you can't be sure you'd catch polio without it?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 8:03pm

    Terrible analogy - choosing whether or not to get a vaccination is a bit different than launching a war, especially considering the side effects.

    Would I get a vaccination for a disease that the medial community determined was all but eradicated, but the shot cost me $100,000, I had to put the lives of some friends and family on the line yet even afterwards I was at risk for other diseases?

    No.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:14pm

25. I believe that if time permited, It could be shown that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Rio Blotto, just a little friendly advice- you don't have to spend forty five minutes typing to convince everyone that you're historically ignorant. One sentence is usually enough. Palgiarizing this trash from Muslim hate sites is a waste of your admittedly probably not very valuable time.

    The success of Muslim expansion was primarily due to a giant sucking action. In most cases there was a political vacuum that they filled.

    The conquest of Spain, for example, was initiated against the express orders of the Caliph by the local North African representative of the Caliph(Tariq?). Spain was ruled by Roderick, who was universally hated. His brother, I think it was, perhaps his cousin, invited the Muslims in as allies in Roderick's overthrow. They were enthusiatically welcomed because the burdensome poll tax on non-Muslims that you refer to was orders of magnitude lower than those of Roderick. Part of the reason that Muslim rule eventually faltered was that so many locals "converted" to avoid even the poll tax that the state became fiscally restricted.

    There are varying estimates of the size of the force that Tariq embarked to Spain with but the account of one Muslim in his apparatus put it at about 7,500 cavalry. That wouldn't be enough to conquer the Spanish peninsula without help from the local populace.

    Tariq was later recalled to the capital for deploying to Spain against the Caliph's wishes.

    Just as complicated a story can be seen in the case of the Ottoman empire. European royalty dispatched constant streams of letters pleading for the Ottoman rulers to ally with them to unseat their local rivals. Those who paint the conflict as one of the Muslims against a religiously unified anti-Muslim Europe are telling a lie by means of editing.

    Before Richard the Lionhearted quit Jerusalem he proposed that Salah Ad-Din marry his younger sister and create a jointly-ruled Kingdom of Jerusalem.

    You see, things aren't as simplistic as the people manipulating your ignorance have rapidly convinced you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 8:16pm

26. The opinion that terrorism is worse than if we had followed some other course of action is pure opinion with no facts to distract us.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 8:07pm

    Let's see, an opinion on what would happen if we were to do or not do something . . . where have I heard something like that before? And what were the facts such opinions were based upon?

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:17pm

27. Hey, Pontificus-Rectificus, I see you've been taking advantage of the fact that you're on my ignore list. No great shakes. When an evolutionary throwback like you calls me un-American I know that it's reprehensible source will be considered. You are a primary specimen for the failings of American civilization.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 8:23pm

28. intelligent people: please IGNORE those who blindly follow the president.

    why consider anyone who says "The opinion that terrorism is worse than if we had followed some other course of action is pure opinion with no facts to distract us"?

    this is pure insanity, and even republican generals and politicians don't even think like this anymore.....in other words, these blind supporters are a waste of time.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2006 @ 8:23pm

29. Does anyone else think that MARYBRETBRAD is a greater threat to America than terrorism? It's interesting that people like him are more critical of the ignore list than they are of the slave camp at Guantanamo Bay.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 8:29pm

30. Posted by DARLADOON 09/25/2006 @ 8:23pm

    Sorry. I plead temporary and severe insanity. I'm better now.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:30pm

31. The corruption never stops. George Bush has been using your tax money to buy personal slaves.

    The US Central Intelligence Agency paid Pakistan millions of dollars for handing over more than 350 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists to the United States, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly said.

    The assertions come in the military ruler's upcoming memoir "In the Line of Fire," serialized in The Times newspaper.

    Musharraf does not reveal how much Pakistan was paid for the 369 Al-Qaeda suspects he ordered should be handed over to the United States, the newspaper said, noting, however, that such payments are banned by the US government . .

    http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060924/1/43mle.html

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 8:32pm

32. MBB -

    Your analogies are getting even worse. If you wanted to make it accurate: Your kid did not have his lunch money stolen. He lied to you. And even though Joe had nothing to do with it, I am sure protecting your kid from "getting killed" would be worth it if Joe's relatives came back and took out a couple of your other kids as payback. Then of course, if you can survive, you can give your own payback right back to Joe's family - or maybe you pick Fred's since he is a prick too.

    See, what you say you would do in your analogy assumes total lawless international society. If you want to swirl downward into a state of nature, don't take the rest of the country or me with you.

    According to you the true value of this war is a deterrent effect on others. Of course, now you say forget the intelligence, forget whatever the true threat was (even though many against this war from the beginning were right about that threat). We can kick the shit out of whatever country we wish and the US does not have to abide by international norms since nobody can enforce them on us.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:38pm

33. I hope for your audience's sake, your presentation does not require anything based on facts or sound reason.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2006 @ 8:40pm

34. Yet, the Left believes they can reason with these people, only because the Left is incapable of understanding these people.

    Actually, you're the one who doesn't understand these people. There are different groups with disparate aims, personnel and methods. And nothing you have said indicates that Abu Ghraib and a quagmire in Iraq has actually accomplished anything, as the NIE has indicated.

    ROSS: That's what the administration would say. Certainly if you interrupted a tower - a plot to bomb a tower in Los Angeles, you've saved lives.

    Well, that is what the Administration would say. However, I think you'd need something more reliable than the O'Reilly program--independent confirmation.

    The American people chose war, consciously and deliberately. They were not tricked into it. They were not lied into it.

    That is not true. This Administration overhyped the Hussein threat and insinuated links between Hussein and al-Qaida.

    After the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame lie-fest/debacle, the general public learned that the CIA is willing to comprise their own agents in their efforts to undermine the President.

    Wrong again, it was the Administration that compromised its agent.

    Attacking your enemies can be expected to make them angrier. Hitting the beaches at Normandy is going to increase your casualties. Those are things you'll see on your way to victory.

    Yes, but Hussein was not an enemy in the struggle with Islamist militants. There was no gain in that strategic detour.

    The next day, your kid comes home and they stole his money again. At this point, you cannot allow this sitiation to continue. At some point, your kid could get killed.

    So you walk over and ask who stole your kid's money. And nobody says anything, so you pick one at random and kick the living shit out of him.

    The only problem is thatthe kid who beat up your get may be emboldened by the fact that you didn't get him while you've shown all the innocent kids that there's no reason not to beat up your kid, since they'll get a beating anyway.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/25/2006 @ 10:02pm

35. the hamster conservative crackup is a wonderful thing to behold

    Posted by Will C. at 09/25/2006 @ 10:10pm

36. did mary mary just advocate that a parent should walk up to a group of kids and randomly beat the shit out of one of them?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/25/2006 @ 10:12pm

37. have I mentioned that the hamster ocnservative crackup is a wonderful thing to behold?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/25/2006 @ 10:12pm

38. "Yet, the Left believes they can reason with these people, only because the Left is incapable of understanding these people."

    -this is so hysterically ridiculous, that i don't know why i'm bothering to respond. prior to the invasion of iraq, bush didn't know that there were multiple strands of islam.

    -prior to the invasion of iraq, rumsfeld scolded, and even threatened to fire, anyone who suggested that a post-war, anti-sectarian violence plan would be essential in winning the war.

    -bush continues, to this day, to conflate sectarian strife with terrorism.

    -finally, sy hersch just asserted today, in the new yorker, that US intelligence still does not know how the 'global terrorist network' is organized, funded, or how they do their planning.

    -at least the left admits that "knowing" how terrorists operate is very, very tricky. as i've said over and over again, one of our strengths is that we are somewhat timid. we don't just jump into something without knowing the consequences. like clinton. he never invaded any countries, he did surgical strikes here and there. gathered nato assistance, and what not. he was not an aggressive president....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2006 @ 10:21pm

39. John "Salvadoran Solution" Negroponte, says, "Oh, its just a bunch of opinions, oh dont pay any attention". American people, dont pay any attention to anyone who tells you the truth about the Disaster in Iraq - dont listen to people in the military, dont listen to people in the CIA, dont listen to any truth about the Disaster in Iraq whatsoever.

    Posted by conshame at 09/25/2006 @ 10:37pm

40. and then he adds, "oh, and we ARE safer than we were after 9.11"

    what goes through the mind of someone who takes these words into consideration?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2006 @ 10:50pm

41. The Ottoman Empire was way after the Crusades fool - do you even know what you are talking about at all?

    Posted by conshame at 09/25/2006 @ 11:02pm

42. Iraq is a disaster - listen to the intelligence agencies. The intelligence agencies are trying to tell the truth about the Disaster in Iraq. George Bush is trying to tell LIES about how the Disaster in Iraq has made life a whole lot better for Iraqis and Americans!

    Posted by conshame at 09/25/2006 @ 11:06pm

43. maryBB-Darin, as i read through your posts it has become obvious to me that you are delusional. You have grabbed onto the theory of chimpboy's Great Experiment and no matter the facts, you will not let go. You posit that the frickin CIA is an arm of the DNC. You still use the aluminum tubes argument. and on and on and on and on, spewing the party line. "heavy weights...jane Fonda Michael Moore?" Are you insane or just stupid! How about Albright and McGovern ( Ray, not George). The gdamn IAEA. Your whole excuse is that people are like you, frightened sheep, unable to see what is right before you. Just about every independent evaluation shows that terrorism is up, Iraq is a quagmire, graft is rampant and Iran has more power now than in 2001. But you still Believe in the folks that have been wrong, time and again.

    But you are not worth the time anymore. I hope to gain new ideas and have mine challenged, but you are just a mimic. I can get all your ideas from the RNC website.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:42pm

44. "The authority to classify, practice redaction, and declassify national security and intelligence information must be wrested from the executive branch, and legislative branches of government, and the People of the United States themselves must be given the determining role in making such decisions. For so long as no real removal of the influence of money in federal elections takes place, neither the executive nor the legislative branches of american government can be trusted, separately or together, to perform their constitutional duties.

    "History has amply shown the executive branch will abuse this power, and equally has shown the legislative branch unable and unwilling to excercise their own constitutional and statutory oversight responsibilities.

    "If the American People do not now take back their government from the corporate powers that have hijacked them, noone will do it for them. And all future generations will have those now living to blame.

    "Our history is what we make it."

    From the Afterword to Big Brother Is Watching You

    Also, see Personal Account - Earth: Blogging and The Emergence of DotCommunism, Section II.5 PERMANENTLY REVOKE EXECUTIVE ENTITLEMENT TO REDACT

    -dcm

    Posted by dredeyedick at 09/25/2006 @ 11:43pm

45. At his instigation the crusaders broke the truce and invaded Bulgaria, -Rio

    the christians broke a truce???????

    ya know, this shit has been going on way to long. religion may do some good, but it sure brings out the worst in a whole lot of people. Whats the Pascal qoute?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:46pm

46. osted by DREDEYEDICK 09/25/2006 @ 11:43pm

    COINTELPRO?

    Files on John Lennon?

    MLK? Daniel Shoor?

    ladies underwear in the FBI HQ?

    this stuff would never happen nder chimpboy. We can trust him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:48pm

47. I mean for chis-sakes, just in one week we find out that Rummy specifically did not plan for post invasion, 19 intel divisions think Iraq made islamic terrorism worse, retired generals call out the Def Sec in public for being incompetent. thats just in one week.!!if anything the people are losing interest 'cuz they can'y keep up!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:52pm

48. But hey, Rio, Darin, you hold onto that dream.

    Kumbaya baby, kumbaya, Peace will come to the Middle East, and it's Name shall be Chimpy McFlightsuit. He will declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and so it shall be.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:55pm

49. As a sidenote, the following excerpt is, to put it bluntly, insane:

    People of the United States themselves must be given the determining role in making such decisions. For so long as no real removal of the influence of money in federal elections takes place, neither the executive nor the legislative branches of american government can be trusted, separately or together, to perform their constitutional duties..

    Among other things, this would entail that classifying things means absolutely nothing. For these reasons, and many more, this proposal is manifestly absurd.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/26/2006 @ 12:35am

50. Posted by ASH 09/25/2006 @ 7:25pm

    I commented on Mr Corn ALWAYS promoting his book....so far, every article he's written for A MONTH and a half now.

    Posted by Mask at 09/26/2006 @ 07:17am

51. Didn't you know, its a contest to see which liberal biased media can run out the most "naysayers" they can round up to make the Bush admin. and his cabinet look bad in order to aid the Demoncrats who still don't have a clue!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/26/2006 @ 12:19am

    You too, are an idiot. I have tried to refrain from such simplistic name-calling in the past. But let us call the spades spades. Idiot. Did you too miss the retired generals bashing your man? They must be part of the Vast Left Wing conspiracy, huh? Idiot. Did you miss the NIE report that says terrorism has increased? Did you miss Kays report that said "We were wrong" about wmd's? Idiot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:16am

52. here ya go idiots: From NewsWeek http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

    In a parched clearing a few hundred yards on, more than 100 Taliban fighters ranging in age from teenagers to a grandfatherly 55-year-old have assembled to meet their provincial commander, Muhammad Sabir. An imposing man with a long, bushy beard, wearing a brown and green turban and a beige shawl over his shoulders, Sabir inspects his troops, all of them armed with AKs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He claims to have some 900 fighters, and says the military and psychological tide is turning in their favor. "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

    Not long after NEWSWEEK's visit, US and Afghan National Army forces launched a major attack to dislodge the Taliban from Ghazni and four neighboring provinces. But when NEWSWEEK returned in mid-September, Sabir's fighters were back, performing their afternoon prayers. It is an all too familiar story. Ridge by ridge and valley by valley, the religious zealots who harbored Osama bin Laden before 9/11 - and who suffered devastating losses in the US invasion that began five years ago next week - are surging back into the country's center. In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and US military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.

    In Ghazni and in six provinces to the south, and in other hot spots to the east, Karzai's government barely exists outside district towns. Hard-core Taliban forces have filled the void by infiltrating from the relatively lawless tribal areas of Pakistan where they had fled at the end of 2001. Once back inside Afghanistan these committed jihadist commanders and fighters, aided by key sympathizers who had remained behind, have raised hundreds, if not thousands, of new, local recruits, many for pay. They feed on the people's disillusion with the lack of economic progress, equity and stability that Karzai's government, NATO, Washington and the international community had promised.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:26am

53. Rio Idiot, did you know that Jimmy peanut established the only remaining peace accord in the ME? Did you know Cheney wanted to give Iran nukes in the Ford Admin? idiot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:28am

54. more anti-american lefty BS:

    Afghanistan is "unfortunately well on its way" to becoming a "narco-state," NATO's supreme commander, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, said before Congress last week.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:31am

55. "If the combination of this superficial holier-than-thou moralism with an ignorance-based paranoia were idiosyncratic to marginal characters who fire off email rants after being primed by right-wing TV shows, maybe we could chuckle at them. The problem is that this stance is hardly marginal. Think about how many U.S. politicians take positions that, while less harsh, reflect that same mindset. "-Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin --from Common Dreams

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:40am

56. apologies for putting the WTC buildings in the way of planes full of Islamic Terrorist hijackers!!!!!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/26/2006 @ 12:19am

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!! HAHAHAHA. WHAT THE F ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT, IDIOT? Howard Dean placed the WTC in front of the Saudi terrorists? idiot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 08:56am

57. Posted by CRABWALK 09/26/2006 @ 08:28am

    Actually, CRAB....that ONE foreign policy success of Carter's...

    was basically given to him on a silver platter by Anwar Sadat. Sadat (who later sacrificed his life because of his treaty with the Israelis) had already stated that he wanted an accord with Begin and Israel.

    Carter merely "watched the handshake"....and of course, marked it as a "success of his Administration" (of course, he needed ANYTHING he could get by 1980!)

    Posted by Mask at 09/26/2006 @ 09:37am

58. As soon as Arafat got home he started dispatching suicide bombers at a rate unequaled at any time! Must have been Jimminey Peanuts brilliant influence again! Now after rejecting his lifelong Christian denomination he supports palastinian terrorism and ANY enemy of America fully! Flexible morality and totally oblivious statesmanship is Jimmeny Peanuts Presidential heritage!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/26/2006 @ 09:20am

    at least MASK knows what I am writing about. And who facilitated the Sadt Platter? Cronkite, the Scurge of the Liberal Media. GASP!

    So, Tell me O Wise One, what is YOUR plan to bring the troops home? Stay the course?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 10:41am

59. Now after rejecting his lifelong Christian denomination -RIO

    See, your an idiot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 10:46am

60. Ooohhh, these Lefty nay-sayers make me sooo angry. why doesn't Gen Batiste go sleep with Hanoi Jane and get it over with?

    http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID= 2006-09-26T033313Z_01_N25287562_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-USA.xml&archived=F alse

    The Iraq conflict, which began in March 2003, made "America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001," Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, told a hearing on the war called by U.S. Senate Democrats.

    "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fuelled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents," Batiste said.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/26/2006 @ 11:36am

61. In order for you to hate Bush you need to convince yourself that there is no threat so you characterized murder victims as liars.

    Nice.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/26/2006 @ 12:00am

    In order for you to continue to support the president's policies, you have to assume that our invasions stopped the violence. To continue your analogy, after you kicked a little of Joe's ass--to the point that Joe somehow was put on trial--you decided to relax and not even concern yourself with the absolute knowledge that it was not Joe, but Fred. Fred and his friends and sympathizers are now doing a whole lot worse than stealing your kid's lunch money. You are now going broke taking taxis every day to their neighborhoods to clean them up, meanwhile the little gang of bully kids is now a well-fortified gang threatening to take the previously bad neighborhood into genuine anarchy.

    All because the parents were too stupid and lazy to figure out who was truly terrorizing their kid and focusing on his punishment.

    Nice.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/26/2006 @ 12:16pm

62. You see, things aren't as simplistic as the people manipulating your ignorance have rapidly convinced you.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/25/2006 @ 8:16pm

    Speaking of ignorance, I guess your convenient version of history explains why it took 800 years to reestablish Spain as a Christian Kingdom under Ferdinand and Isabella when the peaceable friendly muslims were finally driven out?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 10:51pm

    If you were less ignorant you wouldn't bring up points that prove my point. It took 800 years because the native Iberians preferred Muslim rule and didn't want to have anything to do with the nobility of Castile and Aragon. They only eventually succeeded by explicit appeals to racism combined with the internal weakening of the Muslim state. The Christians then proceeded to give the Iberians a choice between conversion to Christianity or death which applied to both Muslims and Jews. Many of both the Muslims and Jews fled to Muslim protection in North Africa to escape. It's notable that the Muslims in Spain never demanded conversion on pain of death.

    FROMREDBIRD:

    Where do we find that revisionist history again of the Christian crusaders unprovoked aggression against the peaceable loving Muslims and the Ottoman empire! I'm sure it is facinating fiction for all the undereducated over imaginative posters at the Nation!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 10:57pm

    History is history and you could start with the Crusader sack of CHRISTIAN Constantinople in April 1204. That can even be found in the same place from which you took your long and meaningless cut and paste at 11:35 below:

    "On 12 April, 1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relics, took part in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople."

    OK, RIO BLOTTO, explain what it was that provoked the Crusaders to sack a CHRISTIAN city. Duh.

    ____________________

    The Ottoman Empire was way after the Crusades fool - do you even know what you are talking about at all?

    Posted by CONSHAME 09/25/2006 @ 11:02pm

    ____________________

    CONSHAME; you and FRB? What liberal revisionist history do you ascribe to?

    The sultans of the Empire were:

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/25/2006 @ 11:35pm

    Lots of cut and pasted words but no meaning. The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. The Ninth Crusade suffered it's final drawn out defeat in 1291. There were later conflicts in the Balkans with the Ottoman Empire and some refer to those as crusades with a small "c". The generally accepted notion of the Crusades are the first through ninth Crusades whose field of battle was the Eastern Mediterranean. Once again, RIO BLOTTO, you don't know zip.

    Your theme of the spread of Islam by force and invasion is additionally discredited by the fact that the largest Muslim population in the world is located in Indonesia where no historic battles between Muslims and the local populace took place. What's your explanation for that?

    It's also exceedingly disingenuous to attribute a religious impulse to the Ottoman Empire's expansion and conflicts. It was merely an empire like any other and it sought to acquire territory for purposes of empire, not religion. It carried on quite a lively written correspondence with the Christian nobles and kings of Western Europe who sought to ally themselves with the empire that was strongest in plots to bring about the downfall of their Christian rivals.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/26/2006 @ 12:55pm

63. By the way, RIO BLOTTO, you're back on ignore. I gave you a chance to say something intelligent and you couldn't.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/26/2006 @ 12:58pm

64. You, too, MARYBRETBRAD. You and people like you are a far greater threat to America than terrorism.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/26/2006 @ 1:00pm

65. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/26/2006 @ 12:00am

    Sorry, I guess your silly analogies about beating up and kidnapping school bullies has me confused. I equated your kid's lunch money to WMD in Iraq not the victims of 9/11.

    Your analogy is still ridiculous. And the fact that you see nothing wrong with kicking the wrong bully's ass is pretty frightening and would be a terrible lesson to teach your children. Life is not a maximum security prison where you pick out a guy to stomp to prove your toughness to the rest of the inmates.

    Hopefully, your children will never share the same school as mine - I would hate for mine to be mistakenly caught in the cross-fire of your valuble lessons.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/26/2006 @ 1:28pm

66. OK, MBB, I'm truly confused. I thought "Joe" was either "Saddam" or "Iraq" while Fred was "Osama" or "al Qaeda" or "Islamo-fascists". Am I wrong? I thought your tale of juvenile delinquincy was to show us slow libruls that as long as we spank one of those guys, the rest will heel, i.e. hit Saddam and the other meanies will stop--even the meanest of the meanies--will stop picking on us.

    Please redirect me if I'm off course with the basis for your scenario. If I'm correct, then your responses are weird.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/26/2006 @ 3:06pm