Dear Al, you can listen to this -- it won't strain your reading comprehension:

What did Bush do?

Alterman points out that, in all the articles about the NIE:

Not one of these articles highlights the key point that the CIA reported to Bush that this would be the case before we went to war. For instance, in the Times story -- which led the pack on this -- you need to wade in pretty deeply to learn that "The estimate's judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives. In other words, the CIA -- not The Nation, not Media Matters, not George Soros -- warned the president that he would be increasing, not decreasing the threat of terrorism to the United States by invading Iraq. That story appeared above the fold in the right corner of The New York Times as well. Bush ignored the warnings and purposely misled the United States into the most ruinous war in its history. Liberal hawks cheered. And there's no good way out. All of that belongs in the story, too. The degree of both incompetence and dishonesty involved in the selling and conduct of this war is literally criminal. And it's all happening right before our eyes.

Where did you get the idea that the American people care to discuss issues - or debate positions? Those ideals are so 1990's.

Nominally we're looking for a political settlement to the conflict, right?

Doesn't it seem like part of that political settlement should be the United States taking responsibility for bad decisions, like invading?

If President Bush could make things better by admitting he made a mistake what would be more important to him: the lives of Iraqis and GIs or his pride?

Also, Al:

Who wanted to cut and run?

Al, I know your frightened little brain loves to lie, but the facts are too much, even for you!

Shut up "mother".

Kevin, a conversation is the last thing we need.

Resolution and boldness are the prime requirements in foreign policy.

Al, don't talk to your Mommy that way -- who will wash your sheets? Also, you should stop writing for the Onion:

War Makes U.S. Less Safe

A recent National Intelligence Estimate report found that the war in Iraq has in fact increased Islamic extremism and the overall threat of terror. What do you think?

Lance Brown,
Tech Support Operator
"The media has put a spin on these statistics. It only seems like there are more terrorists because the war has decreased the number of Americans."

Tanya Frazer,
Mortgage Broker
"You know, I have noticed a rise in the hypothetical chance of a theoretically imminent attack."

Mark Everett,
Logger
"As with our own radical '60s, I think it's important to stay the course and outlast the Islamic equivalent of our hippies."

Clinton Tried, Condi Lied, Americans Died.

The Bush Administration couldn't pore piss from a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

And, dear Al, I know you can't read Greenwald's quotes of the Republicans, but where was the boldness and resolution back then?

Blind devotion to a bad idea in the face of facts might help you and Mr. Binky each night, sweety, but not the best way to run a country or a war.

Clinton did something, Bush did nothing, Americans did the dying.

It's a sensitive document. It would be unwise to let terrorists know exactly what we know. It's far better to release big picture, without jeopardizing our sources and methods of collecting data. That's the best balance between informed discourse, and the risk inherent in releasing information. You might as well ask the administration to release all the nuclear launch codes. That's absurd; instead, just give a general idea of how many we have.

Kevin,

Stop repeating other people's fears and do some indepdent looking. The empirical dillemma you prevent has a false bottom.

Look back through history. Does the occupying power in any insurgency's depature **always** lead to chaos?

Is it beyond your imagination to acknowledge the possibility that US withdrawal will **decrease** the bloodshed in Iraq?

Do you some how think that the militarization and breakdown in social order there is **not** related to the fact that US TROOPS and IRAQI troops under orders are **still fighting an active war** on the Iraqi Sunni civilian population?

I know it sounds lame, but you owe your readers and your own judgement a serious look at withdrawal scenarios that *don't* involve collapse. Your fears and instincts aren't good enough. The collapse meme is the sandbar holding back withdrawal. It deserves scrutiny. Not unsourced picture-painting of anarchy derived entirely from the current downward trend, but genuine analysis.

Pleaaaaaaase.

Bush said today:
"We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war."
Was the he was referring to the terrorists or the Democrats?

Cleanse! Purge! Distort! Selectively edit! Redact! Redact! Redact!

I don't think we should accept as conventional wisdom that pouring more troops and money into Iraq would help. Wouldn't have helped Vietnam in the 60's, won't help Iraq now. In any event it's too late--might have worked in 2003, but once entropy reaches a certain point, it can't be overcome.

The real question should be how do we disengage in a rapid but graceful way. Again, we're too late, but the longer we stay the more graceless our exit becomes.

Unfortunately with this administration there is only one way, and that is the way they are going--the one path that anyone with a brain would realize has the least chance to be successful.

American Hawk wrote:

You might as well ask the administration to release all the nuclear launch codes.

You're right. Releasing the NIE and releasing nuclear launch codes are exactly the same.

Only those portions of either or both papers that white wash this regime will be released.
Punked again!

Bush will release the NIE report after he's redacted everything in it but for the words: "It... ...was... ....all... ....Clinton's... ....falt..."

Great analysis Kevin. You're right that the Democrats don't want to hear the general's answer, but I think they should think again - because that lays out starkly the cost - benefit of the choices we face. And that's the argument we should be having. How much would it cost in lives and money to stay in Iraq? Then, should we spend those dollars and lives in Iraq - or would they more effectively be used somewhere else?

That's the question.

"At yesterday's Democratic hearings on the war, retired military officers testified angrily about Don Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, but as Dana Milbank put it, they also recommended that the answer was "more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.""

Because we know the military doesn't want to admit defeat, but is it wise to continue throwing more resources at this problem?

BTW - congrats on getting to Al. Also, thanks Al for saying, in so many words - don't think.

"Shut up "mother".

Kevin, a conversation is the last thing we need.

Resolution and boldness are the prime requirements in foreign policy.

I'm still in the "get out NOW crowd" (though not an absolute withdrawl.. international forces would have to come in as a policing action). I could be persuaded to change that opinion and stay on and try to get some semblance of order if AND ONLY IF every single one of these idiots is removed from making any decision regarding Iraq. That means Bush, Cheney, Feith, Armitage, Rumsfeld... ALL OF THEM.

Get some adults in charge to try and get this thing under control.

Additionally a massive move in congress for investigations ad naseum into every nook and cranny. This includes massive oversight into any and all Iraq related contracts. Stop all legislation stop everything. Oversight and get Iraq cleaned up. Period.

We are so screwed.

These people are freaking insane.

Of course, this has been the dilemma all along, and it would be instructive to actually discuss this.

'Fraid not. The Decider-In-Chief said today that anyone who thinks the war in Iraq makes for more terrorists is "naive." End of discussion.

> Nearly every serious military analyst
> believes that even minimal success in
> Iraq would require

Kevin,
Define "success in Iraq" please.

Cranky

Here's the summary paragraph of the redacted NIE:

*.*.* It *.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.*.*.* *** ** * * * *** .*. *.* *.*. *.*. is *.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.*.*.* *.*. *.* * * *** * ** * *** *.*. *.*. all *.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.*.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*. Clinton's *.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.
*.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*. Fault*.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.*.*.* *.*. *.* *.*. *.*.

This is what shuts up any war supporter of fighting age. Tell them the only reason not to fight in WWII is that you are a coward. If this is indeed a clash of civilization, and our latest dictator target is the next-next Hitler, then we need the soldiers to do the job. If this is to be an all-volunteer army, then they need supporters like you to join. If you aren't willing to sacrifice for this war you so dearly support, then we need a draft. Why won't you join? Is it because you're scared, or is it because you don't believe your own BS? Put up, or shut up time.

Anyone remember the nationally televised speech where Bush, to rebut the chickenhawk claims thrown at the GOP warriors, gave people a way to serve from their lounge chairs by donating to the reconstruction? A grand total of $500 was raised.

If the GOP isn't even willing to sacrifice their pocket change for this war, then no one believes its worth fighting for any reason beyond partisan politics. No one believes in this war. Especially the ones so desperately trying to cling to it.

Thomas1, have you ever given money to Jeff Gannon/Guckert?

"Under these circumstances, with failure staring at us from both directions, what justification can there be for continuing our present course?"

Politics. It's always been about politics since the policy cannot be fixed. In the vacuum of a moribund policy in extremis pulling out may be no less an idiotic suggestion than anything else one may propose - but politically? There's the rub.

If there are no good options why preach withdrawal and thereby give the GOP a club for the beating you over the head with? - not to mention create a scenario just witnessed where your policy suggestions are given the lie by the very disgruntled generals you sought relief from.

Face it, the Democrats have screwed up the politics of the war.

Here is another small item of non-bad news from Iraq, should it prove true:

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2006-09-23\kurd4.htm

Iraqi president Maliki said he would like U.S. troops to remain in Iraq through at least the end of 2008 to protect Iraq from foreign interference.

This is not what most Democrats want to hear, but let's face it: it's not what most Republicans want to hear either. Nonetheless: this is the dilemma in its starkest form.

That's a fair summary. However, no particular policy is the obvious best policy in the circumstances. Every alternative to what the US is doing (e.g. increasing US troop strength, removing all US troops) has a large downside.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is with these NIE's. 2/3 of the country already believe that Iraq is a mess. The other third is not moved by facts.

You could allow gays in the military and require that all immigrants of age that are hear undocumented serve 2 years in the military as a condition to remain here. Of course that second part is already true, serving in the military is an automatic way to citizenship. The government just needs to get the word out. As both of these would likely lead to greater acceptance of minorities, the far right might not like the idea. And we need their children too.

heraclitus, the democrats have screwed up the politics of the war? we stay for politics? our soldiers die for politics? are you karl rove?

Here is another small item of non-bad news from Iraq, should it prove true...Iraqi president Maliki said he would like U.S. troops to remain in Iraq through at least the end of 2008 to protect Iraq from foreign interference.

How is that "non-bad"? The president of Iraq is so concerned about how precarious the situation is that he needs a large foreign army to prop up his regime for at least another two years? And that's supposed to be good news? Is that the best you can do?

The surge in troop levels is coming along on schedule:

Troop Levels - Vietnam
1959 760
1960 900
1961 3205
1962 11300
1963 16300
1964 23300
1965 184300
1966 385300
1967 485600
1968 536100
1969 475200
1970 334600
1971 156800
1972 24200
1973 50

At yesterday's Democratic hearings on the war, retired military officers testified angrily about Don Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, but as Dana Milbank put it, they also recommended that the answer was "more troops, more money and more time in Iraq."

I am sure that if a majority of Democrats in each house will demand, and vote for, "more troops, more money, and more time in Iraq," then that's what they'll get.

with failure staring at us from both directions,

It is not "failure" that is staring us in the face, it is disappointment. As with the Korean War, or the defeat of the Greek communists, the main aims will be achieved, but the victory will lack glitter and joy, and will be thought to have been too expensive.

Rozen states:

"The report highlights the essential dilemma Iraq poses for the war on terror: staying fuels the al-Qaeda-inspired movement, creating a net increase in the terrorist threat; while leaving Iraq in chaos would also worsen the threat."

To which Kevin replies:

"Of course, this has been the dilemma all along..."

Bullshit.

This is what every fucking apologist for the occupation wants you to think; that if we leave Iraq, the shit is gonna hit the fan.

Yet never mind the obvious fact that it was we who ushered in the chaos with our idiotic invasion. Never mind the fact that even with 150 thousand troops we've been powerless to stop the descent of Iraq into bona-fide civil war. Never mind the fact that every strategic nightmare imaginable -- more terrorists, an empowered Iran, the death of a viable secular Muslim counterweight to the fundamentalists -- has come to fruition.

My question is: how could things possibly get worse in Iraq than they already are? If we grant the basic propostion of most analysts that it is the U.S. military presence in Iraq which is fueling the chaos, how can things not improve once we're gone?

Of course, by improvement we mean the living conditions and security of the average Iraqi. But obviously that was never the objective anyways.

Kevin is right about one thing: all these fucking generals and military types think that more firepower will solve the problem (now where have I heard this argument before?) Indeed, doubling down on a loser bet is what losers do. So I appreciate the generals telling us that things are really fucked up in Iraq -- I mean, it's not like we havn't known this for years -- but their remedy is just as bankrupt as the decision to invade in the first place. It will bring us no closer to peace or to a reduction of the terror threat.

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday announced that he will declassify parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, which reportedly concluded that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism.

Sounds to me like once more, they are going to cherry-pick what they release, in attempt to spin it their way.

For the idiots like ex-liberal and Thomas1:

"BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble.

"And then I asked him, 'Well, what about the Taliban?' The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

""BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration. . . .

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

"BLITZER: . . . the final years of the Clinton administration.

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

"BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, 'Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?'

"Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

"BLITZER: What did he say?

"BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

Sounds to me like once more, they are going to cherry-pick what they release..

I wouldn't be surprised if the White House Newspeak version focuses exclusively on Iran's bad deeds in Iraq. Rove certainly knows how to make lemonade.

We need a lot of troops to kill a lot of people in order to win a 'victory.' That victory is still meaningless to the people of both Iraq and the US. Domestic security existed before the invasion. There were no attacks on US troops before the invasion. Increasing troop levels and police activities only replaces the security of the pre-invasion status.

What the fuck does victory mean in Iraq? Oil being loaded on to monopolist petroleum corporations' tankers at below market prices.

The dictatorship of capital has no capacity to act in any other way, which is why it must be destroyed with a politics that values people's well being over any other competing faction.

gregor, when was that interview?

Disputo:

Read Dan Froomkin today in Wa Po.

The interview was in the White House with the 9/11 commission.

Unbelievable.

I meant Ben-Veniste's interview with Blitzer, but thanks; I'll check it out.

whatever we do, we've got to completely isolate iran - that's the way to ensure security in iraq! [/al]

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack? It happened when Clinton was President. Ben-Veniste is a Democratic partisan, trying to jusitfy Clinton's failure to act.

Ben-Veniste will say that they weren't sure who the perp was until Clinton was out of office. I would respond that Clinton didn't want to know.

Ben-Veniste will say that they weren't sure who the perp was until Clinton was out of office.

Actually, Ben-Viniste did NOT say that, you lying troll.

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack? It happened when Clinton was President.

Umm, because the Cole attack was an attack on an American military vessel that happened too late in Clinton's term for him to follow up. Presidents aren't supposed to engage in military activity so soon to their terms being completed. You let the next guy handle it if it's so close. But Bush didn't do a damn thing except ride his little bike and clear brush.

Thomas1, have you ever given money to Jeff Gannon/Guckert?

Or maybe the "money shot"?

the main aims will be achieved,

Oh yes, because clearly we have confiscated all those Iraqi WMDs and the US is loads more secure from terrorists.

Rove certainly knows how to make lemonade.

No, Rove makes piss. The voting sheeple are convinced it's lemonade.

Hey Cheeto:

The only issue much discussed in the 90s was the one Clinton blurted onto an intern's dress.

And the only position debated was the launch angle of the President's cigar.

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack? It happened when Clinton was President.

Perhaps because the attack came in Oct 2000 and the culprits were not confirmed until after Clinton was gone? Just a guess.

ex-liberal:

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack? It happened when Clinton was President...Ben-Veniste will say that they weren't sure who the perp was until Clinton was out of office. I would respond that Clinton didn't want to know.

Actually, the Clinton White House and some senior officials at the State suspected right away that al-Qaeda had bombed the Cole, and Dick Clark's counter-terrorism group put together a compelling case to present to the Cabinet and military principals. The FBI and the CIA, however, did not accept the White House's assessment, and did not agree until after Clinton had left office. The Clinton White Whouse wanted to respond militarily, but the Pentagon refused to committ assets to a response against al-Qaeda until the CIA agreed that they had been the perpetrators.

I think blaming Bush for the lack of a response to the Cole bombing is a stretch, but I'm willing to blame the long-standing institutional problems at FBI, CIA, and Defense that have been well-documented. Heck, the White House had no clue that the Navy was entering Yemeni ports. The Pentagon had neglected to tell them of its policy changes. This is pretty significant, since the counter-terrorism group would have advised against a Navy vessel entering a port where al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad (at the point largely indistinguishable) had significant networks on the ground.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is with these NIE's. 2/3 of the country already believe that Iraq is a mess. The other third is not moved by facts.

Absolutely right.

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack?

Because he was President of the United States.

It happened when Clinton was President.

Yes, and Clinton made efforts against those responsible. The need, however, did not expire with Clinton's term. The United States continued, and the need for its Executive Branch to pursue those responsible for the attack on the Cole did not end simply because the leadership changed.

Ben-Veniste is a Democratic partisan, trying to jusitfy Clinton's failure to act.

That would be more tenable if Ben Veniste actually said anything directed at justifying Clinton's failure to act. Which he doesn't.

Ben-Veniste will say that they weren't sure who the perp was until Clinton was out of office.

Your mindless speculation about what he "will" say is irrelevant. Especially given that Clinton himself has said that they had a good idea of who was responsible, and that he gave the order to have Bin Laden taken out, while he was in office.

I would respond that Clinton didn't want to know.

No one really cares what lies you would make up in responses to your own fantasies about arguments that people might make.

Of course, reading the entire NIE would hardly be an unalloyed blessing for either liberals or conservatives, since the report almost certainly contains analysis that supports both sides.

Which is, of course, why the Bush Administration has been so intent at keeping the sucker under wraps -- and indeed, making extravagant claims contradicted by the actual report -- until now, when it only looks like they're hiding something. Which is, of course, because they have been. Sheesh!

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack?

Ha!

We went to war on a power point, we might as well re-evaluate it with a power point.

I am not serious, of course.

It's a sensitive document. It would be unwise to let terrorists know exactly what we know.

C'mon people. Have a bit of wit. That's a parody.

You're not implying that Clinton gave an order to take bin Laden out after October 12, 2000, are you?

As I recall, Clinton and various Clinton administration officials have on more than one occasion in the past claimed that they had ongoing efforts in late 2000 to locate and kill bin Laden (part of an ongoing effort begun in 1998, though the belief that al-Qaeda was behind the Cole attacks, though not a solid conclusion of the intelligence community while Clinton was in office, made that a higher priority.)

They've also specifically said that two factors weighed in not launching stronger action in late 2000: that al-Qaeda involvement in the Cole attack was not confirmed by the intelligence community (which meant that taking action that would involve war with the Taliban, who had been warned that further action by bin Laden's group would have consequences for them, was not justified, though action to target against bin Laden himself was already administration policy) and the imminent Presidential handover made it desirable to allow the incoming President to make the decision on how to best to respond to whoever was responsible, anyhow, as in any case much of the execution of any substantial response, and dealing with the results, would necessarily be the responsibility of the incoming President.

Of course, they didn't count on the response, once the guilty party was firmly identified, being utter inaction. No one could have imagined any American President being so utterly unconcerned with the security of the nation.

In either scenario (us staying or leaving), Iraq turns out better.

If we stay, the terrorists stay (and grow) and destabilize Iraq.

If we go, the terrorists leave (or stop growing) and Iraq stabilizes.

There would be no more of an al Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq than there is in any other country. We'd keep our eyes on them, hunting them down when necessary, but not be constantly exposing the bulk of our troops and wasting billions of dollars.

We are the knights who say "nie"!
Nie, Nie, Nie....

If any Bush supporter has ever, during the past 5 years, said anything critical of the President for his inaction on terrorism during first nine months of his Presidency, please provide a link.

I think if it was a Democratic President who was as demonstrably shown to be inattentive to the threat of terrorism prior to the attack as GWB was, at least 30% of Democrats would have abandoned him for his inaction.

Does Repubs' loyalty to GWB trump their principles and rationality?

And the Army Warns Rumsfeld: "We're Billions Short."

Every once in a while, Chris Matthews seems to channel a line from deep inside that crystallizes the situation in a way that both sides come to rally behind. Last week it was that "Bush began a war that he couldn't finish."

That really is how politicians, particularly Presidents, need to decide the agenda for their administration. "What can I do in 4-8 years?" If you're thinking about your legacy, as the media seems to force modern Presidents into considering in the last years (even though a good 25 years needs to pass before history can begin to judge), "What can you comfortably get done?"

The options facing Bush (and us) are limited.

Does Repubs' loyalty to GWB trump their principles and rationality?

We have a winner!

Gregor, why was it President Bush's job to respond to the Cole attack? It happened when Clinton was President.

To be precise the report by the CIA and FBI certifying that bin Laden and Al Qadea were responsible for the Cole attack was released 24 hours before Bush's inaguaration -- which did not, reasonably, give President Clinton much time, unless he wanted to interrupt the inaguaration with a shooting war.

Also, is this poster arguing that it is only the responsibility of the president who is sitting at the time of the attack, and not of any president thereafter? By this logic Truman would not have had to continue the war against Japan because Pearl Harbor happened when Roosevelt was president...

Heck, yes, release the entire NIE report. The effect of the release on the security of the US is in question, but anytime the left can get an insider to leak an intelligence document to the NY Times et al, only political advantage to the left is considered.

What does "mhr" stand for, "mere hapless rightard"? You're right, dimwit, you could never release the NIE while redacting those parts considered sensitive! And the WH has never declassified reports in order to support their viewpoint!

But go ahead, blame liberals, even though rightards control both branches of Congress, the Executive Branch and the SCOTUS. If it makes you feel better, rightard, go right ahead.

The left wing press published the news of bin Ladin's cell phone thus warning him to stop using it.

You're a fucking liar, rightard. That was the Wash Times. Unless they're now considered liberal. But then again, you probably got all of your "facts" from that piece of shit ABC dropped out of its ass. Would be just like you to eat the shit Dumbya leaves behind.

...is this poster arguing that it is only the responsibility of the president who is sitting at the time of the attack...

Why don't Democrats blame Bush I for the first WTC attack? It was only a few months after Clinton took office.

Oh right, Democrats aren't reflexive liars. nevermind.

The guilty party -- Osama din Laden -- was firmly identified PRIOR to January 20, 2001. See, e.g. Clarke Timeline above.

But was not certified by the CIA or FBI until the day before Dumbya's faux inauguration.

Tell me, oh mighty concern troll, name one thing - ONE - that Dumbya did regarding terrorism in the first 8 months of his (mis)administration.

Why don't Democrats blame Bush I for the first WTC attack?

You must have been sleeping all these years.

Clarence Thomas et. al warned at the beginning of the GWB presidency that whatever applies to him should not be used a precedence (or 'postedence' in this case) for any other situation.

You must have been sleeping all these years.

I fucking wish.

To win in Iraq, we need a national mobilization on the scale of World War 2, a draft, seizure of factories to produce war materiel, an increase in the size of the Army of millions, and a massive escalation of the conflict.

If you don't support that, you support eventual failure in Iraq, either slow ("stay the course") or fast ("withdraw soon").

The fact is, Bush and his pals never should have started this war. They had no idea what it would take to win it.

"In other words, the CIA -- not The Nation, not Media Matters, not George Soros -- warned the president that he would be increasing, not decreasing the threat of terrorism to the United States by invading Iraq."

And we can assume that the CIA assumed competent management of the war.

"If there are no good options why preach withdrawal and thereby give the GOP a club for the beating you over the head with?"

Because our soldiers are dying over there.

...since the report almost certainly contains analysis that supports both sides. How could it not?

Has Kevin EVER read an entire NIE report? I don't believe this report would be on conflicting viewpoints, because I'm sure the report is a general assessment created to make a final written point, even if a little broad, it'll state one point or the other.

I’m sure the NIE was never intended to be confusing, contradicting nor partisan.

I can’t wait till Bush’s new poll numbers show up – he’s got CNN to write this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An angry President Bush Tuesday said he would declassify an intelligence document that reportedly finds that the Iraq war increased the terrorist threat to the United States.

The president said the media accounts of the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate were meant to "create confusion in the minds of the American people" and suggested that the report had been leaked for political purposes.

Hey maybe the truth was leak for security purposes! And what exact does Bush mean by saying, "create confusion in the minds of the American people"?

Gee, why that would be? Because Bush is telling Americans lies and Bush NIE assessment team sees that Bush is trying to confuse the issues for political purposes? And we know how mad it makes little Bushie when people point out the he is liar.

He stamps his wittle foot and fwows a hissy-fit.

Four pages of thirty were released. I'm off to find the text of the redacted report.

btw: NPR is reporting that the version of the NIE released makes up only four pages of a thirty page document. Non of those four pages deal with the sensational information leaked earlier.

Hey Global...great minds eh?

Four pages of the NIE have been released. Here is NPR's top-of-the-hour report by Don Gonye.

All Things Considered, September 26, 2006 · President Bush has ordered the public release of some parts of the report by U.S. intelligence agencies saying the war in Iraq is hurting the wider effort to fight terrorism.

Descriptions of the National Intelligence Estimate had surfaced in newspapers over the weekend, the result of what the president called politically motivated leaks.

The classified document overshadowed the president's meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, who said his country was grateful for U.S. support.

"I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there is a leak," President Bush said. "Because it means it will be difficult to get good product out of our analysts."

Well, I'm in good company, but I'm not so sure about you...:)

So let me see if I have the trollies position here (aka thomas1, exlib,...). You lambast Clinton for not launching attacks against Al Qaeda for the Cole attack with less than a month left in his tenure but give Bush a free pass for the following 8 months of the beginning of his regime?

Okaaaaay.

Here's the justification for continuing:

Hezbollah returned to Lebanon with a celebration and increased strength BECAUSE Israel withdrew. They are doing so in the name of Allah and with the support of Iran and Syria. Should we give them another playground to grow terrorism and claim victory by pulling out of Iraq? Isn't it logical to assume that pulling troops out of Iraq would be a better recruiting tool for Al-Queda when the claim they have defeated the US?

Until the Democrats come up with a solution to that problem things should continue on course. Pulling troops out of Iraq is the same as surrendering.

The only answer to the Iraq situtation is to finish our mission with a decisive victory. Peace talks do not make a lasting peace - how many times have we seen that come true in history? Defeating the enemy gives peace for quite a while.

Islamic terrorist understand one thing: power. If we back down the will continue to come after us.

Four pages of thirty were released

A well-placed source in Al's pants tells me that the other 26 pages are artist's representations of love letters between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Oh, and the outline for a screenplay called, "Things to do in Prague when you're Dead".

Developing...

Like Kevin says, there are no more troops. Which raises a question:

What are the design specs of the U.S. military? What sort of war was it built to handle, and at what point, according to U.S. military doctrine at the turn of the millennium, would one have to turn to a draft, using the volunteer army as the core of a mixed volunteer/conscript army?

I've been asking this question occasionally for a couple of years now, because even then it was starting to become apparent that the U.S. military wasn't designed to handle a group of conflicts involving this many troops for this long a period of time.

So does anyone know where one might find an answer? I sure as hell don't know where to look.

Peace talks do not make a lasting peace - how many times have we seen that come true in history?

That's true -- we engaged in peace talks with the North Vietnamese and as a result we've been at war with them ever since....oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

"The same press released the secret that the NSA was listening in to Al-Quada's conversations."

Um, that kind of generality is like saying that the police plant undercover agents to trap people trying to hire a contract killer, or that police pretend to be subteens online to trap sexual predators. We all, including people trying to hire killers and prey on naive youth, know that the police do this. So how come these tactics keep on working for the police? Because if the objects of the investigation are determined to engage in criminal behavior, they'll count on being lucky or outwitting the police. The police willl continue to catch criminals using tried and true tactics, and NSA will continue to track terrorists with listening devices using secret warrants. But the best tips will always come from sympathetic and outraged citizens who refuse to let evil stand.

ckelly

I believe there was a bombing in America in 1993... somewhere...
Oh yeah, the World Trade center.

That makes 8 years of Clinton sitting at his desk getting a BJ while Al-Queda hatched, grew, and matured.

8 YEARS compared to 8 months.
Legacy time for Clinton.

Should we give them another playground to grow terrorism and claim victory by pulling out of Iraq

Golly, I sure wish someone named Bush would have thought of this BEFORE invading. Oh wait, Bush the Elder did - as did all the critics.

Until the Democrats come up with a solution to that problem things should continue on course.

Considering that "things continuing on course" is the problem I don't think so.

stefan: How is that "non-bad"?

"non-bad" refers to the information at the link. The mention of Maliki was additional.

I've come up with a compromise that should be acceptable to all. With hearing aid in, Senator Stennis will listen to a dramatic reading of the 30-page report. He'll tell us if there's anything we need to know. Only the most churlish would ask for more.

An eight year bj? Where do I sign up?

Global Citizen: Sounds to me like once more, they are going to cherry-pick what they release, in attempt to spin it their way.

That's because the leaker already cherry-picked the parts that appeal to the Democrats. We'll probably go into the election with bi-partisan cherry-picking.

I seem to recall the '93 WTC perpetrators being apprehended and prosecuted and sentenced to prison. And it was done with old-fashioned police work. No Patriot act, spying on Americans or pre-emptive wars necessary.

My oh my, America was sure an incompetent mess back then, wasn't it?

republicat, that problem is that it seems that only one side has access to the cherries and they aint sharing.

Now that's the pits.

Keith, settle down. You know he'll just say his jaw is tired and quit four years through. Don't you hate when that happens?

but one can dream

I believe there was a bombing in America in 1993... somewhere...
Oh yeah, the World Trade center.

Which bombing was not committed by Al Qaeda. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was committed by a Pakistani and an Egyptian cleric based in New Jersey, and all the perpetrators were hunted down, caught, tried and convicted by the Clinton Justice Department, and they sit in jail still. And all of this was accomplished without torture and without starting a needless war.

Osama bin Laden, meanwhile, responsible for the 2001 World Trade Center attack, remains footloose and fancy free since Bush, for whatever reason, doesn't seem very interested in punishing him for the largest mass murder in American history.

That makes 8 years of Clinton sitting at his desk getting a BJ

That Clinton! Sure has staying power.

Al-Queda hatched, grew, and matured.

Hmmm. And through the 80s then a certain Republican President funded and armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan including Bin Laden and so pretty much created Al Qaeda.
Ronnie Raygun's legacy.

Hey, this legacy stuff IS fun.

Yeah ckelly Bush should have just ignored the threats and support Saddam was giving to our enemies. He should have just kept telling Saddam, "Now you better quit that defiance of the UN or else!" Things would be soooo much better now if Bush would have just said, "I tried real hard."

Everyone knows that eventually the little harmless dictator Saddam would have gone away. And the Taliban too - they weren't hurting anyone but women, children, and all who didn't subscribe to their oppressive way of life.

I am sure glad Clinton didn't try to do anything to stop Saddam... oh wait Clinton did bomb Iraq and help create a no fly over zone. But I am sure his orders didn't kill innocent people.

After all we know Clinton doesn't like to have anyone killed. Particularly people like Bin Laden.

That Clinton! Sure has staying power.

And the right can't understand the Clinton charisma...illegally obtained Viagra, anyone?

An eight year bj? Where do I sign up?

Sorry,Like the economy, these things are cyclical. If the 90's were characterized by a blow job, then this decade will be characterized by the penetration of a different orifice altogether.

Glow sticks are the new cigars.

The only man who could ever move me....was the eight-year hard-on maaaaaan....

That makes 8 years of Clinton sitting at his desk getting a BJ

An eight year blowjob? You know, I like them as much as the next man but after about four or five years I think I'd be getting a little bored....

RT: What are the design specs of the U.S. military? What sort of war was it built to handle, and at what point, according to U.S. military doctrine at the turn of the millennium, would one have to turn to a draft, using the volunteer army as the core of a mixed volunteer/conscript army?

The short answer is that the Army was tasked with being able to fight two major land wars at the same time. This would use the Reserve and National Guard:

Washington, July 6: The Pentagon, stretched by the war in Iraq, is considering dropping a linchpin of American military strategy, the doctrine that requires it to be prepared to fight two major wars at the same time.

Since the end of the Cold War the need to be able to fight two “near-simultaneous” wars in different theatres has dominated military thinking, with Iraq and North Korea seen as the most likely battlefields. Now, with military resources under increasing strain from commitments in Iraq, the Pentagon is considering a new doctrine to take into account the post-September 11 world.

And Orwell flails away..flinging strawmen hither and yon....

"Hmmm. And through the 80s then a certain Republican President funded and armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan including Bin Laden and so pretty much created Al Qaeda.
Ronnie Raygun's legacy."

Yeah that'll fly.

Ronnie's legacy is set: No more Soviet Union.

This one is going to be hung on Clinton.

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Al Queda's attack on American soil. Thus it began.

Nuff said.

Orwell: This one is going to be hung on Clinton.

There you go again. At least Keith and I have legitimate reasons for our penis interest.

Yeah ckelly Bush should have just ignored the threats and support Saddam was giving to our enemies.

Uh, what support to which enemies? You don't mean that meeting with Mohammed Atta in Prague that never happened?

OK let us quantify things on the scale of 1 to 10.

Clinton During 8 years: even from a very non-generous view, 7

Bush During 8 months: 0

Even then Clinton comes off infinite times better in combatting terrorism than GWB.

Republicans and their trolls here have no ground to stand upon. Perhaps there is a heap of cow dung somewhere.

characterized by the penetration of a different orifice altogether.

Shortshop, me thinks enozinho doesn't know me, but i'll stop now.

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Al Queda's attack on American soil. Thus it began.

Well, if Clinton catching and convicting the perpetrators wasn't a sufficient response what exactly more should he have done? Started a war? And if so, against whom? Egypt? Pakistan? New Jersey?

...Yeah ckelly Bush should have just ignored the threats and support Saddam was giving to our enemies.

Let's see... go after actual enemy that is a threat and attacked us on 9/11 or go after neutered non-threat? Decisions, decisions...

Saddam was giving to our enemies.
Could you be just a tad more specific. The recent reports verify that Al Qaeda was an enemy of Saddam's - he viewed them as a threat.

Perhaps there is a heap of cow dung somewhere.

Well, if there's a pile of manure, then there's got to be a pony in there somewhere...

So much cutting and pasting in vain; Bush's minions will defend The Decider to the bitter end.

'I believe it was Bin Laden intends to attack on American soil'.

'Now you covered your ass'.

Are you guys blind?

Here's the declassified NIE

http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Sounds pretty balanced and nuanced to me.

One thing very much worth noticing is the political dynamic of the NIE thing.

To begin with, it was remarkable how the liberal blogosphere seemed not at first to comprehend the political significance of the NY Times report about the April NIE. In this blog, and elsewhere, it was regarded mostly as a statement of the obvious, and not really very exciting.

What people in the blogosphere didn't seem to acknowledge is the significance of WHO was stating this obvious fact, namely our intelligence agencies. And they don't seem to comprehend either that, for Democrats, good and effective politics consists mainly of finding a way to convince the public of obvious facts.

Interestingly, it was the national Democrats (and not the bloggers) who understood the opportunity the NIE posed, and they went on the talk shows and brought up almost nothing else. Bloggers, on the other hand, took up the fight and insisted that the NIE be released -- a point then taken up by national Democrats.

All in all, it's been a pretty interesting and revealing back and forth between the Democrats and the bloggers.

In any case, note how the NIE thing -- both the April one and the embryonic one -- has engendered EXACTLY the discussion the Democrats want to have about national security.

Isn't it simply remarkable how the national security issue, expressed on the terms suggested by the NIEs, has put the Bush WH in a completely defensive mode on the issue that is supposed to be its strong suit?

And what's remarkable too is how the discussion is surely going to be expanded across many days, even weeks, due to the release of the April NIE and the possibility of releasing the one in the works.

This is NOT going to end well for the Republicans, I think; looking incompetent at handling terrorism will simply destroy them.

Clinton...WTC 1993....Saddam... no fly zipper er zone... BJ.........Clinton's legacy!....fault...fault!...

-Orwell

Shortshop, me thinks enozinho doesn't know me, but i'll stop now.

I noticed that, Keith, and sent a mental chuckle your way. I was going to suggest we start using spanking as a more appropriate term, but then I realized, what do I have against spanking? This all presents such a problem in creative sexual insulting, doesn't it?

Nuff said.

Posted by: Orwell

OK. Next!

Step right up and see if you can out-stupid Al, American Hawk, ex-liberal, Thomas1, republicrat, mhr, and Orwell in 75 words or more.

(Right now I'm inclined to say Orwell has the lead.)

Orwell is definitely out in front.

Orwell:

How many attacks has Spain had since they "cut and run" a week after the Madrid bombings and elected a Socialist government that pulled out of Iraq?

None, you say?

Heh.

BTW, I think this is actually great news for the Democrats. This won't happen, but I'd like to see the Party get behind a draft, and a general movement to get the American public serious about winning the war the way the generals want it won. Introduce and debate Rangel's draft bill. Oh -- and rescind the tax cuts to fund this massively increased war effort. We all need to share the sacrifice for the noble cause of pacifying Iraq.

Could you *imagine* how much this would call the GOP's bluff?

Because frankly, if we're going to remain in Iraq at all -- that might well be the only logical way to pull it off. Nation-building isn't cheap in either blood or treasure.

And what it might wind up producing is a rejection at the molecular level by the American people of the Iraq war.

I would very much like to see this debate.

Bob

Above is me. Wrong macro.

Bob

75 words or more.

(Right now I'm inclined to say Orwell has the lead.)

Posted by: Foundation of Mud

Not to quibble but couldn't we make that 75 words or less?

Otherwise we'll be up spam river with posts about Great Britain's GDP.

"due to the release of the April NIE"

Unfortunately, the Bush administration controls what actually gets released and what remains hidden. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be suitably redacted so as to give the impression that the Bush administration wants. Right now, they're on the defensive; don't count on them staying that way.

"and the possibility of releasing the one in the works."

And definitely don't count on this one, since the early word is that the Bush administration deliberately did not call this an NIE so as to avoid the legal reporting requirements that are required for the NIE.

Look, I'm delighted that the Bush administration is on the defensive and that the bloody obvious about Iraq is finally getting stated in the national media; just don't assume that it's going to stay that way for very long. Assuming that the Bush administration plays this the way I think they will, what's the next tactic?

Otherwise we'll be up spam river with posts about Great Britain's GDP.

Not to mention Old Europe, George Clooney, "fuck Allah," shaken-baby syndrome, "I'll answer that question just as soon...", "wrong again, Kevin," the Glory that is Suburbia, snowflake babies, Joe Lieberman's raw deal, Brokeback Mountain and wistful fantasies about exterminating billions of brown people.

Not to mention Old Europe, George Clooney, "fuck Allah," shaken-baby syndrome, "I'll answer that question just as soon...", "wrong again, Kevin," the Glory that is Suburbia, snowflake babies, Joe Lieberman's raw deal, Brokeback Mountain and wistful fantasies about exterminating billions of brown people.

[snicker-chortle-snort]...Oldies but goodies all...

not to mention "CLICK THE LINK" usually sending you somewhere *slightly* less than relevant.

I don't see this NIE doing anything but reinforcing Bush's bullshit talking points.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

Bush pulled the flip-flop of the century when he went from claiming that "Democracy is on the March", to his new claim that Bin Laden says that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism. This NIE won't force him to change course, or acknowledge anything new. What am I missing?

"We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use t