George Bush And The Rise Of Terrorism
Tweet
Unlike Al Qaeda and Iraq, there is a direct connection between Bush, his policies, and the rise of international terrorism.
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
More Americans have died via terrorism under George W. Bush than any other president in American history. And the number is growing.
42 Responses to “George Bush And The Rise Of Terrorism”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Republicans are uninterested in the real world effects of their Iraq plan on terrorism. Iraq only has two functions in their minds: 1) to get them votes; and 2) to make them feel good. So far, it’s done both, so it’s been a successful policy.
Don’t worry, I’m sure it’s all in his Daily Briefings or a DVD compilation somewhere.
I would venture that a more significant rationale for protracted war, beyond securing domestic power, would be the obvious profit potential.
When people wonder if this administration really wants a prolonged and bloody war with Iran, they should consider who suffers and who profits before coming to any conclusions.
Why should I believe this estimate?
The 1997 NIE, the last one before the 9/11 attacks mentioned bin Laden in only three sentences as a “terrorist financier” and didn’t reference al-Qaeda at all.
The October 2002 NIE was a significant factor in the decision to use force against Iraq by famously asserting, “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
“Why should I believe this estimate?”
And in one fell swoop the right uses past errors to justify their current strategy of just making shit up as they go along. Awesome.
“Why should I believe this estimate?”
Not to mention their concurrent policy of believing whatever the hell they think will advance their polical chances while shitting all over the truth. Double awesome.
Dugger muses to himself:
“Hmmm, how do I explain to OW’s posters that the essence of this report is completely crap and that we continue to successfully spread democracy by gunpoint?
How do I explain that intelligence officials are WRONG that the war and the insurgency are the main recruiting vehicles for new Islamic extremists.
Hmmmm …”
That would be Paul Pillar (the national intelligence officer who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year) talking about how the Bush administration distorted the NIE 2002 report to justify a war with Iraq. He admits that they got a number of factors wrong, but makes it clear that the intelligence community did not feel that Saddam was an imminent threat and that the containment strategy was the best plan for keeping him under control.
As for the 1997 (and 1995) NIE reports. They both covered terrorism in greater detail than just a few lines. In order for that spin to work you have to focus soley on the number of times Osama is mentioned by name and simply ignore the other warning about terrorism in general. Warnings about things like the use of civil aviation to strike targets in Washington and New York, specifically wall Street.
Here is a summary of his position.
OK, time for perspective. Progressives could hear the morning weather forecast and conclude thats sufficient reason to dance around the camp fire chanting Bush-hate slogans. One, only one, individual said Iraq has made terrorism (WW) worse. The report is a compilation of many differing individual viewpoints. The broader reports says or implies that Iraq has been A factor in the spread of global jihad ideology. The ‘A’ means one among many and if they menat terrorism instead of WW jihad ideology, why didn’t they say it?
Now stoke up the fire and go back to your Bush hate chants. Thought I would just quickly shine the falshlight of reality into the dark corner of superstition and ignorance.
“… Iraq has been A factor in the spread of global jihad ideology.”
Dugger, invading Iraq was supposed to be THE factot in spreading Democracy to the Middle East. The fact that it is even A factor in spreading global jihadism sort of contradicts that purpose don’t you think? But that isn’t the only reason why you’re an idiot. It is not just one “individual [who] said Iraq has made terrorism (WW) worse. ” Read this sentence carefully moron:
That means this individual said THE REPORT found that Iraq had terrorism worse.
And finally this:
You’re an idiot.
“One, only one, individual said Iraq has made terrorism (WW) worse.”
Exhibit A in why Dugger is a mental slave. Try harder, buddy! You’re embarrasing yourself and your dying ideology.
I love that the left wing’s response to the report is to get it released before the election, so that voters can be as informed as possible about our terrorism and Iraq policies. GWB, of course, is playing cover-up, trying to keep the report as mysterious and vague as possible; and Bush’s failure enablers, like Dugger, are simply making shit up about the report. It’s a nice contrast.
OK, time for perspective.
Oh, that’s is fucking hilarious.
It reads just as Dugger says though, One official.
Victory is Dugger’s if for no other reaon than your extreme Bush Hatred!!! Now leave him be so he can tape his 8X10 color glossy picture of George W. to his makeout pillow.
I know perspective hurts and I try to be understanding of your immaturities. But you can’t sugar coat some of this cr*p. Its important for chirrens to understand that because you desperately want something to be true, it doesn’t become true. You’ve got third hand, non-contextual hearsay originating with one anonymous, unaccountable individual. Remmber Rathrgate. The NY Times is saying an extraordinarily convenient UNNAMED source is saying the report says Iraq has worsened terrorism. Got that, boobies? Now an unnamed source can say anything can’t he?
Again the chain: the Times says an anonymous source says the classified report says something Bush-haters like.
Circle the fire and chant. Maybe it will magically become true, after all.
The US war against Japan fueled Japanese radicalism. Many more Japanese were signing up as kamikazes in 1944 than in 1941.
Gues we shouldn;t have fought Japan…there would have been that many fewer kamikazes.
“The Times says an anonymous source says the classified report says something Bush-haters like.”
Um, Dugger, that simply isn’t the case. From the story:
What these DOZEN experts who READ THE ACTUAL REPORT told the Times about the report, indicates that its findings directly contradict what the Bush administration has been saying about the impact of Iraq on the Middle East.
I seriously don’t know how long you morons can continue turning a blind eye to reality. Fucking idiots.
One source, Dugger? Here’s the Washington Post: “It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.”
I like your posts, Dugger. Where else would I get to experience that unique combination of ignorant, confused, angry white male resentment and behind-the-times rhetoric that’s your hallmark? And you actually said boobies in anger! What a curious and wonderful bird you are, Dugger! Like Rush Limbaugh mixed with Paul Harvey with just a touch of Will Ferrell’s Haray Caray impersonation — don’t ever change!
Talkingpointsmemo just reported that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Clinton have come out in favor of releasing the document BEFORE the election. What else are Bush and his failure enablers trying so desperately to hide from the American people?
No. Only one (anonymous) source says (the report says) that Iraq has increased terrorism. There are more third hand sources opining about the alleged spread of Jihaism.
Since the report is classified, how do we really know what it says anyway?
I mean I definitely don’t trust the NY Times and seems to me I have heard them smeared/described here as right wing. So pardon me if I don’t take their word for a second hand translation of an illegal quote from a classified document that none of them should have and likely have not seen in the first place.
And where is the outrage about the classified leak (if thre was one). I mena if you accept the report, you have to acknoledge there was a leak of classified. Surely all that Plame outrage wasn’t false. ANd why am I not surprised that aprtisan democrats would like to release a classified document for partisan political purposes. Should make you all ashamed.
And through it all, this country has not been successfully attacked (terrorism) since 9-11. And do Democrats want to change those policies? To get Bush?
The Post quote is clear: according to multiple officials, the situation in Iraq has worsened U.S. position wrt terrorism. I can’t understand what you imagine yourself to be arguing against. Oh, right, liberals. You hate us. And you don’t take anyone’s word but GOP enablers. How could I forget? Thanks for your contribution, Duggs!
Dugger, Your latest lame excuse seems to be that you doubt the authenticity of the anonymous sources. Would you support Rockefeller, Pelosi and Clinton’s desire to see the report declassified before the elections?
He keeps arguing on one unnamed official. Funny, if all the things Dugger claims are true on this thread, that is still a stricter standard of proof than the intelligence the Bush administration relied on to get us into this war in the first place. Sans torture.
DUGGER you keep missing the dozen US officials that confirm this story and that this assessment matches that of numerous indepent experts and numerous foreign countries. No wonder the Bush administration wants this to remain unseen by the American people or their representatives.
“And through it all, this country has not been successfully attacked (terrorism) since 9-11. ”
Well, now there’s a falsehood. Hey, Dugs, remember when you introduced MIPT to the threads as the definitive source for world terrorism? http://www.tkb.org/AnalyticalTools.jsp
It says you’re wrong. Here’s why, just counting the successful Middle East related attacks since 9-11:
Why do you keep repeating falsehoods, Dugger?
Hmmm … American action will increase terrorism. Where have I heard that one before?
1973 – We need to be cautious in our support for Israel or the Arabs will cut off our oil
1979 – We can’t afford to upset the Ayatollah, because he has operatives already in this country and could launch a massive domestic terrorism campaign
1982 – We can’t send US troops to Lebanon, because sending our military in support of Israel will trigger a wave of anti-US terrorism
1985 – If we avenge Leon Klinghoffer’s death, we will trigger a wave of anti-US terrorism from Palestinian militants
1990 – We mustn’t house troops in Saudi Arabia, or we will destroy the goodwill between the Saudis and the US, and trigger anti-US terrorism
1998 – If we kill Osama Bin Laden, we will create 10,000 new fanatics
Etc., etc., etc.
For cripes sake, can anyone name a single US policy decision impacting the Middle East during the last 40 years that was not predicted to cause an increase in terrorism?
Certainly many of our policies in the Middle East have indeed unleashed dire consequences. But only a complete fool would argue that this never happened before George W. Bush took office.
This is the most asinine thing I have read in a long time, and the fact that so many on the left fall for such idiocy is ample proof of the intellectual vacuum that now exists in the Democrat party.
Ya, Mike, ain’t beating strawmen a bitch?
“1998 – If we kill Osama Bin Laden, we will create 10,000 new fanatics”
Do you actually believe that some Democrat said this, Mike? On what do you base this belief? Cause I don’t buy it.
Also, Mike’s point makes no sense. I think I’ll buy the word of the intelligence community over Mike’s “everything we do causes trouble, so we should do whatever we want” moronic guide to foreign policy.
Who has confirmed any actual quotes from the documents? We only have anonymous sources drawing subjective conclusions. And the Admin is refusing to comment in substance becasue the report is classified. The fact that three partisan Democrats who hate Bush want it released says nothing. Partisan Democrats believe Bush had 9-11 pre-knowledge, right?
Get over it. The document is clssified. What you hear is subjective, third hand hearsay. No amount of Bush hate makes that less true.
Third hand hearsay. Try closing your eyes and tapping your heels togethr three times. Maybe those anonymous third hand hearsay reports will become facts (but have your bags packed for Kansas, just in case).
Dugger, Just as parties have a designated driver, I’m OW.com’s designated thinker – somebody’s gotta do it.
“The fact that three partisan Democrats who hate Bush want it released says nothing.”
Prove they hate bush torture boy.
“No amount of Bush hate makes that less true.”
And no amount of Bush idolatry makes this statement of yours true period: “this country has not been successfully attacked (terrorism) since 9-11.” You’re an idiot.
Actual quotes from the document here -
U.S.-led efforts have “seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations.” Didn’t see that in the NYT article.
“A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing…however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse.”
“Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq.”
“There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring…their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar’a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims.”
“Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit.”
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-of-what-you-wont-read-in-nyt.html
No Billy,
You get another slap on the wrist. Thought processes are a little fuzzy, ain’t they son?
That’s a blogger SAYING they are actual quotes. There is no indication he has the document or has seen the document. He is merely relaying what somebody has told him is in the document.
And I say that noting that that blogger is generally indicating his “quotes” support the president.
Try again with the ol’ thinking cap on. You’ll get this posting stuff down pat after a while. Hint: if its still confusing, ask an adult for help.
z
“DUGGER you keep missing the dozen US officials that confirm this story ‘
Name one, then. Just one. Then name one that supports the specific conclusion, in context with the entire document, that Iraq has made terrorism worse.
“Your latest lame excuse seems to be that you doubt the authenticity of the anonymous sources. Would you support Rockefeller, Pelosi and Clinton’s desire to see the report declassified before the elections.”
First. I definitely doubt any anonymous sources who selectively release classified information for partisan political purposes – which is exactly what this looks like. Don’t you?
Second. The document is clssified. Why would I want classsified info on the WOT terror released? I support Pres Bush fighting that war and will support pres Clinton fighting that war – if it happens.
Third. It appears to me that Bush and Co. have caved and will release the report. That is certainly a victory for Bush haters and progressives and a loss for the WOT. But if he’s expecting that will get a fair reading from the haters and the MSM, he’s wrong.
“Hint: if its still confusing, ask an adult for help.”
Nice.
Also, the safe bet is that even though Bush looks set to release the report, it will be redacted in a way to maximally favor Bush’s policy, as with the Iraw WMD NIE. Let’s see what happens. Talkingpoints says there’s also an Iraq-specific NIE that’s being called “bleak,” but that it hasn’t been called an NIE so as to avoid attention from Congress. Maybe we can get Bush to “release” that one, too?
That was supposed to be:
“Hint: if its still confusing, ask an adult for help.”
Wow. What a dick you are, Dugger.
WHOA- Wait just one minute here! Are you Oliverites all saying that leaking classified information for political purposes is O.K.? After all your (misdirected) concern about Valerie Plame?
Shouldn’t all of you be clamouring all over yourselves trying to discover who leaked national security information for political purposes and asking for them to be frog-marched right to the nearest jail?
It will be quite interesting to see what the report really say now that it is being declassified. (Kinda like how Richard Clarke’s book and statements don’t really support what Clinton said in his interview with Chris Wallace.)
“First. I definitely doubt any anonymous sources who selectively release classified information for partisan political purposes – which is exactly what this looks like. Don’t you?”
But don’t worry Bush and Cheney didn’t try to mislead the country into war in the very same pages of the NY Times. Dugs, you’re fucking idiot.
Dugger,
“That’s a blogger SAYING they are actual quotes. There is no indication he has the document or has seen the document. He is merely relaying what somebody has told him is in the document.”
Exactly like the NYTimes eh?
It appears to me that Bush and Co. have caved and will release the report. That is certainly a victory for Bush haters and progressives and a loss for the WOT.
That’s true only if you’re assuming the NYT reports are accurate.
Are you?
“That’s true only if you’re assuming the NYT reports are accurate.”
No Quaker. There are multiple reports on this.
Sorry, Olie, but you are delusional.
Fist: I was following Islamic terror on the web for over year before 9/11, well before Bush had been elected.
I began looking intently into it after the Arabs started their most recent war to destroy Israel. One thing I found was that virtually every single Muslim website I looked at had links to the most violent and hate filled Jihad material, or the links they referenced had them (the only exceptions being those that had no external links) That’s over 90-95% – enough to say THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT. Needless to say, after 9/11 they all deleted that material, and put on a mask of civility. But I was wathching them BEFORE they did that, so I know their current nonsense is just propaganda.
Second: what I found out was there was Jihad, and that IS what they called it then, all over the world for MANY years prior to 9/11, and it was steadily growing. As I said in many of my PRE-9/11 posts, “roughly half of the people involved in violence on the planet are Muslim, and the other half are those defending themselves against it.” Or, Muslims are CAUSING over 90% of the violence on earth, and have been for many decades.
In short: your thesis is totally false.
This is more like what they were up to then…
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
…and it is only worse now because the American and European Left doesn’t have the stones to acknowledge it for what it is, and confront it at it’s root.