Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

intcvlcphlga

Iraq has made us less safe since 9/11

15 posts in this topic

National Intelligence Estimate, in a consensus of 16 disparate intlligence agencies in the U.S. government, says Bush's war in Iraq has caused the overall terrorist threat to increase since 9/11. As reported by the New York Times, the report "asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe." This flys in the face of all of the Bush Administrations assertions that the war in Iraq has made us safer and the it is a part of the "War on Terror." See the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...artner=homepage

While I personally think we never should have gone into Iraq, we have to fix what we broke. The problem is that the Bush Administration, and their lackeys aka Congress, have proven to be ill-equipped to govern effectively and follow through on any of their policies (Afghanistan aka the War on Terror, No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative, etc. - tax cuts being the only exception). We now have seen an emboldened Taliban resulting in some of the bloodiest fighting in Afghanistan since the War on Terror began.

While I still cannot understand why he was elected in 2004 after it was clear that he lied his way into Iraq and that he had proven himself to be largely incompetent across every issue of state and public policy, the midterm elections in November provide us with the opportunity to start to address some of the deficiencies that are so horribly evident in the current leadership in Washington. Does your Congressperson deserve to be re-elected? Does your senator? Is your district considered "safe" for the incumbent? Is the gerrymandering of districts really what we can call representative democracy or should we actually force our leadership to lead? 2006 should serve as a wake-up call to the status quo in Congress and set up a 2008 presidential race that is actually about the restoring some semblance of competence (not to mention restoring America's moral standing in the world) and leadership in Washington. 2008 could go to Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Joe Biden, John Edwards or Al Gore or to John McCain or Chuck Hagel. Don't let it go to someone like Bill Frist or George Allen though - as they have only served as stooges to Bush and Cheney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes unfortunately the Iraq War has made us in the West less safe.

But also quite worrisome is the fact that Bush's intense unpopularity worldwide has made it difficult for our country to establish effective foreign policy regarding the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the administration even tried to establish effective foreign policy regarding the war? All I've ever heard from them is bull-headed rhetoric on the topic... rhetoric that has been widely discredited long ago. Bush is unpopular internationally precicely because of such policies, not in spite of them.

This report comes as no surprise to me. It was, quite frankly, blatantly obvious before the invasion that it would make the terrorist problem worse. It played right into the hands of terrorist leaders by confirming their rhetoric about the US as a global bully. It was the best recruiting tool bin Laden could have hoped for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the administration even tried to establish effective foreign policy regarding the war? All I've ever heard from them is bull-headed rhetoric on the topic... rhetoric that has been widely discredited long ago. Bush is unpopular internationally precicely because of such policies, not in spite of them.

This report comes as no surprise to me. It was, quite frankly, blatantly obvious before the invasion that it would make the terrorist problem worse. It played right into the hands of terrorist leaders by confirming their rhetoric about the US as a global bully. It was the best recruiting tool bin Laden could have hoped for.

I'm glad someone else is upset about this. I still hear people and read editorials that tow the line "better to fight them over there than here". I was hopeful in 2004 that poeple could see through the false security, but was proven wrong. It is hard to be optimistic again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone else is upset about this. I still hear people and read editorials that tow the line "better to fight them over there than here". I was hopeful in 2004 that poeple could see through the false security, but was proven wrong. It is hard to be optimistic again.

That one line gives me a headache every single time I hear it. It doesn't lose its meaning like some sentences or words will after you say or hear them over and over; oh no, it just hits deeper and harder like a hammer being rammed down on my baker's hat, day after day after day...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Better to fight them there than here" was precisely the excuse the Soviet Union used to occupy half of Europe through the Cold War. Under the neocons, we have become what previous generations fought against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


bush is actually declassifying the leaked intelligence report that shows that we are opening ourselves up for more attacks the longer we stay in iraq.

Yea, but he is doing it with good "spin" to "prove" we are in a long war that we have to fight. Intelligent people will understand this report and the fact that we are causing the problems we are supposedly fixing. His followers will believe anything he says and think we have to keep bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, but he is doing it with good "spin" to "prove" we are in a long war that we have to fight. Intelligent people will understand this report and the fact that we are causing the problems we are supposedly fixing. His followers will believe anything he says and think we have to keep bombing.

ahhhh... so it's good that we're opening ourselves to more attacks because it brings the terrorists out of the woodwork and we can just arrest them. either that or they'll all eventually blow themselves up in the name of the jihad. whichever way you look at it, it's good because we'll rid the world of terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, but he is doing it with good "spin" to "prove" we are in a long war that we have to fight. Intelligent people will understand this report and the fact that we are causing the problems we are supposedly fixing. His followers will believe anything he says and think we have to keep bombing.

Exactly. I read his statement in the Wall Street Journal this morning and in explaining why he was declassifying the information, be basically stated that it was an election ploy by the press. Sometimes it's hard to read the tone in print, but I imagined him doing that little sarcastic nod he always does when talking to people like their two years old. I can't remember where I saw it, but someone said that the reason he talks so condescendingly to people is because that's how most people in his administration talk to him... :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He only de-classified a small part of it that was sanitized. Today Bush flatly rejected the call to release the entire document.

i wonder why.... :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I read his statement in the Wall Street Journal this morning and in explaining why he was declassifying the information, be basically stated that it was an election ploy by the press. Sometimes it's hard to read the tone in print, but I imagined him doing that little sarcastic nod he always does when talking to people like their two years old. I can't remember where I saw it, but someone said that the reason he talks so condescendingly to people is because that's how most people in his administration talk to him... :rofl:

I saw him speak about it on the nat'l news last night. You got it, nod, face wrinkle, condesending to the ultimate degree. He did say that the press released this as a political ploy and he was combatting it by releasing more and explaining it. Still leaves to wonder why not release it all? It is easy to pick and choose what to release to make your point. The odd part here: it didn't make his point and still looked like all of our agencies agree that we are breeding our enemies in droves by bombing their countries.

He only de-classified a small part of it that was sanitized. Today Bush flatly rejected the call to release the entire document.

Of course, transparent government is a thing of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed the similarities between Bush's camp's assessment of the war and Saddam's press guy saying everything was alright and they were winning?

I'm tired of Bush failing attempts to connect the war to Osama. Before he invaded, they didn't see Iraq as a place to come in and do what has been done since Saddam's been removed and no one can seem to get along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.