Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse? No, no it doesn't according to the Vice President at a fundraiser today... nevermind that an official report that was leaked a few days ago said that attacking Iraq DID increase terrorism risks and the Bush Administration knew the findings of the report back in April yet continued to publically contradict that report ever since.

And, of course, everyone knows that Official Reports are infallible.

[techumseh]

Unlike the armchair rightwingers at 'poly, who really ARE infallible - like the Pope.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh
Unlike the armchair rightwingers at 'poly, who really ARE infallible - like the Pope.

Right, left... pot, kettle... Black.

[Winston]

The Pope posts here!?

I think we shold induct him into the Hall of Fame then, just in case.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Um, that's got to be the worst misrepresentation of an intelligence document since ... hmm, WMD anyone?

1. In the SHORT TERM, perhaps terrorism is more likely as a result of the conflict. However, depriving the terrorists of a major backer and a major safe haven gives an immense long-term benefit. Imagine if we'd had the balls to take out Castro properly in 1961... the Soviets wouldn't have had the forward base they had all those years. (Not that it made a difference, but had it come down to a war, it would have...)

2. As stated in the article, they took a small portion of the paper and blew it out of proportion. Shock of all shocks.

3. Why exactly would the Bush-led intelligence agency release something that would dramatically undermine Bush? Though obviously someone goofed anyway

1. Its not clear at this point that we will leave a regime that is in any way stable. And unstable states are much more favorable for terrorists. The fact is, a pan-Islamic NGO like al qaeda is a serious challenge to an authoritarian/nationalist government like Saddam's. So we get rid of state sponsored terror, and replace it with all kinds of terror. Also, I reject your Cuba example. Soviet presence in Cuba didn't matter a bit. Had there been a war, we could have wipes each other out just with ICBMs. And then we could have wiped each other out again with submarine-launched second strikes.

2. Welcome to the media.

3. Interesting thing is, the Bush administration is/has been very concerned about declassifying this document. Since they have no problem leaking classified information is they think it will cast them in a good light (british airplane plot, eg), one can only assume their reluctance is due to domestic political considerations.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Winston
The Pope posts here!?

I think we shold induct him into the Hall of Fame then, just in case.

Hint: his DL is Asher.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by snoopy369
1. In the SHORT TERM, perhaps terrorism is more likely as a result of the conflict. However, depriving the terrorists of a major backer and a major safe haven gives an immense long-term benefit.

Iraq was a major safe haven for Al Qaeda? But now that we are there, Al Qaeda has disappeared?
Which Iraq are we talking about, exactly?

[techumseh]

It's the typical squirming of Poly's rightwingers when faced with the growing mountain of evidence that they and their divinely-guided president are a few volts short of a confession.

Straybow says that "everyone knows that Official Reports are infallible." Of course we don't. But that doesn't mean this one is wrong. Faulty logic. But nice try. Thanks for playing.

snoopy369, not to be outdone, claims: "Um, that's got to be the worst misrepresentation of an intelligence document since ... hmm, WMD anyone?" Very clever. Of course it was the Bush administration that did that piece of classic misrepresentation, wasn't it?

Now you're saying that the other side is doing the same thing. What's your evidence? How do you know that this intelligence document is being misrepresented? Other than that the Bush spin doctors say so, I mean. You know, the same guys that misrepresented the WMD reports back before the invasion of Iraq.

But our snoopy's not done: "As stated in the article, they took a small portion of the paper and blew it out of proportion." Hey snoop, it seems you're just repeating a claim by the Bush administration. The article didn't state that at all. They merely quoted a couple of Bush mouthpieces. What did you expect them to say?

So maybe it's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, nye. Or maybe that's just another logical sounding misrepresention from our right wing friends here at Apolyton.

[Flip McWho]

Aye, I vaguely remember that Saddam being a terrorist backers wasn't that clear cut, or at least an Al Qaeda backer.

But then my memory does occassionaly make things up.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, I vaguely remember that Saddam being a terrorist backers wasn't that clear cut, or at least an Al Qaeda backer.

But then my memory does occassionaly make things up.

Are you kidding? There never was any evidence of this. It was all a big lie. Bush finally had to admit it.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Iraq was a major safe haven for Al Qaeda? But now that we are there, Al Qaeda has disappeared?
Which Iraq are we talking about, exactly?

The one where all their wetdreams c*m true...

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, I vaguely remember that Saddam being a terrorist backers wasn't that clear cut, or at least an Al Qaeda backer.

But then my memory does occassionaly make things up.

Saddam would give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, which is support of terrorism, albeit somewhat indirectly. This allowed Bush to say, all in one breath, that 9/11 changed everything, we were waging a War on Terror, and that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Morons connected some dots and concluded that Saddam was behind 9/11.

-Arrian

[Nubclear]

This is what puzzles me. If this report has been taken so wildly out of context, and it supposedly vindicates everything Bush has been saying: Why is it that Bush does not want it released? Why is it that the Republicans don't want it released?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The actual NIE report now declassified for all to read


Why again is the NYT publishing classified info when it is clearly against the law?

[Pekka]

Well, the level of threat I would say can be measured by the resources. The terrorists themselves won't be not attacking or attacking based on what we do. They make their own decisions.

THe level of their influence is how much resources they have. Has this war made their resources bigger? Perhaps. I don't know. Perhaps, as in recruiting grounds should be much more profitable now for the terrorists. But the overall result, difficult to say.