A Distinct Lack Of Intelligence

(The Nation)  You would think that a consensus report from all sixteen U.S. intelligence services concluding that he has blown the war on terror would be a really big deal to the president. But that assumes that George W. Bush values intelligence.

Clearly, he does not. So the news that a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concludes the threat of terror against the United States has increased since 9/11, largely thanks to his irrational invasion of Iraq, has not disturbed Bush's branded "what me worry" countenance.

Instead, predictably, the Administration's response to the leaked conclusions of the shared assessments of both civilian and military intelligence agencies was the same old historically ignorant claptrap that leaves U.S. policies completely out of the equation.

"Their hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins. "Those seeds were planted decades ago."

What seeds are those? It was "decades ago" that the CIA encouraged Muslim fanatics worldwide to go to Afghanistan to fight a holy war against a secular regime backed by the Russians. The end result of that engagement was — after their troop withdrawal and the consequent U.S. attention deficit — a devolution into civil war, warlordism and, eventually, the takeover of the country by Osama bin Laden's friends, the religiously extreme and oppressive Taliban. Sound familiar?

It should: The same deadly process has been taking place under Bush's watch in Iraq since our idiotic invasion in 2003.

If the Bush Administration were serious about protecting us from terrorist attacks, it would end the ineffectual "war on terror" model and instead treat terrorism as a pathology that needs to be clinically and relentlessly excised. If terror groups such as al Qaeda are a cancer in the world's body politic, as the intelligence estimate suggests, then the goal should be to surgically isolate and neutralize the malignant cells.

"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," reads a section of the National Intelligence Estimate that Bush declassified on Tuesday. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

A few Washington leaders do seem to be taking this sobering assessment seriously. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told CNN he was "very concerned" about the estimate, adding, "My feeling is that the war in Iraq has intensified Islam fundamentalism and radicalism."

But the rest of his party, and their cheerleaders in the media, fell into line, including the occasionally independent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who seemed to suggest that U.S. policy decisions don't matter at all. "If it wasn't Iraq, it'd be Afghanistan that [terrorists] would use as a method of continuing their recruitment," said McCain, without offering evidence of this flip claim.

Much more considered was the testimony this week of retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 and served as a senior military assistant to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

"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 fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents," said Batiste in joining other retired generals in calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush Administration, he charged, "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq."

Of course, unlike McCain, the retired generals can speak the truth because they are not running for office based on a record of six years of lousy GOP leadership. But those not wedded to the short-term fortunes of the Republican Party in an election year should welcome the nonpartisan sanity being offered by the intelligence agencies and military brass. With his security policy, Bush's alleged strong suit, exposed as a clear failure, it is time for the nation's political middle to make a corrective move and give Congress back to the opposition to provide a check and balance on this arrogant Administration.

In the name of defending our security, the Bush Administration has suppressed any intelligence information it could, ignoring the public's right to know, as much as is feasible, what is being done in its name. We must never forget that our system of government is based on the utility of freedom that truth will expose error — and just such an accounting is long overdue.


Robert Scheer, a contributing editor to The Nation, is editor of Truthdig.com and author of the newly published "Playing President" (Akashic Books).

By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from The Nation

[hopeseeker-2009]

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I don't think that people are disputing whether or not the Iraqi regime under Saddam was a nice Disney type of crowd. I'm sure there are more than a few unsavory devices nestled in some bunker somewhere. In fact since the fall of the Soviet Union there are probably devices all over the World that you would not want in the hands of anyone much less a decided enemy.
The problem for most is not that there aren't problems in the world that need solutions, but that it is not solely the responsibility of the U.S. to march around the world disarming rogue governments. It was decided that democratic consensus should be arrived at by a majority vote among the countries who have decided to share the responsibility of protecting human rights around the world.
Like any democratic system, the UN needs constant shifting and adjustment to keep running and although they have their issues it was agreed that there was no consensus in regards to invading Iraq and Georgie boy said S*#*#*ew you we don%u2019t need the world behind us, we%u2019ll start our own club %u2018cause I just don%u2019t like this guy and he%u2019s gotta go. I wonder what the cost was for the state of democracy.

[airgemini]

"If terror groups such as al Qaeda are a cancer in the world's body politic, as the intelligence estimate suggests, then the goal should be to surgically isolate and neutralize the malignant cells. "

Does anyone know who Al Qaeda is?? Are there any names?? I want to know who the members are, since the dictator in office and the media who repeat what he dictates to them, and ONLY what they are "allowed" to report on, speak so much of this group. You know..I think the biggest terrorist is the one who took office and claims to be the "only dictator".
When Bush is out of office, or rather, when those people who think the same way that reptile does are out of office, and people wake up to the reality of this world, this world will finally be a place of peace. Until then..I want to hear some names of Al Qaeda....
It is a made up organization, made up by the government, for purposes of someone to blame for all the illegal things our government does, in the name of peace....yeah, right.

[djconklin]

Once no WMD were found, ...

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Think about it this way:

What are the odds that Saddam used _all_ of the WMD's when he attacked the Kurds?

If you were him, would you have used 100% or would you have held some back for some future use?

Would you spend millions of dollars on shells and rockets to carry WMD's if you didn't have any?

For how long would you spend millions of dollars trying to develop your own WMD's without getting any results?

If the UN came to inspect your facilities would you harrass and obstruct them if you didn't have anything to hide?

Would you stop them at the front gate while running empty trucks out the back all to make it look like you are pulling a fast one--and why would you let them know/see the trucks going out the back?

Does any of that above make sense? No. Most likely we've been so busy fighting the insurgents that we haven't had a chance to do a thorough inspection of the country--when was the last time you saw footage of the UN people going to the facilities they tried to inspect and couldn't?

[Syndicate]

Didn't we have an inteligance report that said Iraq was a threat? That Iraq was trying to obtain WMDs to use on us? Lets be honest here Musslims hate freedom Just Like Christians do. Yea they talk the talk but very few walk the walk. You can't have freedom in a religous society. If you do then people start excersising it. They start questioning the religion then they relize its a load of BS and before long you have a secular society. Mullahs and Sheiks have no power in a secular society. Take Jerry Farwell he *** and complains about evolution in schools yet is powerless to get ID taught because we all no its BS. Only in a free society can you tell the religous leaders to go F@#* themselfs and that is what they are truly afraid of.

[mvanhelsing]

You leftist are all alike. Ever heard of reading the WHOLE matter before making a judgment? Well, that would make little difference to your opinion, no doubt. And by the way, notice that CBS did not write this ***, but placed it from another website in order to deny that this is also their belief but express it anyway. Help me out! LOL!

[hopeseeker-2009]

Where's Monica Lewinski when you need her.
It seems that a couple quickies in the oval office are far more immoral than say, falsifying intelligence reports, bold faced lying to your citizens, invading sovereign countries, inciting religious secularism, and creating an arrogant self serving image that the world can use to direct all of it's pent up aggression. Communism, fascism, Fidel(ism), Chavez(ism), Kim Jong Il(ism), all small potatoes, where do you start the next fight, when you have the armaments ready to fight the entire globe? There%u2019s an ism somewhere. Aha %u201CRadical Islamofascism%u201D Don%u2019t worry, all of the unsavory will be rounded up "Dead or Alive", sentenced and incarcerated without anyone knowing why. They're Opium Poppy funds will be confiscated along with what%u2019s left of Saddam's money and all will vanish into thin air, we%u2019ll all be safer. A strategy I think would work best on the administration. Don't tell them why, just show up, arrest them, beat them into submission, and make them tell us what's really going on. Take all their money, harass their families, relieve them of control of any companies they may own, have interests in, or gain income from and lock them up without a single word of it. This is Justice Bush style, and here it almost sounds good. Televise it and maybe those around the world may see the same measuring stick being indiscriminately applied.

[krazymo1-2009]

Bush's administration has been losing credibility in the world ever since they went to the UN about Iraq after 9/11. Sure terrosim is a real threat and Osama Bin Laden has to be caught. But, the way they went about it and the diplomacy they used with Americans and others in the world has hurt the USA. I wonder how Dave Baker and crew would've handled it. I believe the USA has a weak administration when it comes to honesty and diplomacy skills. The entire world has lost faith in the United States, even Brit's are losing their patience. It'll take many years to repair the damage that has been done to america's reputation.

[tejasdemo]

Here Here !!!!!!!!

[man-of-peace]

The Bush Administration has every right to celebration from this assessment. If an assessment stating the true state of affairs were published, certainly the administration would risk a major backlash from the public at large due to the realization the world in which they live and depend is very near a major upheaval. US foriegn policy, as is briefly aluded to, has long been designed to create instability in order to steer the preferred successor toward creating an enviroment in which, although chaotic, we have some control. Perhaps one day those in power in the US will wake up to the idea that creating chaos between tribal and sectarian groups distabalizes a delicate balance, perhaps created after 100's or even 1000's of years, that cannot be controled with a predictable outcome. Their is intelligence out there, there are simple cost effective solutions, but then again those rarely produce the much needed, much lobbied for sales of arms and munitions.

[pb5757]

The real damage of 9/11 was in permanently changing our way of life, and in destroying whatever moral compass we had retained to that point. The combination of a President brainwashed by Cheney and others who left Saddam in power in 1991, and a rubber-stamp Congress, has destroyed the respect that the U.S. once held in the rest of the world, leaving us with little support elsewhere. When Musharraf and Karzai are out, what "friends" will we have?