WASHINGTON, July 17, 2007
U.S. Warns Of "Evolving" Terror Threat
Al Qaeda Will Use Iraq Contacts To Mount Attack On U.S. Soil, Intelligence Estimate Claims
-
Play CBS Video Video Al Qaeda Still Enemy No. 1 Six years after 9/11, al Qaeda is still determined to strike the U.S. A National Intelligence Estimate report says it will try harder to put operatives inside the country. Bob Orr reports.
-
Video Eye To Eye: Michael Chertoff Only On The Web: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff talks with Katie Couric about the new intelligence report on al Qaeda and the threat of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
-
Video Chertoff: It's A Long War Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff talks with Katie Couric about the latest intelligence report from the waar on terror.
-
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, right, sits with his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in this file image taken from an undated video shown on a pan-Arab satellite channel. (CBS)
-
Interactive America On Guard The Homeland Security Department, the terror alert system, preparedness quiz and more.
-
Photo Essay Targets Of Terror? Here are the buildings that have been idenitified as possible targets of terrorists in the U.S.
-
Special Report War On Terror Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.
The declassified key findings, to be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.
The report lays out a range of dangers — from al Qaeda to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff tells CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric in an exclusive interview that "what this intelligence estimate confirms is a general sense that we're entering a period where we do have to be concerned about a heightened risk. There is a recognition that we've degraded the capabilities of al Qaeda, but also we have to be concerned that they are beginning to regenerate and that they have found some kind of safe haven in certain parts of South Asia.”
Fran Townsend, the White House's Homeland Security adviser, said at a Tuesday morning press conference, "We are facing a persistent terrorist enemy led by al Qaeda that remains driven and intent on attacking the homeland and that continues to adapt and improve its capabilities."Exclusive: Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff
Transcript: Michael Chertoff Interview
She added that "we have no credible information pointing to a specific imminent attack or the timing or execution of such an attack. But the warning is clear, and we are taking it seriously."
Officials say there's no evidence al Qaeda has acquired weapons of mass destruction or injected a sleeper cell into the U.S. but both goals remain top priorities, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
"Of note," the report said, "we assess that al Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."
The analysts also found that al Qaeda's association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives — "including for homeland attacks."
It also paints a worrisome picture of increased training at camps along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, giving al Qaeda added capability to mount strikes on the U.S. and its key allies.
CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported that while the northern area of Pakistan, much of which is controlled by local tribes, has always been a stronghold of the Taliban, it's now also home to a resurgent al Qaeda.
The report said that the radical and violent segment of the Muslim population in the West is expanding.
"We assess that this internal Muslim terrorist threat is not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe, however," the report said.
Orr adds that there is some good news in the otherwise grim assessment: according to the report, counterterrorism efforts and new security measures have "constrained the ability" of al Qaeda "to attack the U.S. Homeland again." And, terrorists perceive the United States to be "a harder target to strike than on 9/11."
National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies across the breadth of the U.S. government. These agencies reflect the consensus, long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts. Portions of the documents are occasionally declassified for public release.
The White House brushed off critics who allege the administration released the intelligence estimate at the same time the Senate is debating Iraq. White House press secretary Tony Snow pushed back at the critics Tuesday, saying they are "engaged in a little selective hearing themselves to shape the story in their own political ways."National Intelligence Estimate: The Terrorist Threat to U.S. Homeland
"We don't keep it on the shelf and say `Let's look for a convenient time,’" Snow said.
"(What) we're trying to remind people is that this is a real threat. This is not an attempt to divert. As a matter of fact ... we would much rather — one of the things we'd like to do is call attention to the successes in the field" in Iraq, he said.
Democrats said the report was proof U.S. anti-terrorism efforts were being drained by the Iraq war.
"We must responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq, handing responsibility for security over to the Iraqis and leaving only those forces required for limited missions," said Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "This will allow us to concentrate our efforts on Afghanistan and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."
House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner said the report confirms gains made by Mr. Bush and blamed Democrats for being too soft on terrorism.
"Retreat is not a new way forward when the safety and security of future generations of Americans are at stake," he said in a statement.
The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, including the assessment of spy agencies that the United States is in a "heightened threat environment." It also provided new details on their thinking and concerns.
For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al Qaeda's ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.
But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned "that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge."
Among the report's other findings:
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From War On Terror
Add a Comment See all 612 Comments
- It's funny, singinrick; if you knew a fraction of what you pretend to know about atheism, you would know that everyone, including you, was an atheist at some time in his/her life.
- Reply to this comment
- If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion. Posted by singinrick at 06:16 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Well, guess what singinrick? Black is NOT a color and therefore, by your logic, atheism is NOT a religion. But then, you are not a secular person and I would not expect you to delve into the secular world of science and how colors work.
You are also way out in left field regarding scientists and atheism. Most scientists I work with believe in God, just not in the fanatical way that you do. But then, by your standards, anyone who is not fanatical is an atheist.
Atheism being taught in public schools? Do you have a source for that? If it were true it would be headline news and all of Christiandom would be up in arms.
Wow!! You are so full of yourself. Someone got it right earlier tonight when they said you preach from a "bully pulpit." When you preach, it proves to me that the "Christian Taliban" is alive and well.
FYI, singinrick, atheism is a philosophical view and not a religion. The word atheism (without god) is proof enough that it is not a religion. At least that's true in the secular world. You are free to call it whatever you want in your little world. - Reply to this comment
- When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.
Posted by singinrick at 06:16 PM : Jul 18, 2007
The state does not prohibit the free discussion of god or religion. It prohibits discussing it as science since it is not. You are free to discuss religion in sociology class or mythology or even in The bible as literature class as we had in my high school. However it can not be presented as fact in science class, because it so clearly has no scientific basis in fact. Genesis is a pretty little story told to mostly illiterate people in order to try to give them some answer that they could grasp to how the world began. It was never meant to be taken literally. It's a fable. A parable. Even a life lesson. It is not science and the state and scientists know it. Keep it where it belongs. In the home and in the church and even in philosophy class, but keep it out of the science classroom because no matter how you dissect it, it ain't science. - Reply to this comment
- The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!
Posted by singinrick at 06:16 PM : Jul 18, 2007
This may (and probably will) come as a surprise to you, but there is in fact no real connection between evolution and atheists. It is strictly logic for most people who consider themselves to be atheists to also accept that evolution is correct, but you constantly suggest that there is some sort of set of shared goals or religious/political connection between atheists and scientists, yet there is not. Many scientists are atheists, but many many more are not. Most scientists do follow some form of religion, they just don't bring it into the world of science because religion has no place there. The reason most scientists support evolution 100% is not that they're atheists (since the vast majority of them are not) but rather because evolution is correct and makes scientific sense. They don't deny what they can prove to be true. This is also why they know that religion has no place in science class and never will. In science they teach undeniable truths that can be shown to be true by repeatable experimentation and application of scientific laws and physics. Not mythology. - Reply to this comment
- If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.
But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.
Posted by singinrick at 06:16 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Here again there is a fundamental flaw. There is no code of atheism, no dogma, no set of writings of beliefs and in fact there can't be a true set of atheistic beliefs because atheism is not a belief system, it's the lack of one. It's the complete opposite of a belief, not another form of a belief, so therefore it can not be "taught" because it contains nothing to teach. You can not teach something that does not exist ricky. Ya just can't. - Reply to this comment
- If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
Posted by singinrick at 06:16 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Your beginning premise that if black is a color then atheism is a religion is fundamentally flawed, which causes the rest of your argument here to collapse. There is no relationship between color and religion (or lack of it), so your analogy defies logic and is therefore inoperative. Sorry ricky. If you start out with BS (your premise) you end up with BS (your conclusion here). - Reply to this comment
- Posted by singinrick at 06:34 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Some people are born homosexual ricky, just like most people are born heterosexual. It's a natural variation really no different the skin color or eye color or height, etc. Certainly while it's possible to force yourself to be something other then what you were born to be, that's unnatural. It's natural for g*ay people to be g*ay.
Also ricky you still tap danced around Leviticus I see. None of your quotes are from Christ, since he said nothing about being g*ay. Most of them are from Paul, who was almost certainly g*ay himself and struggling with his own sexual identity. You ignore Leviticus altogether because you can not find a way to justify condemning people who are g*ay based on that book, while at the same time knowingly committing sins and violations of other parts of the same book. If you cut your hair wrong, shave your beard or eat lobster, why are you no less a sinner then a person who is ga*y? Why do you continue to intentionally violate the will and laws of god? for all of the violations of leviticus you do ricky you might as well be g*ay, because by your own standards you're no different. - Reply to this comment
- I applaud you for taking the time to look up all of those references to atheists of the past. It's a shame you still haven't figured out that, while there may have been people in the past who considered others to be atheists, that still does not mean that atheism is a religion. You can come up with sayings and slogans and even make up a few yourself, but none of them make being atheist a religion, no matter how hard you try ricky. That dog won't hunt. you see the problem is that people who are brainwashed with religion literally can not conceive of not believing in SOMETHING. In some kind of faith or religion or supernatural being or dogma. So when you encounter someone who does not, in your mind you have to translate it into a form that you can grasp, so you attach religious ideas to it. It comforts you to think that a true atheist is really someone who still does believe in a god or dogma, but is just in denial or has gone astray or some such BS. But hey ricky, believe that if you will. It's not true of course, but what ever you need to get through the night is OK by me. just don't try to sell me your crutches. I don't need them.
- Reply to this comment
- "Having a devout faith in Jesus as the saviour does not by itself make a person a decent human being." Posted by torocaca at 09:09 PM : Jul 18, 2007
- - - - -
Yep. I offer my two ex-daugher-in-laws and my ex-wife and her current husband as proof of that. LOL!!! Three neurotic b i t c h e s and a man who still cheats on his wife...all devout followers of Jesus. Blessed are the pure in heart...well, that leaves them out. "Left behind" for sure... - Reply to this comment
- singinrick,,, Good thing the decision on who gets salvation isn't up to you our your church says the Pope.
- Reply to this comment
- The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India. Posted by singinrick at 06:25 PM : Jul 18, 2007
True. But the golden rule, morality and ethics are the primary domain of both of these religions, something that most Christians, even very devout Christians, choose to ignore. Having a devout faith in Jesus as the saviour does not by itself make a person a decent human being. - Reply to this comment
- Welcome to the singinrick blog... Posted by fake-id at 07:14 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Actually it's more like "singinrick spewing hatred and prejudice from the bully pulpit..." ("bully" in the true sense of the word.)
Apparently singinrick is not aware, or perhaps he chooses to ignore, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes that Christ spoke of, and Jesus' version of the golden rule (all major religions and cultures had their version, as did Confucius).
The third Beatitude: Blessed are the meek... Well, that leaves singinrick out; he's definitely not meek.
The seventh Beatitude: Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. singinrick is not a peacemaker. He advocates eradicating "radical Muslims." As far as singinrick is concerned, all Muslims are radical. - Reply to this comment
Welcome to the singinrick blog...- Reply to this comment
- Sorry I don't give you the feel good message of the Bible. I prefer the whole truth, not just some of it.
God Bless you.
Posted by singinrick at 05:43 PM : Jul 18, 2007
You're more then welcome ricky, but to tell the truth (something you have no concept of) it's incredibly easy to rightfully insult you and your phony message. It's already so full of holes though that it is a bit of a challenge to find a place to poke more. You know ricky it's your fanatical (and ultimately ignorant) all or nothing attitude that destroys your arguments and your ability to convert anyone. You are unable to accept that there are indeed conflicts in the bible between the old and new testaments and within each. You are unable to accept that the stories (both of them) of creation are fairy tales and fables concocted to try to explain in an easy to understand from the beginning of the world for illiterates and was never meant to be taken literally. You are unable to accept that the bible does not have to be completely 100% accepted as literal truth or completely rejected as a complete lie and that it as never meant to be either. Thinking intelligent people look at the ridiculous fairy tales you selectively pick out of the bible and realize that if there was a god, he/she/it wouldn't be that illogical, that childish, that ignorant and expect humans to accept it. - Reply to this comment
- I wonder who your religion of "atheism" has comforted.
Let's not even get into the comparisons....because I can promise you that you will lose out severely if we do.
But you don't have to lose out if you accept Christ.
Posted by singinrick at 05:46 PM : Jul 18, 2007
Tip tap tip tap tip tap. The sound of ricky dancing around the questions as usual. First of, in spite of your attempts to change the subject, atheism is not a religion. I doubt that even you are so ignorant that you're not able to grasp the concept that atheism is a lack of religion, so I can only conclude that you constantly go back to that line for reason of obfuscation and no other. It's not a different religion or even a refutation of religion itself. You can not answer the questions I raised about the conflicts between what you believe about G*ays still being condemned, but that other sins are now not as bad because Christ died for them, so now you can ignore PARTS of Leviticus because they're not too bad of sins and the punishments are very light. So instead you ignore the question and tap dance over to you're old standby of lying about what atheism is as an attempt to cover your failures and to ignore the obvious conflicts in you and your book of fairy tales. I understand that the real truth scares the pis*s out of you, but ducking it does not help your or your religions credibility. - Reply to this comment
- I'm only out to tell you that Christ loves you.
You on the other hand are looking for self accolades and recognition.
Suit yourself Randy, and insult away....
Good day, and God Bless.
Posted by singinrick at 03:22 PM : Jul 18, 2007
No you're not ricky. Your message has nothing to do with love and it never has. Apparently you don't even read what you write, because your messages are always filled with hate toward other religions and people whose life's you constantly condemn. Sure you throw in a few words about love to try to cover your bigotry and I'm not even sure you realize that you're doing it. You read the words of the bible and understand their literal meanings, but you have no concept of the spirit that real Christians feel when they read it. You're a biblical lawyer and judge who wants to enforce the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it. You're a very very very poor representative of your faith ricky. A very very very poor one. With people like you trying to spread the word I can promise you that christianity will continue to fail to gain many new members. religion is supposed to comfort people, not frighten or condemn them, but those are the two things you wave like a weapon, constantly pushing people away from Christ while claiming to try to convert. You're a porcupine of a symbol of your church. Prickly and only capable of inflicting pain. - Reply to this comment
- Atheists don't believe in the Bible at all and they definitely don't believe in the historical truths of the OT as you have freely admitted.
Posted by singinrick at 03:22 PM : Jul 18, 2007
This is what's known as a lie and you know it, so the hypocrisy is still flowing from your side ricky. It's also a lie (and you know it) that I could care less about what people here think of me or I wouldn't have taken a pro-immigration position. But you see ricky I always state what I believe in my heart, not what a book tells me that I should believe.
That clicking sounds is the echo of you tap dancing away, having once again ignored and refused to answer simple questions put to you, because the answers terrify the sh*it out of you. That's sad ricky. Sad and pathetic. Not surprising though from one who has closed his mind to the truth that exists outside of a dusty old book of fables. there is a whole world of knowledge and truth in outside of your book of fairy tales, but you can't look at it or even acknowledge that it exists, because to do so would topple the flimsy house of cards of religion you've built around your life. - Reply to this comment
- -For one Randy you don't believe in God (or so you say, even though you admitted to some of the historical truths of the Old Testament) so I find it quite amusing that you are trying to use the Bible as a method of defense when you have boldly claimed that you are "certain" there is no God.
Posted by singinrick at 08:21 AM : Jul 18, 2007
Also and again dumbas*s, as I pointed out, acknowledging that places mentioned in the bible actually exist in history infinitely different then "admitting the truths" of the old testament. Again ricky, that's you tap dancing around the issue. I acknowledge that the city of London exited in the year 1984, but that's certainly not the same thing as acknowledging that Orwell's version of London in 1984 was real. Again ricky, you twist the words in a lame attempt to score debate points, without any effort to try to make one believe. If you're a prime example of those who are trying to bring people to Christ, then atheistism is certainly the wave of the future, because your debating the letter of the bible and ignoring the spirit of it drives people away and draws none nearer, because who wants to believe a biblical lawyer spouting arguments at a trial over a man of god trying to show people the way? You and your type (Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, etc) are very poor representatives of Christianity and the reason fewer people believe in it. - Reply to this comment
- The punishments in the Old Testament times were much more severe for sin. This is why Jesus paid the ultimate punishment on the cross.
Jesus did not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them. He paid the punishment on the cross. That's why the Old Testament "PUNISHMENTS" are no longer in effect, because of Jesus Christ.
This however does not mean that the LAWS are no longer in effect, which would include homosexuality STILL being a sin, as are other sexual sins. The sins of the OT and things that are against God are going to be here until Christ returns, for which He will then finally end the sin in this world at the final judgment.
Posted by singinrick at 08:21 AM : Jul 18, 2007
So then the laws of Leviticus are still in effect, but they're not as big of a sin because the punishments are less now. Good, so then every morning when you shave or when you go to the barber for a haircut or scr*ew one of your slaves without paying her first, you still knowingly and on purpose sin against the law, knowing that the sin is not as great so you don't have to worry about as much punishment. Yet you expect homosexuals to have to pay the ultimate price (in your bigoted mind) for have ga*y ***. Excuse me dumbas*s, but that hypocrisy of the highest order. - Reply to this comment
- -For one Randy you don't believe in God (or so you say, even though you admitted to some of the historical truths of the Old Testament) so I find it quite amusing that you are trying to use the Bible as a method of defense when you have boldly claimed that you are "certain" there is no God.
Posted by singinrick at 08:21 AM : Jul 18, 2007
Keep finding it amusing ricky, but that's still tap dancing because I'm not defending anything, you are. Also if you believed in Grimms Fairy Tales (which wouldn't surprise me) then you wouldn't find it amusing that I sink down to your level and use those fairy tales to prove you're an idiot for believing in them. - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
