The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

Discussions of and about the historic 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Locked
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

hal, do you disagree with the Bush administration's own intelligence agencies' assessment that the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat and that the overall terrorist risk has increased since 9/11? Here is the report from the New York Times from last September:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

For those who are not registered with the Times:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — 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.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

I don't really know how to respond. I don't think that's relevant to anything I was saying...

Unless, of course, you are saying that Bush and the US are responsible for creating the terrorists that want to attack us.

You're free to say that, and if that is the case then yes, Iraq should be stopped immediately and all the terrorists will be happy and go home and never think of killing us again.

I, actually, would think it more appropriate to blame the people convincing those recruits that the best course for their life is to strap a bomb to their chest to kill themselves..
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

I, actually, would think it more appropriate to blame the people convincing those recruits that the best course for their life is to strap a bomb to their chest to kill themselves..
:scratch: Of course. But we're not responsible for their actions. But if "assessment that the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat and that the overall terrorist risk has increased since 9/11" we're responsible for make those recruiter's jobs easier, at the very least.


ps - please don't make me pull the "this rock stops tiger attacks" argument again.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

halplm wrote:I don't really know how to respond. I don't think that's relevant to anything I was saying...
Really? :scratch:
you wrote:I think we're a great deal less open to terrorist attack.
How could it not be relevant to that to point out that the United States' own intelligence agencies conclude that we are more open to terrorist attacks as a result of the Iraq war and overall since 9/11?

The simple truth is that the more resentment and hatred that our actions create, the more fertile the breeding grounds for terrorism becomes. al qaeda in Iraq did not even exist until we invaded Iraq and created the circumstances that allowed for its creation. Our perceived occupation of Iraq is a rallying cry for disaffected Arabs and other Muslims throughout the world who already had valid complaints (though that in no way excuses resorting to violence in order address those complaints).

It is not a question of blaming "the people convincing those recruits that the best course for their life is to strap a bomb to their chests" OR blaming the U.S. and its allies for making it that much easier for those people to convince those recruits. In my humble opinion, we would be much better off working towards eliminating the sources of dis-satisfaction then attempting to impose our will on a people that do not want our interference.
Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

In my humble opinion, we would be much better off working towards eliminating the sources of dis-satisfaction then attempting to impose our will on a people that do not want our interference.
:agree:


(I tried, and probably failed, to make a similar statement, regarding the recent gun shooting tragedy.)
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

the only dissatisfaction these peopel have... is that we're alive and don't think exactly like we do.

I'm not exactly willing to give either of those things up.

so I guess we're going to have to impose our will on them...
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

It is in how we deal with countries like syria and Iran
How we deal with them? We don't deal with them! And that tactic has proven very productive, hasn't it? <sarcasm alert, in case you missed it>
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

halplm wrote:the only dissatisfaction these peopel have... is that we're alive and don't think exactly like we do.
hal, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded in the past 4 plus years; millions have been driven from their homes. Thousands of civilians have been killed directly by U.S troops, and other thousands have been wrongfully incarcerated, and in many cases terribly abused. Civilians have been out and out murdered by U.S. troops. And that is just in Iraq. That isn't even getting into the valid complaints that Arabs and other Muslims have had for many years. Have you ever been to a Palestinian refugee camp? Me neither, but I know they are not pleasant places. I'm not saying that any of this justifies terrorism, but this is a much more complicated situation then you seem to realize. That kind of black and white, you're either with us or against us attitude is what got us into this mess. It is NOT going to get us out of it.
Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

halplm wrote:so I guess we're going to have to impose our will on them...
So remind me again, what makes you different from them?
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

my will doesn't want them dead
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

You want them alive, but subject to your will.

And how do you propose to impose your will on millions of people? We obviously don't have the resources to subdue even one small country.

Even if you could, that sort of agenda has been known to inspire a certain kind of resistance in the people targeted for subjection.

Can't you see the futility of this kind of thinking?


eta: hal, would you mind, if you are going to reply to this post, that we move the conversation over to Misha's War thread. Thanks!
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

It seems Keith Olbermann was also a bit irked with Rudy's comments.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316770/
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Obama was given Secret Service protection this week, the earliest a presidential candidate has ever been given such protection (Hilary Clinton apparently has a Secret Service detail as a former First Lady). According to his Senate Colleague for Illinois, Dick Durbin, the detail was assigned because of information that he (Durbin) had received that "had a lot to do with race".

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Meanwhile, apparently Rush Limbaugh has been airing a parody song about Obama called "Barack the Magic Negro" (to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon") which features a comedian imitating the singing voice of Rev. Al Sharpton, bemoaning Obama’s popularity with whites who will, the lyrics predict, “vote for him and not for me ‘cause he’s not from da hood.”

I must say, I am impressed with the Obama camp's reaction to the song.

“It’s not the first dumb thing said during the course of this campaign and it likely won’t be the last,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. “But, frankly, I don’t think anyone takes this too seriously.”

Amen.

But threats of racially-based violence sufficient to justify secret service protection? That is something that I think everyone should take seriously.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

I agree that it must be taken seriously, Voronwë; and it is not surprising, imo. I still recall that public threats were made against Catholics during the Kennedy campaign.

Something new is always The End of the World

... until it happens

... and isn't.

:nono:
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

I've read about that song: it is a parody of the "Barack the Magic Negro" piece written at the LA Times, of people asking if Barack is black enough, and of the negative things Sharpton said about Barack. I've seen a run-down of the lyrics ... it is incorrect to say the parody of Obama. It is a parody of what race-obsessed people write about Obama.
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Is that a distinction its current target demographic will make, though?
elfshadow
Dancing in the moonlight
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:36 am
Contact:

Post by elfshadow »

Regardless of who the target was, it seems a tasteless and offensive "parody".
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." - HDT
Image
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

What demographic would that be, Ax?

edit: Is it tasteless because what it's parodying is tasteless, or is it tasteless because Rush Limbaugh comissioned it, or is the parody done in a tasteless way?
elfshadow
Dancing in the moonlight
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:36 am
Contact:

Post by elfshadow »

It's tasteless because of the derogatory manner in which it portrays the issue. I happen to agree with Rush here--I think it's ridiculous that anyone would call Barack Obama "not black enough". Ideally, IMO, race shouldn't be a factor in this election at all and I don't think that any side should twist it to their advantage or another side's disadvantage. I don't think that the LA Times columnist should have used the term "Magic Negro" in the first place and nor should anyone. But Rush has stated that the only reason he made the video in the first place was because "if I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the 'Magic Negro,' there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio." He's made this an issue about himself. Oh-poor-me-look-how-those-damned-liberals-are-accusing-me-of-such-and-such-aren't-they-awful. He shouldn't be using race, which is a sensitive and complex issue, to achieve this end. As if Rush Limbaugh isn't just as biased and hypocritical as the people he is accusing! No one should be throwing around the term "Magic Negro", Rush and the Times included. But Rush exploited this situation--tastelessly--and spun it into another excuse to bash liberals. He could have used the article solely to make a real point, and one that I believe is an excellent point. But instead he had to make it a right-left issue.
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." - HDT
Image
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

What demographic would that be, Ax?
A demographic of which you are an atypical member, and which is likely to react to the parody in an entirely different way.
Locked