Powell says CIA report on declining world terrorism was a "big mistake"

[*d*]

Really?? LOL
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040614/TERROR14/TPInternational/Americas
"A U.S. State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline last year in terrorism worldwide was a 'big mistake,' Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday."

This kind of news only shows that Bush's war-on-terrorism policy is not working. So I have a thought. Why not change the policy? Why not target the source of terrorism rather than target the obstacles that stand in the way of a neo con agenda?

 

[onthebottom]

Come on *d*, this is simplistic even for you. Answer a couple of questions;

Where can OBL and crew train without being harassed?
What percentage of senior AQ have been killed or arrested in the last couple of years.

I'd say we're making progress.

OTB

 

[Drunken Master]

Where can OBL and crew train without being harassed?

You seriously think there arn't dozen of places in the world where Al-Quaeda hybrids are doing what they please? Visit Indonesia or the Sudan and get back to me.

What percentage of senior AQ have been killed or arrested in the last couple of years.

Come now. We have scant idea how many AQ there were in the first place, or how many have been recuited in the past few years. The "status" of AQ is entirely debatable - especially since the force of US intelligence has been focused elsewhere.

I'd say we're making progress.

This is of course, difficult to judge. This report was, at least, premised on the idea that an objective judgement could be made. Confronted with the facts - facts they themselves sought out - the administration cooked the books.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[The_Jaded_One]

I'd say we're making progress.

So the USA is more hated than ever and terrorism is on the rise and you say that you are making progress with terrorism?!?! You got to be kidding me.

Here's the real question: what happens to the level of terrorism when the USA leaves Iraq and Afghanistan w/ its proverbial tail between its legs? You know you guys can't stay there forever, right?

The USA is going to be paying dearly for years to come because of the level of hatred they have incited.



--------------------------
That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger ...

 

[onthebottom]

So the USA is more hated than ever and terrorism is on the rise and you say that you are making progress with terrorism?!?! You got to be kidding me.

Here's the real question: what happens to the level of terrorism when the USA leaves Iraq and Afghanistan w/ its proverbial tail between its legs? You know you guys can't stay there forever, right?

The USA is going to be paying dearly for years to come because of the level of hatred they have incited.



--------------------------
That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger ...

Let me give you a hint, how many troops does the US have in Germany right now?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Here's the real question: what happens to the level of terrorism when the USA leaves Iraq and Afghanistan w/ its proverbial tail between its legs? You know you guys can't stay there forever, right?

And let's not forget that the troops in Afghanistan are under NATO command, a Canadian General come to think of it, or is that your concern? He's not French Canadian is he...... That could turn out bad.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

From the Economist, June 3:

America's State Department paints a rosier picture. In its latest annual review of global terrorism, it says there were fewer terrorist incidents in 2003 than in any year since 1969. Tougher and better co-ordinated police work has taken more than 3,400 suspected al-Qaeda people out of action, including—it says—some two-thirds of the organisation's leaders. In the past two months, Turkey, Italy and Jordan have foiled apparently large attacks. Terrorism has been on the wane even in hot spots of jihadi activity, such as Algeria, Yemen, Central Asia, Israel, Kashmir and the Philippines, where a suspected al-Qaeda agent was arrested this week. So why the worry?



Massaged figures?
For one thing, a precipitous drop in terrorism registered in Latin America, along with a decision to exclude the large toll of casualties from jihadi bombings in Iraq, lowers the State Department's figures. And terrorism experts are revising their view of the source of the danger. They no longer see al-Qaeda, the global jihad's “base” organisation founded by Mr bin Laden, as a sort of “terrorism central” but more like an ideological franchise. George Tenet, who heads the CIA, testified recently that militant jihadi groups operate in no fewer than 68 countries (up from 40 in 2001). In Iraq alone dozens of separate groups may pursue what they see as jihad.

So my point was, with 3,400 taken out and two thirds of the leadership gone, we're making progress. Not as much progress as we would if we could get the PLO and Israelis to the table to do a deal and be done with it.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I don't know OTB - these phoney numbers coming from reports seems to be a habit for this administration. I do trust Colin Powell and accept his explanation - anyone else and I think I would not believe them (Ashcroft comes to mind). I am beginning to wonder if this Administration has everyone so scared to give GWB (43) any bad news.
I do think the US has put a big dent in AQ, but it's not really a convential war where it is much easier to count up the damage. If reports like these keep coming out I might have to support The Jaded One or *D* shudder

bbk

Dude, have some self respect.

OTB

 

[Drunken Master]

George Tenet, who edit headed edit the CIA, testified recently that militant jihadi groups operate in no fewer than 68 countries (up from 40 in 2001). In Iraq alone dozens of separate groups may pursue what they see as jihad.

OTB

You sure you want to be quoting George "Mr. Reliable" Tenet on this one, OTB?

 

[sweet guy]

That's the sad fact when the CIA was "muzzled" after the adventures in the 70s and further "castrated" in the 90s by the peace divindends.

How dumb is that when the DO can't make contact and recruit the moles?

And worse they don't have reliable HUMINT to infiltrate the terror cells. Plus, their assessination skills are rusty. So far one only was successful and the target is only a mid-level operative.

George Tenet is basically the fall guy. It may be true the intel may not be accurate BUT don't forget according to Paul O'Neal and Bob Woodward, the Dubya has a penchant to selectively listen and use the intelligence to justify the means to "settle the score of that Son of the Bitch in Baghdad".

How about like the liberal Michael Moore suggestion to the CIA to subcontract the Mossad to liquidate the al-Qaida echelon? That's a wishful thinking since the Mossad doesn't have enough Kidon to wage counterattacks on global Jihad. Plus, their skills are getting rusty too after countless embarassing incidents.

Still, I believe George Tenet is right. The CIA is not ready to really put the fight on the enemy heartland and like any bureaucracy they have to "obey the rules of the games based on the outdated scenarios".

 

[The_Jaded_One]

And let's not forget that the troops in Afghanistan are under NATO command, a Canadian General come to think of it, or is that your concern? He's not French Canadian is he...... That could turn out bad.

So are you trying to smugly suggest that the French are cowards? How enlightened of you. Why is it that supporters of the Iraq war (at least on this board) usually are horrible spellers and/or racist? What trailer park are you guys coming from?

Anyways, the USA is losing its handle in Afghanistan. My brother is working as an engineer there, and he can't leave the city of Kabul at night and he lives in a heavily guarded compound. Many contractors are being murdered. The USA has not caught OBL and Ayman al-Zawahri. Yes, they are losing control over there and terrorism WILL make a big-time comeback and regroup with more vigor than ever before. I guess that is not what the unbiased reporting of FOX News and the Economist are telling ya though, huh?

Let me give you a hint, how many troops does the US have in Germany right now?

Let me give you a clue if that's possible. There are 70K troops over in Germany and 138K troops over in Iraq. How many troops are dying in Germany compared to Iraq? You do know that troops are being redeployed out of Germany to Iraq? But I thought the USA was WINNING the war on terrorism so why the need for MORE troops? Why is the level of USA casualties going up from a year gone by instead of down? The Bush Administration is losing support for the war at home. What is gonna happen when they pull out b/c the American people have had enough with American soldiers coming home in body bags? Terrorism will then skyrocket as the increased hatred for America spills over and has no way of being contained.

 

[*d*]

From the Economist, June 3:

America's State Department paints a rosier picture. In its latest annual review of global terrorism, it says there were fewer terrorist incidents in 2003 than in any year since 1969. Tougher and better co-ordinated police work has taken more than 3,400 suspected al-Qaeda people out of action, including—it says—some two-thirds of the organisation's leaders. In the past two months, Turkey, Italy and Jordan have foiled apparently large attacks. Terrorism has been on the wane even in hot spots of jihadi activity, such as Algeria, Yemen, Central Asia, Israel, Kashmir and the Philippines, where a suspected al-Qaeda agent was arrested this week. So why the worry?

OTB

Quoting the state department report was a waste of time. It contains the very incorrect numbers C. Powell was talking about. Terrorism is not declining. Or is it Mr. Powell that's got it wrong? www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eterr16_20040616.htm
As I said in my first post --Bush's war-on-terror policy has to change. The US has no business targeting anything else but the source of terrorism. The war in Iraq, for example, a neo con venture for regime change and nothing to do with 9/11, has only eroded world security. And there's strong evidence of that. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/bush.criticism/
"Bush's foreign policy has failed at 'preserving national security and providing world leadership.' " -Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

 

[tompeepin]

Dude, have some self respect.

OTB

I thought that it was all about what we believed in and not about our dislike of others. So if I agree with you this time, based on principal I should not, because of our past differences?

Yeah like: "If you are not with us you are against us." and "My enemy's enemy is my friend."

That is Neo-con logic alright!

 

[*d*]

Come on *d*, this is simplistic even for you. Answer a couple of questions;

Where can OBL and crew train without being harassed?

Not in Iraq. Saddam wanted nothing to do with OBL or Al Qaeda(as per the 9/11 commission).

What percentage of senior AQ have been killed or arrested in the last couple of years.

OTB

Hard to tell since sympathizers to Al Qaeda are growing.

 

[onthebottom]

I’m going to try and do this in one post:

You sure you want to be quoting George "Mr. Reliable" Tenet on this one, OTB?

I’d be careful about painting every thing he says with that brush.

Ok I threw some cold water on my face - I think I'm over it.
bbk

Good man, but let’s not let it happen again OK.

So are you trying to smugly suggest that the French are cowards? How enlightened of you. Why is it that supporters of the Iraq war (at least on this board) usually are horrible spellers and/or racist? What trailer park are you guys coming from?

It was a joke, go rent a sense of humor. Let me know when you want to compare balance sheets or income statements you genius.

Anyways, the USA is losing its handle in Afghanistan. My brother is working as an engineer there, and he can't leave the city of Kabul at night and he lives in a heavily guarded compound. Many contractors are being murdered. The USA has not caught OBL and Ayman al-Zawahri. Yes, they are losing control over there and terrorism WILL make a big-time comeback and regroup with more vigor than ever before. I guess that is not what the unbiased reporting of FOX News and the Economist are telling ya though, huh?

And it was so safe before, nothing like international terrorists to keep the petty crime down, perhaps we should import the triad from HK……

You can’t define the war against terrorism as the catching of one (or two) people, unless you are an idiot.

Go buy an economist, borrow the money if necessary, what you will read is that AL is changing the way it does business, OBL is a figure head and it’s now a highly decentralized organization (movement is probably a better term). The economist is very balanced.

Let me give you a clue if that's possible. There are 70K troops over in Germany and 138K troops over in Iraq. How many troops are dying in Germany compared to Iraq? You do know that troops are being redeployed out of Germany to Iraq? But I thought the USA was WINNING the war on terrorism so why the need for MORE troops? Why is the level of USA casualties going up from a year gone by instead of down? The Bush Administration is losing support for the war at home. What is gonna happen when they pull out b/c the American people have had enough with American soldiers coming home in body bags? Terrorism will then skyrocket as the increased hatred for America spills over and has no way of being contained.

Oh, that hurt so much….

I thought there were 150k troops in German, but I could be wrong. Are we planning a major shift in those troops? My point was that we’re not likely to turn and run even after peace is restored, unless the Iraq government asks us, then I’m sure we’d be happy to leave, that’s true in Korea, Japan and Germany as well, oddly enough they’ve not asked us.

I thought that it was all about what we believed in and not about our dislike of others. So if I agree with you this time, based on principal I should not, because of our past differences?

Yeah like: "If you are not with us you are against us." and "My enemy's enemy is my friend."

That is Neo-con logic alright!

Pot – kettle?

Was just making a joke (French reference) along with a serious one (non US NATO command in Afghanistan.

OTB

 

[Zorba]

You guys still going at it?

My favourite tidbit of the day: CNN headline that says "9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes".

http://www.cnn.com/ (@ 9:00pm EST).

The headline is kinda flashy and is bound to capture a few eyeballs.

Unfortunately, the important piece of the "story" is that there was "no credible evidence" found that Iraq had anything to do with AQ or 9/11.

You would think that the revelation of another brutal gov't lie to justify a needless war (from the article: "The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda") would be slightly more important than hypothetical plans Bin Laden tossed aside because they were too ambitious.

Gotta love CNN... then again, this whole story doesn't even appear on Fox!

 

[Drunken Master]

The economist is very balanced.

The Economist is an excellent magazine, but it most certainly has a conservative bias.

 

[Drunken Master]

I’d be careful about painting every thing he says with that brush.

OTB

Oh no, dear sir - Tenet himself has the brush to paint his own words. And that brush, sir, he dips into a can filled with bullshit.

 

[*d*]

Re: Re: You guys still going at it?

Anyways, just being a source of funds for terror groups and bomb jackets to the PLO made Iraq a legitmate target in the war on terror.

Where is the 'credible evidence' of this? Saddam has admitted compensating the Arab families of PLO bombing victims. Saudi Arabia has also done that. But where is the evidence of Saddam's pre-sponsorship of PLO terrorist activities? I know there's evidence the US has sponsored and supported the terrorist activities of Sharon.

 

[phogNphriction]

Not WWIII yet

I thought there were 150k troops in German,
but I could be wrong. Are we planning a major shift
in those troops? My point was that we’re not likely
to turn and run even after peace is restored, unless
the Iraq government asks us, then I’m sure we’d be
happy to leave, that’s true in Korea, Japan and Germany
as well, oddly enough they’ve not asked us.

I don't think this is a very apt comparison. The reason for stationing so many troops in Germany, after WWII, was to partition the country into two parts and defend the western part (and western Europe, by extention) from the Soviet Union, a former ally turned military/imperial rival. This model of troop deployment does not make sense in Iraq, unless you imagine Iraq dissolving into ideologically distinct sub-states administered by seperate imperial powers- not gonna happen- the British are the only avilable candidate, but they share the US ideology and are not militarily a match- we are living a world with one clear superpower. The other reason for US deployment in W.Germany was that Germany was barred from reestablishing any of its military might beyond self-defense forces. This is not the approach being taken in Iraq, where the National army is being revived and retrained to take over security.

The problem with Japan as a comparison (and I would agree that Japan is probably the best historical example of regime change, among some stunning failures) is what the US had to do to achieve this "best case scenario", which included, AFTER several years of all-out conventional war on a number of different fronts in the Pacific and remote ares of the Japanese empire (China, the Phillipines, etc.), the bombing of two major urban/industrial centers with NUCLEAR devices, the installation of an American General as sole administrator of the Japanese economy for several more years, and the until-then-unheard-of sums devoted to reconstruction under the Marshall Plan- a plan developed in advance and with the full support of all America's Western Allies....

Successful regime change doesn't come cheap.... just my $0.02