Why the Bush Administration is losing the "war on terror"

[bullypulpit]

With the new year, I think it necessary to look back on the claims of the Bush administration concerning the "war on terror".

After the failure to find ANY WMD's in Iraq, the Bush administration changed its rationale for the invasion of Iraq to that of it being a key front in the "war on terror"...We were "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

In a <a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html>bipartisan survey of some 100 of America's top foreign policy experts</a>, the overwhelming majority believe that the policies pursued by the Bush administration with regards to combating terrorism and securing America are failing. 84% of respondents believe the US IS NOT winning the "war on terror", and 86% believe that Americas face increasing danger around the world.

The <a href=http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/terrorism/keyjudgments_092606.pdf>April 2006 NIE</a>, page 2, concludes the following:

<blockquote>"...the Iraq conflict has has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding deep resentment of US involvement of the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."</blockquote>

Far from making the world a safer place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a boon to the jihadist movement in general and Al Qaeda in particular. It took a country that posed little or no terrorist threat to America or its allies and turned into a threat of major proportions, threatening the stability of the entire region. The invasion and occupation also made a shambles of what little pre-war planning was done by the Bush administration by spawning a tenacious insurgency that has tied down troops in far greater number than ever anticipated by the Bush administration.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has attracted foreign fighters like flies to crap. Contrary to what one might think, these are not seasoned terrorist fighters, rather they are new recruits drawn to the jihadist movement by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A 2005 study indicated that the vast majority of these foreign fighters had no previous links to terrorism, and were radicalized by the invasion of a Muslim nation that posed no credible or immediate threat to the US. And there is no indication that his trend has reversed itself. And while driving the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan shut down their training operations there, the invasion and occupation of Iraq provided live fire training to new recruits to the jihadist movement. This is giving rise to a whole new breed of terrorists who have sophisticated training in demolitions, linguistic skills and insurgency tactics and loosed them on the world.

Despite the claims of the Bush administration that the "war on terror" is being won, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, increasing some fourfold in 2005 and another 25% in 2006with the numbers for 2007 set to outstrip even those.

Bush's belief that "...We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home..." ignores a few obvious facts, not the least of which being that if we had not invaded and occupied Iraq, the insurgents in that benighted country and many of the foreign fighters would not be fighting us at all...either here or there. The resources expended in Iraq, in terms of blood and treasure, could have been applied to hounding Al Qaeda out of existence, protecting our borders and ports, protecting nuclear weapons sites in the former Soviet Union and rebuilding Afghanistan to reduce the liklihood of the terrorist resurgence we see happening there now.

The policies pursued by the Bush administration since 9/11 have done little to secure either America or the world from terrorism. Instead they have helped fan the flames of jihadist fanaticism, leading to an increased threat to America and the world. The policies pursued by the Bush administration are losing the "war on terror" for America.


Other Sources:

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0820-07.htm> How America Created a Terrorist Haven</a>

<a href=http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/?page=full>Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq</a>

<a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html>Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says</a>

<a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/>Terror attacks worldwide rose 25 percent in ’06</a>

[red states rule]

With the new year, I think it necessary to look back on the claims of the Bush administration concerning the "war on terror".

After the failure to find ANY WMD's in Iraq, the Bush administration changed its rationale for the invasion of Iraq to that of it being a key front in the "war on terror"...We were "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

In a <a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html>bipartisan survey of some 100 of America's top foreign policy experts</a>, the overwhelming majority believe that the policies pursued by the Bush administration with regards to combating terrorism and securing America. 84% of respondents believe the US IS NOT winning the "war on terror", and 86% believe that Americas face increasing danger around the world.

The <a href=http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/terrorism/keyjudgments_092606.pdf>April 2006 NIE</a>, page 2, concludes the following:

<blockquote>"...the Iraq conflict has has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding deep resentment of US involvement of the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."</blockquote>

Far from making the world a safer place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a boon to the jihadist movement in general and Al Qaeda in particular. It took a country that posed little or no terrorist threat to America or its allies and turned into a threat of major proportions, threatening the stability of the entire region. The invasion and occupation also made a shambles of what little pre-war planning was done by the Bush administration by spawning a tenacious insurgency that has tied down troops in far greater number than ever anticipated by the Bush administration.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has attracted foreign fighters like flies to crap. Contrary to what one might think, these are not seasoned terrorist fighters, rather they are new recruits drawn to the jihadist movement by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A 2005 study indicated that the vast majority of these foreign fighters had no previous links to terrorism, and were radicalized by the invasion of a Muslim nation that posed no credible or immediate threat to the US. And there is no indication that his trend has reversed itself. And while driving the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan shut down their training operations there, the invasion and occupation of Iraq provided live fire training to new recruits to the jihadist movement. This is giving rise to a whole new breed of terrorists who have sophisticated training in demolitions, linguistic skills and insurgency tactics and loosed them on the world.

Despite the claims of the Bush administration that the "war on terror" is being won, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, increasing some fourfold in 2005 and another 25% in 2006with the numbers for 2007 set to outstrip even those.

Bush's belief that "...We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home..." ignores a few obvious facts, not the least of which being that if we had not invaded and occupied Iraq, the insurgents in that benighted country and many of the foreign fighters would not be fighting us at all...either here or there. The resources expended in Iraq, in terms of blood and treasure, could have been applied to hounding Al Qaeda out of existence, protecting our borders and ports, protecting nuclear weapons sites in the former Soviet Union and rebuilding Afghanistan to reduce the liklihood of the terrorist resurgence we see happening there now.

The policies pursued by the Bush administration since 9/11 have done little to secure either America or the world from terrorism. Instead they have helped fan the flames of jihadist fanaticism, leading to an increased threat to America and the world. The policies pursued by the Bush administration are losing the "war on terror" for America.


Other Sources:

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0820-07.htm> How America Created a Terrorist Haven</a>

<a href=http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/?page=full>Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq</a>

<a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html>Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says</a>

<a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/>Terror attacks worldwide rose 25 percent in ’06</a>



It may be a new year, but BP is still waving the same old white flag of surrender, and bellowing how there is no terror threat

The defeatests are ready for another year of Bush bashing and terrorist coddling

[stephanie]

Yeah sure...and Jimmy Carter won the war on terrorism when Iran took our citizens hostages and held them for two yrs..

And Bill Clinton won the war on terrorism when they bombed the world trade center the first time, and bombed the USS Cole..

It's only cause of George Bush that we are losing this war on terrorism...

Are you friggin nuts..??????????You can hate George Bush all you want, but this one you are way off base..and looking stupid at the same time..

[red states rule]

Yeah sure...and Jimmy Carter won the war on terrorism when Iran took our citizens hostages and held them for two yrs..

And Bill Clinton won the war on terrorism when they bombed the world trade center the first time, and bombed the USS Cole..

It's only cause of George Bush that we are losing this war on terrorism...

Are you friggin nuts..??????????You can hate George Bush all you want, but this one you are way off base..and looking stupid at the same time..

Libs have been telling us for years there is no terror threat - Pres Bush is the only threat to world peace



There is No Terrorist Threat!
I originally intended to use today's blog entry to express my solidarity with the people of Great Britain, many of whom never even voted for George Bush, as they endeavor to persevere under the constant threat of terrorist attacks. But then I remembered what the esteemed statesman Michael Moore once wrote:

"There is no terrorist threat.
You need to calm down, relax, listen very carefully, and repeat after me:
There is no terrorist threat.
There is no terrorist threat!
There... is... no... terrorist... threat!"

Boy, did I feel like an utter berk! And I am confident that if the people of London just buy Mr. Moore's book, they will as well.

So a bus exploded. So a couple of Subway cars blew up. Whoop-dee-doo! I once saw Siegfried & Roy slice a woman into six pieces and then put her back together again. It's all smoke & mirrors, folks! SMOKE AND MIRRORS! The whole "terrorist threat" is nothing but an elaborate illusion devised to incite fear and justify Bush's illegal and immoral War on Terror.

Siegfried & Roy ought to be ashamed of themselves.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2005/07/there_is_no_ter.html

[retiredman]

are you righties really disagreeing with the basic premise expressed in that NIE?

"...the Iraq conflict has has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding deep resentment of US involvement of the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."

[OCA]

It may be a new year, but BP is still waving the same old white flag of surrender, and bellowing how there is no terror threat

The defeatests are ready for another year of Bush bashing and terrorist coddling

Not able to defeat those facts, eh?

[Kathianne]

With the new year, I think it necessary to look back on the claims of the Bush administration concerning the "war on terror".

After the failure to find ANY WMD's in Iraq, the Bush administration changed its rationale for the invasion of Iraq to that of it being a key front in the "war on terror"...We were "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

In a <a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html>bipartisan survey of some 100 of America's top foreign policy experts</a>, the overwhelming majority believe that the policies pursued by the Bush administration with regards to combating terrorism and securing America are failing. 84% of respondents believe the US IS NOT winning the "war on terror", and 86% believe that Americas face increasing danger around the world.

...

Interesting that. I went to foreignpolicy and found this, *cough, cough* bipartisan reference:


...

. The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America’s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war’s priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America’s national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government—of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts’ belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. “Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration’s performance abroad,” says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. “The reason is that it’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.”

...

So who is FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress? Certainly not, 'bipartisan.'

This is the type of reason that I have a difficult time understanding why basically intelligent people insult those they might be influencing if they wouldn't claim something 'is' when it's clear 'it is not.' Looking at the 'Foreign Policy' fact charts, there is no attribution, funny that too. They claim more conservatives than any other, but no list of these folks.

Go to the Center for American Progress, you find most of the old Clinton cabinet and flunkies.

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/000997.html


Center for American Progress

The New York Times Magazine has a long article today on the formation of the Center for American Progress. Here's a bit of the article:


Podesta laid out his plan for what he likes to call a ''think tank on steroids.'' Emulating those conservative institutions, he said, a message-oriented war room will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right. An aggressive media department will book liberal thinkers on cable TV. There will be an ''edgy'' Web site and a policy shop to formulate strong positions on foreign and domestic issues. In addition, Podesta explained how he would recruit hundreds of fellows and scholars -- some in residence and others spread around the country -- to research and promote new progressive policy ideas. American Progress is slated to operate with a $10 million budget next year, raised from big donors like the financier George Soros.

''The question I'm asked most often is, When are we getting our eight words?'' Podesta said. Conservatives, he went on, ''have their eight words in a bumper sticker: 'Less government. Lower taxes. Less welfare. And so on.' Where's our eight-word bumper sticker? Well, it's harder for us, because we believe in a lot more things.'' The Center for American Progress, Podesta said, was concerned with articulating these principles carefully, over time, rather than rushing out an agenda to help win an election in 2004. ''We're trying to build an idea base for the longer term,'' he said, to bring about ''an enduring progressive majority.''

Podesta also says that the Center will have an "edgy" website. Right now the Center has one page up, with a promise of more on 20 October. I hope the "more" includes some "edginess."

(Unless George Soros is putting $10 million into two liberal think tanks, this is what was formerly to be called the American Majority Institute.)


This one portion of your post Bully, makes further inquiries pointless.

[gabosaurus]

you are way off base..and looking stupid at the same time..

The pot calls the kettle black...

[Sir Evil]

The pot calls the kettle black...

:lol:

And you of all people make this judgement?

Your mouth & a asshole are so very similar, the moment either open up the place just starts to stink...

[gabosaurus]

So say the Evil Twin.

[Sir Evil]

So say the Evil Twin.

I'm no stinkin' twin, just evil! :D

[bullypulpit]

Yeah sure...and Jimmy Carter won the war on terrorism when Iran took our citizens hostages and held them for two yrs..

Yeah, Carter screwed the pooch on that one, as did everyone else preceding him in the White House in underestimating the depth of the unrest existing under the Shah's rule and the nascent strength of Islamic fundamentalism as a political force.


And Bill Clinton won the war on terrorism when they bombed the world trade center the first time, and bombed the USS Cole..

The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were apprehended, prosecuted and imprisoned. The 9/11 plotters are still at large and have reconstituted their forces.

The CIA and FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole bombing until early 2001...after Clinton was out of office. Bush had the eight months prior to 9/11 to take action, yet failed to do so.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your willful ignorance.


It's only cause of George Bush that we are losing this war on terrorism...

Are you friggin nuts..??????????You can hate George Bush all you want, but this one you are way off base..and looking stupid at the same time..

And, yes, the Bush administration policies have cost us dearly in the global efforts to stop terrorism. It must be frustrating for you to see that reality has a liberal bias.

[bullypulpit]

Interesting that. I went to foreignpolicy and found this, *cough, cough* bipartisan reference:



So who is FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress? Certainly not, 'bipartisan.'

This is the type of reason that I have a difficult time understanding why basically intelligent people insult those they might be influencing if they wouldn't claim something 'is' when it's clear 'it is not.' Looking at the 'Foreign Policy' fact charts, there is no attribution, funny that too. They claim more conservatives than any other, but no list of these folks.

Go to the Center for American Progress, you find most of the old Clinton cabinet and flunkies.

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/000997.html



This one portion of your post Bully, makes further inquiries pointless.

I would suggest you READ the survey results. That you think it "makes further further inquiries pointless" is more a result of your own unwillingness to admit that the Bush administration has failed than any "bias" from the source material.

[Kathianne]

I would suggest you READ the survey results. That you think it "makes further further inquiries pointless" is more a result of your own unwillingness to admit that the Bush administration has failed than any "bias" from the source material.

Surveys without sources is a joke. 82% of messageboard members believe I'm right.

Wording: Do you agree I'm right.

[bullypulpit]

are you righties really disagreeing with the basic premise expressed in that NIE?

"...the Iraq conflict has has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding deep resentment of US involvement of the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."

They aren't even addressing the premise. The responses thus far have been little more than reflexive, knee jerk defenses of Administration policy devoid of any evidence to back them up.

The cognitive dissonance created by ANY admission of failure on the part of the Bush administration would likely make their heads explode.

[Kathianne]

They aren't even addressing the premise. The responses thus far have been little more than reflexive, knee jerk defenses of Administration policy devoid of any evidence to back them up.

The cognitive dissonance created by ANY admission of failure on the part of the Bush administration would likely make their heads explode.

From both of you, that's just blather, much like your 'bipartisan' nonsense above. You both know that I've had no problem criticizing the administration, quite often. :finger3:

[red states rule]

They aren't even addressing the premise. The responses thus far have been little more than reflexive, knee jerk defenses of Administration policy devoid of any evidence to back them up.

The cognitive dissonance created by ANY admission of failure on the part of the Bush administration would likely make their heads explode.

I am shocked your has not given the insane hate you have for Pres Bush

[bullypulpit]

Surveys without sources is a joke. 82% of messageboard members believe I'm right.

Wording: Do you agree I'm right.

You didn't look hard enough.

<a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/participants.html>Survey Participants: The Terrorism Index</a>

A complete list of the survey participants.

And you can download the complete survey results in a WORD document <a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/resources.html>HERE</a>.

[bullypulpit]

I am shocked your has not given the insane hate you have for Pres Bush

Yet another incoherent reply from the "King of Incoherence".

[bullypulpit]

From both of you, that's just blather, much like your 'bipartisan' nonsense above. You both know that I've had no problem criticizing the administration, quite often. :finger3:

My bad. You're the exception that proves the rule. My apologies.

[red states rule]

Yet another incoherent reply from the "King of Incoherence".

Just trying to talk to you on your level BP

I see you are still waving the whte flag even as AQ and the terrorists are running scared

[bullypulpit]

Just trying to talk to you on your level BP

I see you are still waving the whte flag even as AQ and the terrorists are running scared

Snappy riposte that ( Note:<i>That's SARCASM, RSR.</i>) Now, why don't you actually attempt to address the issues instead of wasting bandwidth with pointless non sequiturs and mindless parroting of FOX Noise talking points?

[red states rule]

Snappy riposte that ( Note:<i>That's SARCASM, RSR.</i>) Now, why don't you actually attempt to address the issues instead of wasting bandwidth with pointless non sequiturs and mindless parroting of FOX Noise talking points?

I am. The US military is kicking the hell out of the terrorists, and you nuts on the left can't stand it

You trot out a bunch of BS from former Clinton hacks and call them facts

The last thing you will admit is the progress being made in Iraq and the huge body count of dead terrorists. It does show how stupid you were telling the folks for four years we were losing this war

[Kathianne]

You didn't look hard enough.

<a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/participants.html>Survey Participants: The Terrorism Index</a>

A complete list of the survey participants.

And you can download the complete survey results in a WORD document <a href=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/resources.html>HERE</a>.

Thanks Bully, I don't usually miss things like that. I just went back and still fail to find those links, however that doesn't matter. What is however, is the nonsense that these are 'bipartisan' experts. We've got folks from Hagel, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/ftn/main2795705.shtml) currently looking like he may run with Bloomberg if a 3rd party attempt is made. Then we have 'Stephen Walt' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html)I suppose as another 'Republican'? Who's attempt at stirring up anti-Semitism seems to really bring this into focus with Soros. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193429114&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) No matter how we look at this, it's not 'bipartisan' in any sense that I can find. Heck, even the results are off from any that I've seen, nearly all of which agree that the war was a mistake, at least until the surge.




http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6286/question1ue9.gif

[bullypulpit]

I am. The US military is kicking the hell out of the terrorists, and you nuts on the left can't stand it

Your evidence to support this?


You trot out a bunch of BS from former Clinton hacks and call them facts

You trot out FOX Noise talking points and try to pass them off as facts, unsupported by ANY evidence.


The last thing you will admit is the progress being made in Iraq and the huge body count of dead terrorists. It does show how stupid you were telling the folks for four years we were losing this war

Again, you uncritically regurgitate right wing talking points absent ANY supporting evidence. Why don't you address the issues raised in the thread opener point by point with links to supporting evidence. Or is that too much like thinking for you?

[bullypulpit]

[QUOTE=Kathianne;179443]Thanks Bully, I don't usually miss things like that. I just went back and still fail to find those links, however that doesn't matter. What is however, is the nonsense that these are 'bipartisan' experts. We've got folks from Hagel, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/ftn/main2795705.shtml) currently looking like he may run with Bloomberg if a 3rd party attempt is made. Then we have 'Stephen Walt' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html)I suppose as another 'Republican'? Who's attempt at stirring up anti-Semitism seems to really bring this into focus with Soros. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193429114&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) No matter how we look at this, it's not 'bipartisan' in any sense that I can find. Heck, even the results are off from any that I've seen, nearly all of which agree that the war was a mistake, at least until the surge.


I randomly googled about a dozen names on the list, and found them to be fairly representational across the political spectrum. As for Stephen Walt, and his co-author, John Mearsheimer, they seem to have drawn equal measures of praise and criticism for "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". To say it's anti-semitic seems to be hyperbole.